Chiam See Tong
Singapore
“Sir, Singapore's sovereign wealth fund companies, Temasek Holdings and GIC, returned 17% and 9.5% yearly respectively, using largely Singaporeans' CPF money. Why is CPF returning 2.5% on the Ordinary Account and 4% on the Special Account only?”
“Thank you, Sir, for allowing me to take part in this debate. Under Singapore law, single parents are treated as singles who are not eligible to purchase a Housing Board flat unless they are 35 years old and they are also given reduced children benefits like lesser maternity leave and no Baby Bonus.”
“Sir, the collection of revenue from ERP gantries is way above the total amount of revenue lost by the Government from the exemption of household TV and radio licences. I would urge the Government to review and reduce the charges at ERP gantries for vehicles entering the ERP zones.”
“Although the Government is pumping $120 million a year to support needy students in all levels through a slew of enhanced financial aid schemes, schools funds and bursaries, we should not forget to look into the plight of students who have been cheated by unscrupulous education centres by helping affected students to pay or re-finance the…”
“Thank you, Mr Chairman, for allowing me to join in the debate. I would like to touch on fairer distribution of treating scholars amongst schools. MOE should ensure fairer distribution of teaching scholarship holders after graduation from NIE to the various schools.”
“Children and adults with special needs deserve better protection. It will reduce the anxiety of both caregivers and patients with special needs, like the mentally-ill and autistic children. I urge the Government to issue special I-cards to these patients.”
The complete record
Every one of 4,205 lines we hold for Chiam See Tong, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 15 of 85.
“Sir, when there are big crowds of course it is good publicity to a commercial firm but I think the issue here is whether or not such an event would breach the peace and cause disturbance and hurt to members of the public. The breach of peace in fact ---”
“Can the Minister tell us whether the use of the Restricted Passport is a unilateral initiative on the part of Singapore or do we need an agreement with Malaysia to use our Restricted Passport? Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee: Sir, the issuance of a passport is a sovereign act, so we need not, for example, get the permission of the Malaysians for us to take this move.”
“As I have explained, we have increased the number of students and the cohort participation rate of our local students in higher education consistently over the years. In 1980, there were only 5% of the cohort going to universities and 8% to polytechnics, ie, 13%. In 1999, 20% were going to universities and 40% were going to polytechnics. So there is no shortage of places for students who can qualify for these institutions and who can benefit from this education even with the intake of foreign students. Mr Chiam also asks whether we would allow mature students to go to university. The answer is yes. We allow students to go to university by a number of routes today. In fact, out of the 8,600 students who were admitted to NUS and NTU last year, 900 of them came from the polytechnics. In the new university admission system, we have explicitly laid down three different routes by which students can qualify to go to the universities: (1) from JCs and "A" levels; (2) through the polytechnics; and (3) from mature students, taking into account their SAT or reasoning test results and their work experience or whatever other qualifications they have. Sir, I believe I have answered most of the questions that have been raised by Members. I would like to thank them for their interest in the subject.”
“Sir, can I have another clarification from the Minister? The Minister asks how much is a university degree worth. This question has been debated many, many times. In other words, do you just want a university degree? What is the purpose of a university degree? People say that the university is a training ground, not just to get a degree. But the point is the end result of going to university is not just getting a university degree. The fact that one goes through three years of training, one may do 100, 200, 300 or 400 assignments, essays, reports, what have you. Just like in the United States, they reason that a student going through such training will gain something for life regardless of what sort of degree he gets in the end. RAdm Teo Chee Hean: I would not like to attend the university which Mr Chiam starts, Mr Speaker. But as I have explained, we already have 60% to 65% of a cohort going to higher education. Our polytechnics are extremely high quality institutions. If you take a comparison again, for example, Hong Kong too converted its polytechnics to universities and its participation rate in universities today is 18%. We have a very, very high participation rate in higher education, and by keeping our universities as universities, and our polytechnics as polytechnics, we have been able to provide education which is suitable for the aptitudes of a wide cohort of our students while maintaining an extremely high quality in both types of institutions. Mr Chiam also asks about foreign students and he supported the Government's policy of admitting foreign students in our institutions. I am glad that Mr Chiam does support this.”
“We have kept our cohort going to university at 20%. Can the Minister say that, in fact, there are more than 20% who would want to go to university in Singapore? RAdm Teo Chee Hean: Sir, everyone would want to go to university if he could. So I can quite safely say that there are more than 20% who would want to go to university. It is also very easy for Mr Chiam to say that we should have more universities and it is easy for me, at the stroke of a pen, to allow 100% of a cohort to go to university and issue them with degrees. But the question that Mr Chiam needs to answer is: what are the degrees worth? That is the ultimate question when you look at the university qualification or university degree. NUS and NTU are held in high standing. Our polytechnics are held in very high standing.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, can I have a clarification?”
“In Singapore, we have 20% going to universities today. When SMU has reached full capacity, we expect that to be 25%. We also have 40% going to our polytechnics, adding up to some 60% to 65% of a cohort going for higher education. This is one of the highest percentages in the world. In the United Kingdom, they converted all their polytechnics to universities and they have attained 35% of a cohort going to university. We have kept our university and polytechnic sector separate and we are attaining 60% to 65% already today. In Hong Kong ---”
“This clause is also contained in the NUS Act and the NTU Act and the purpose of this clause is to ensure that all student bodies are registered with the Registrar of Societies who is granted the power to refuse to register societies if the rules of the society are insufficient to provide for its proper management and control, or if the society is likely to be used for unlawful purposes or it will be contrary to the national interest for the society to be registered. So this is not something different from NUS or NTU. We basically want to make sure that the universities do not have student bodies that are formed for purposes prejudicial to public peace, welfare or good order in Singapore. But within those parameters, the universities, as you know, NUS and NTU, have been organising all kinds of activities. Mr Chiam, for example, has spoken there a number of times and I am sure that if he has something new and interesting to say, the students will be happy to invite him back again. Mr Chiam also raised a number of issues. If only starting a university were as easy as calling for it to be started, but it is not easy to start a university and we have had to think very, very carefully about starting up SMU and how to start it, because a university lives and dies by its quality and its standard. You can start a university but if it does not have the quality and standard, then it is not worth starting one up. Mr Chiam also makes a mistake in comparing the number of universities to population, as though that is the most important thing. The most important thing to compare is what is the cohort participation rate for higher education, and not the number of universities. What percentage of the cohort is able to attend higher education. That is the key number.”
“We want to give the university a good start up so that it will be able to offer courses of high quality. Of course, we will be very happy if the university proves that it can raise a lot of funding and I will be more than happy to reduce the funding to the university if it is able to fend for itself. Dr Tan Boon Wan raised a number of issues with regard to personnel deployment and management, professorial salaries and so forth. These are matters which I will leave for another time to answer when we have finished our studies on university governance and funding. Mr Simon Tay asks why clauses 4 and 5(1)(d) are needed. Basically, it is because we provide substantial public funds to the SMU and we have provided land and buildings and recurrent funding to the university for a public purpose. If I were not able to influence the direction of the university, and I am providing funds to them, one of these days Mr Simon Tay may well call me to account and ask me why I have not been running the university properly and why is the university wasting money and so forth. So the Minister for Education has a responsibility to make sure that while public funds are being provided to the university, persons of good reputation who are able to run the university well are put in charge of the university and that the funds that the university is given are well expended for the purposes which we have set out. He has also asked about clause 8. Why is it necessary to have this clause for the student bodies.”
“We try to estimate as best we can the types of manpower that we need in the future, and we will fund places in the institutions of higher learning to train such manpower. So there should be no danger of us willy-nilly increasing the training of business students way beyond what we expect the economy to be able to absorb or what the economy needs. As a matter of fact, both NTU and NUS have reduced their undergraduate intake and when SMU begins its first intake this year, we expect that we will continue to adjust the intakes of these three universities so that the numbers of business students who will receive funding from the Government in the form of subsidies to the institutions of higher learning will be within reason and within the bounds of what we expect the economy will absorb. Dr Tan Boon Wan also asks about competition for professors. If the economy has a demand or need for graduates of this type, we will have to try to train them to fulfil this need. If necessary, we will recruit professors worldwide, not just from Singapore, who can augment whatever teaching and professorial resources we have in Singapore. This has always been the approach in our institutions of higher learning. I do agree with Dr Tan Boon Wan that there needs to be a good balance between teaching and research in our universities so that one does not suffer because we have over emphasised the other. If I may move to funding. Mr Iswaran asks about funding for the SMU. Yes, Government will fund capital and recurrent expenditure of the SMU, including its start-up costs. Our intention is to fund it basically on the same basis as similar courses in NUS and NTU will be funded. Is there a time frame to phase out public funding? We have not established such a time frame.”
“As the variety and number of qualifications increases, we must understand that employers will eventually be the final arbiter of whom they consider as most appropriate for the job that they are looking for a person to fill. This eventually will have to be the situation. It is not possible for the Ministry of Education to become a giant accrediting agency that accredits all the university qualifications in the world. We already have enough trouble trying to maintain standards in our own universities. It would not be possible for us to try to check on the standards of universities all across the world over which we have no control. Hence, it is really a matter for the individual employers to decide what students and what graduates they would find most appropriate for the kinds of jobs that they have. That applies to the Government as an employer as well because Government has a range of jobs open and what one statutory board may look for in an employee may be different from what another Government department or another agency does. These are things which are best left to employers to decide and to settle. Students also have to decide for themselves whether to take up particular courses, whether it suits their needs or their career aspirations. Dr Tan Boon Wan and Mr Iswaran have asked about competition for students and whether there is over provision of places for management and business students. The overall allocation of places which are subsidised and funded by the Government is settled at the National Manpower Committee chaired by my colleague, the Minister for Manpower, and in which the Ministry of Trade and Industry, the Ministry of Education, EDB and other interested parties are present.”
“We are starting SMU at a modest size with about 300 students in its first year, because we want to ensure that the intake quality is good so that SMU will start on a good solid footing. That also means that we can be quite selective about the staff that are recruited into SMU. That again will assure high quality of SMU. But we expect that SMU will grow over 5-7 years, perhaps to 3,000-4,000 students, and together with its executive programmes and its graduate programmes, that would be quite a nice size for a university already. In fact, NTU and NUS with 16,000 and over 20,000 students respectively are already quite a very large size and can be quite unwieldy to manage. So I feel confident that SMU will be able to develop into a university with enough critical mass to achieve excellence. And in the course of time, it will expand its course offerings into other areas related to business and management. I do not expect that SMU will begin to offer courses in heavy engineering or in esoteric areas in science and so forth, because that is not an area in which we foresee SMU developing its area of expertise. Hence, the name Singapore Management University. Dr Wang and Dr Tan Boon Wan have also asked about standards of the university and the degrees. One of the things that is happening in Singapore today in which Members of this House and members of the public have to understand is that there is a variety of programmes in Singapore offering a variety of qualifications. We have NUS, NTU, SMU, OUDP and many other institutions offering twinning degrees of various kinds.”
“Dr Wang has also asked why we have set up the SMU in this way and whether or not this is optimal or the best solution for the university sector in Singapore. We have talked about this for quite some time and decided that if we set up three universities which were basically identical and comprehensive, then they would compete with each other to the detriment of the university sector in Singapore. Because all of them will be trying too hard to be like each other, and some would win and some would lose and that may not be the best positioning for the small number of universities that we have in Singapore. Hence, we decided that it may be a better competitive environment for the universities if each one could develop its own characteristics and niche areas of excellence, but with some overlap in the courses and programmes which each of the universities offers, so that there will be a good balance between competition as well as allowing each university to develop an area of specialisation and something which they become known for. We had initially intended to start SMU out of the NTU Business School, as a seed for which to grow the university. But as we studied the matter further and as we were able to consider very close association with Wharton School, we felt that we would have the confidence to be able to start SMU afresh, on its own, and this would allow us to introduce many more new innovations and ideas than if we were to start SMU out of part of one of the existing universities. And so we chose to go in this direction. Will SMU be too small? This is one of the questions that Dr Wang asked.”
“My mathematics is not that bad. RAdm Teo Chee Hean: Mr Speaker, Sir, as Members have observed, the Bill is, in fact, a minimalist one and it does not contain a lot in it. Dr Wang has asked where are the provisions governing the operation of the SMU. The provisions governing the operations of the SMU are, in fact, contained in the Memorandum and Articles of Association of the company. In fact, the Memorandum and Articles of Association contain how the company should be run, the responsibilities and the roles of the Chancellor and the other principal officers of the university, including the President, the Provost, Secretary, the functions of the faculty and the departments and so on. So the Memorandum and Articles of Association, in effect, functions like a constitution of the NUS and the NTU. Since we are starting up a new university, we decided to adopt this new model so that we can leave many of the detailed issues in the governance of the university to the company rather than to incorporate them into the Act and have to come to Parliament if the company does want to change any of the ways in which it wants to govern itself. The Ministry of Education is currently having a look at university grants and funding and governance with a view to granting more autonomy but, of course, with the accountability. The university's governance and funding committee will be ready to report its findings later this year. And the experiences that we have from the management of SMU and also the experiences that we will have from the management of NUS and NTU under any new structures or governance methods that we have will, of course, be applied to improve the governance of all three of our universities.”
“We can see that under this Bill, when it becomes law, it shall make the SMU totally controlled by the Minister. We see that the Board of Governors shall be all appointed by the Minister. If that is the case, the Minister surely shall appoint like-minded people to the Board, and like-minded people cannot promulgate new and daring ideas. There shall only be inbreeding of ideas and there is no cross-fertilisation of fresh new ideas. I urge the Minister to allow different sectors of the business community, the labour movement and other academic professionals to appoint independent trustees to the Board, so that daring new ideas can be introduced into the SMU to make it produce students who are not only technically competent but who are bold and daring to introduce new ideas and make Singapore a truly dynamic place to do business in.”
“Having said that, at the same time, we must not deprive our local students from obtaining a tertiary education by making the entry point too difficult for them, or run short of places due to taking in too many foreign students. Nowadays, studying abroad is not cheap. It costs quite a lot of money for a parent to send a child overseas to study. Not all Singaporeans are that wealthy. A middle class family may be able to send one child overseas to do a university degree, but to send two for the average middle class family is not possible. Therefore, provision to make enough university places for locals to study is most essential. Recently, I saw a TV programme about a 50-year old Australian lady who is allowed to study in the NTU. I should say that we should also not put an age limit on Singaporeans who wish to pursue a university degree in our local tertiary institutions, even if they have passed the normal university entry age. We should not shut out mature students who have missed the boat in the first instance. The next issue is we should ask ourselves what type of universities we like to establish in Singapore. I do not think we should establish another strictly controlled university, one where the majority of students dare not think independently. They are mostly to become yes men, and also they dare not dissent or join the opposition, although the opposition operates strictly by the Constitution. I do not think that we should set up another strictly controlled university, but a university that will produce students who dare to think differently and who are dynamic and who have leadership and entrepreneurial qualities. I am afraid the SMU shall not be one of those types of universities.”
“Sir, I am glad that a third university in Singapore has finally come to fruition. In 1984, the Opposition called for the setting up of a second university. When the Nanyang Technological University was formed, it called on the Government to start a third university. Now the third university is established, albeit a rather specialist one, confining itself mainly to the teaching of only disciplines confined to the subject of management. Sir, Singapore is supposed to embark on a knowledge based economy. Yet, the number of universities that we have compared to Australia or New Zealand is very low. In those countries, they have one university for about 500,000 population. By the standard of those two countries, Singapore should have about six universities now and not three, since our population is about three million. I wonder if the Government is thinking of setting up more universities in the near future. I think it should as Singapore is also embarking on the policies of globalisation and attracting foreign talents. The globalisation policy will require more qualified Singaporeans to travel abroad and thus more university graduates. We should have enough graduates to buffer the impact of foreign talent or otherwise we shall be swamped by foreign talents coming to work here in Singapore. On the question of foreign students, I understand that at present, the Government's policy is rather liberal on foreign students. I think this is a good policy. We must not shut out foreign students who qualify to be admitted into our universities. There are merits to encourage foreign students to study in Singapore.”
“Sir, the Minister says that the overall situation is safe, but if you look at the facts, it is not so. Rape, in fact, is on the increase. In fact, this is the second heinous crime. 1.30 pm”
“Sir, I would like to ask the Minister what advisory has the Singapore health authorities given to its citizens, because I recently travelled to America and I went straight into this flu epidemic in America. I came back and I suffered that flu for one month. I did not receive any advisory.”
“Sir, I would like to follow up on the question by Dr Lily Neo. I refer to the more specific issue of the recent flu epidemic which occurred in America and, I believe, also in Europe. Did our health authorities know about this flu epidemic that happened in America and Europe and, if so, did they take any steps to prevent the flu coming to Singapore?”
“Sir, I have three supplementary questions. Firstly, has the land compensation issue been resolved there? Secondly, what is the population of Bintan and what percentage of the population has been given jobs by the investments there? Thirdly, has the Singapore Government or its linked companies helped or assisted the private investors to provide social needs such as medical clinics and schools for the population there? BG George Yong-Boon Yeo: Mr Speaker, Sir, as far as we are concerned, the issue of land compensation was settled when the land was acquired before the industrial estate was established. The land, as I had said earlier, was free of encumbrances. Whether the money in fact went to the people from whom the land was taken, that is something for the Indonesian side to resolve, and I believe that they are taking actions in that direction. But as I also mentioned earlier, Jakarta suspects that there were political elements involved in the disturbances. As to the population of Bintan, I do not have it with me now.”
“Sir, instead of the portable medical benefits scheme, is the Government willing to amend the Employment Act to give the workers a medical scheme under the statutory provisions?”
“Instead of one year once, they were given two years. In others words, we were straightaway deprived of two years. How do you vouch for that? How do you take that for a judicial review? So these are small problems which you may think are trivial. But these add up to the popularity or status of the MP there. If he can hold pasar malam or plant a tree, people go round and say, "That is the tree planted by the Opposition." Politically, it is probably not prudent for them to allow all this thing. That is why they were taken off. Now, the battle of the notice boards. The RCs have notice boards, so do our town councils. We are supposed to put up only notices concerning the town council and the RCs are supposed to put up only notices concerning their activities. But if they turn political and put up reports of the Prime Minister and photograph of the prospective candidate there, advertising himself all the time, and a lot of political matters, what do I do? Do I go and complain to the courts and say, "Look, this is only meant for RC matters and no political matters are to be put on the notice boards." Again, these are little problems. In the end, maybe Mr Low Thia Khiang is right. What actually is needed is not Rule of Law, but what is fair to both sides. I am not particularly worried that all these things are done because they are actually political matters and should be resolved by political means. Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out, be left out." Mr Jeyaretnam: I call for a division, Mr Deputy Speaker.”
“On that night, somebody came and pulled it out and put it in front of my office. Of course, we planted it back in a pot, just to be safe, but not on the ground. How do we go for a judicial review to get permission to have the right to plant a tree? I do not know how it is done. Maybe somebody should advise me. But to me, this is a political matter and it should be resolved politically. Again, at one time, the PAP was generous enough to give Opposition members a walled-up office at the void deck. I was given one and was very happy and we made good use of it for our meet-the-people sessions. Residents could come in to discuss their personal problems with privacy in the office. But now, I do not have an office. It was torn down and given to somebody else. So we have to hold the meet-the-people session with just a temporary curtain across and very little privacy. We have to speak very softly so that other people could not hear. The office was torn down, so what do I do? Do I go for a judicial review and say, "Look, you have made the decision to give us an office. Now it is torn down. I think the decision is wrong, not properly done. It is not clear, not rational, not in the public interest. It does not qualify as an appropriate action." Then we have this problem of pasar malams. Pasar malams of course earn for the people who organise it. Every time you organise it, you get something like $25,000. The money can be useful for welfare work and promoting your interest at the constituency. But suddenly the rules were changed and we were deprived of holding pasar malams. They said, "You can have two pasar malams a year." But suddenly some grassroots organisations, I am not very clear, were given two years of quota of pasar malam.”
“Sir, I hope I have a moment of inspiration now as I speak. I would like to speak on the amendment to the motion of Mr Jeyaretnam. I wonder why Prof. Chin uses the word "values" rather than "uphold". Sometimes, people value some belief and yet they do not uphold their belief. So I think "uphold" is a better word. Also, he wants the motion to be amended on the second limb "Commends the Government for upholding the Rule of Law and ensuring that it is fully observed by all". I cannot agree with this because of my experience in my constituency. I would like to cite some of the examples where Rule of Law is not observed in my constituency. Sir, some of the Members here may think that that is trivial. When talking of advancement of the Internet, it is probably a small thing to talk about what happens on the ground. But I can tell you that the battle for each seat here in Parliament is fought at the constituency, on the ground level. So it is important. Prof. Chin also said that if you are not happy, you can always go for a judicial review. But how do you go for a judicial review when a Minister makes a decision not to allow the MP even to plant a tree there? Yes, it happened to me. At that time, one of the members of the public felt that he should present me with a tree because my MP's office was about to be opened, in memory of that. Like a good MP, I wrote to the HDB for permission to plant one tree and they said, "No. Very sorry. It is not included in the planting plan of the constituency. You better write to the Parks and Trees Department." So we wrote. The Parks and Trees Department replied that the earth there was not suitable for this kind of tree. When I read that, I went ahead and planted the tree. So the tree was planted.”
“But I would just like to consolidate the thoughts on this matter. The first is that, which I think everyone would agree with, in fact I think they would agree with all, all laws are prospective, stable, properly and constitutionally enacted. That is a principle of the Rule of Law. Second ---”
“Yes, Town Council. Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee: That is not a function organised by the SPP. So there you have it. Please, your ears must be open. Assoc. Prof. Chin Tet Yung: Mr Speaker, Sir, I think with all the isolated incidents that have been mentioned by Mr Chiam and Mr Jeyaretnam, they have detracted actually from the rather broader motion that has been put forward, which is really that we should look at the function of the Rule of Law in Singapore. Sir, the Rule of Law is a fundamental constitutional doctrine. I believe it is deeply valued in Singapore. In fact, more than that, I believe it is internalised in the culture of the public service. Mr Jeyaretnam, of course, mentioned just now the concept by Dicey, and it is not a very accepted concept these days. There have been quite a number of writers who have developed it. And I think since he has mentioned it, perhaps I would take a couple of minutes just to update Mr Jeyaretnam and the House as to how the Rule of Law concept is usually talked about these days. It is usually talked about with a little bit more focus. Broadly speaking, and this is the Diceyian concept, it means that the people are governed by law and not by arbitrary or capricious force. But more narrowly, and I think it is a concept that applies to this debate today, it refers to the doctrine that guides authorities into making decisions that are reasonable and in the public interest. Decisions of public officers are open, rational assessment and justified on the basis of our shared values. The best way perhaps to look at the Rule of Law today is to enumerate some of the fundamental principles that it represents. Some of them actually have been mentioned by Mr Jeyaretnam, Mr Simon Tay and others.”
“Yes, I had. Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee: In events organised by the Town Council.”
“I am worried about what the Minister of State has said that from now on, no Opposition politicians are allowed to speak in public, in an open public function. Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee: I think Mr Chiam might have spoken in the past.”
“With a permit. Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee: With a permit. He must give me the instances. Then the police officers are not doing their job.”
“Yes. Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee: Without a permit?”
“Yes. Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee: As a politician?”
“Or public function. Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee: --- he will have to apply for a licence. And if it is in the open, it will be refused. So I am surprised Mr Chiam says that he had spoken in the past in the open.”
“But, Sir, as far as I am concerned, as MP for Potong Pasir, I have never been refused permission to speak in public in open public functions. This is the first time permission has been refused, and freedom of speech deprived. Yet, as I said earlier, Mr Andy Gan, who is the prospective candidate for the PAP, was allowed to speak in public the day after I was refused permission. The Minister is very proud of Singapore's record of the Rule of Law. If this is not flouting of the Rule of Law, I do not know what it is. Why is an elected MP not allowed to speak but a prospective candidate is allowed to speak? Why is that so? Is that not double standards? Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee: Sir, as I have said, a PAP politician who speaks at a party function ---”
“I would like to get a clarification from the Minister of State. If I heard him correctly, he says there would be no more political speeches in open public functions. Is that right? Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee: It is the current policy, except in athletic stadiums. That we allow, but not in open areas.”
“Point of clarification. I have been an MP for 15 years. Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee: Can I go on?”
“The Minister of State said the police gave five or six days, which is enough to organise the event. We have got 83 tables and we have got over 800 people coming. Does he think that five days would be enough? Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee: There are two things Mr Chiam can do. He can either submit earlier, which means that the reply will come earlier, or surely he does not wait till the permit comes before doing everything. I would ask Mr Chiam whether this is something new. The SPP, and before that the SDP when he led it, had submitted many applications before for indoor talks. Speeches were made and all these have been approved. He knows that, because this is the stated procedure, stated policy. If political parties want to hold talks outdoors, whether it is PAP or SPP, the answer will be no. In fact, we have stated this in Parliament before. Mr Low Thia Khiang had an exchange in 1992 with Prof. Jayakumar on this point, and Mr Simon Tay raised the question on the procedures for applying for a PEL, and certainly in the media where Government gave out many statements explaining why for political parties an outdoor permit will not be given. So Mr Chiam knows. He was fishing. He was hoping for the best. But he knows that, given the current policy which is stated and known to all, he will probably not get permission to speak. Now he wants to make a song and dance about it.”
“But on the next day, on Sunday, 21st November, my opponent at Potong Pasir, a prospective candidate for the PAP, Mr Andy Gan, was allowed to speak in the public function. So my question is: has he been given permission to speak under the Public Entertainments Act? Was he given permission? Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee: Mr Chiam complains about not having been given a licence to speak at a function that was in the open. The event was the 6th anniversary of the SPP. He had applied, in fact, initially just for karaoke. That was on 15th October. Later on, on 27th October, a new application was submitted, this time saying speeches would be made. This will definitely turn the event into something not quite the same as the original function. Therefore, police looked anew at his application on 27th October, and within the three weeks which is stipulated, which police has said they will try to process all applications, gave Mr Chiam his reply on 15th November, which still gave him five or six clear days to organise the event. That is the point. Otherwise, if we do not clarify this, Mr Chiam will think that police is being unfair to the Opposition. Indeed, there was another event. In 1998 ---”
“On Saturday, 20th November 1999, I was deprived of my freedom of speech. I was not allowed to speak. Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee: I will deal with that.”
“I think it is difficult for us to go into a debate, because Mr Simon Tay is an academician and I am speaking as a practical politician. He thinks I am like a cry baby, go to the court to get remedy. To me, this is a political decision and it has to be rectified politically. And I think we know how to do that. The Minister of State for Law (Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee): Mr Speaker, Sir, the NCMP never fails to bore us, never fails to show us that he lives in the past, never fails to show us that he is good in delivering lectures on very basic points, which any first year law student would know. For the first almost 30 minutes of his speech, he had talked about things of the past - Magna Carta, Confucius - things which are not of relevance in Singapore, before coming to the Constitution, which is what really matters. He had mentioned basic points that any first year law student would know, which I think highlights the fact that this motion is really unnecessary and gratuitous. Sir, he is right. We have heard enough of him, because that is what he said in this House, and we truly agree. Why do I say that this motion is not necessary and gratuitous? As Mr Tay and all of us believe, there is undoubtedly the Rule of Law in Singapore. And all our Ministers, officials and public servants fully observe the Rule of Law. It is therefore absurd to even imply that the Rule of Law does not prevail in Singapore. Of course, he will cite instances, which I will deal with later on. But again these are instances which he culls from the past. It is as though, in preparation for this motion, he had gone through the Hansard to see what were the points he had raised, probably re-reading his speeches.”
“Yes. I am surprised that the NMP says that I should go to court when I was not given permission to speak. I have been a practising politician for over 20 years now. I would like to ask him whether the decision not to allow me to speak is a judicial decision on the part of the Minister, or is it a political decision.”
“I am just asking the Government, when it deals with the Opposition, please let us have fairness, transparency and predictability.”
“We have only just recently held the 6th Anniversary Dinner of our Party on Saturday, 20th November. We applied for a Public Entertainments Licence on 16th October and our answer did not come until 15th November, five days before the function starts. As you know, if you are organising a dinner, there is a lot of organising to do. This uncertainty of whether a licence shall be given at all makes organising such functions very difficult. When the licence came, permission was given to karaoke singing, song items given by the old folks at the constituency, lion dance, lucky draws, but no speeches were allowed. I was taken aback. I am the elected Member at Potong Pasir, and I am not allowed to speak to my constituents! I had to hurriedly send an appeal to say, "Please allow me to speak." Their reply came, "All right, you can speak but only for ten minutes for purposes of thanking your constituents for coming and acknowledging their sponsorship and gifts that they have given to you." I do not think it reflects that we have the Rule of Law in Singapore. I am not asking much. I am just asking the Government, when they deal with the Opposition, let us have fairness, transparency and a predictable system. So when we write a letter or even before we hold a function, we know what is coming, what is allowed and what is not allowed. But as it is, the whole situation is always very difficult to deal with. It is even now. You may like to know that for any function if we make an application, we do not get a reply until five days or so before the function starts. So how can you hold a function without having any anxiety? We do not know whether or not permission will be given, we do not know whether or not part of the programme will be allowed, or whatever. Sir, I am not asking too much.”
“Sir, I shall be brief. I know that Singapore has been voted as having the best judicial system in this part of the world but I think the concept of the Rule of Law is not purely about the judicial system. It means more than that. The Rule of Law does not mean just plain justice that is observed in our courts. I have no complaints about our court's function. In fact, I think they are doing a very good job. The Rule of Law to me means that the Government, in its dealings with the people, has to be fair, transparent and predictable. I cannot say that the Government's dealings with the Opposition parties have been fair, transparent and predictable. The Government has control of every public function in Singapore. The Opposition parties are, of course, not happy with the way the Government treats them in regard to applications to hold those functions. The Opposition parties are treated as if they are obligated to the Government and have to get permission to organise any public functions such as dinners, lantern festival or pasar malams. The Opposition do not mind applying for permission if they are done for a purely administrative purpose. But asking for permission or licence is done more for political reasons. Often, when Opposition parties apply for a Public Entertainments Licence or other applications, they do not get a quick reply. They are left in a limbo and have to wait for a long time. And in their anxiety, they telephone the appropriate department and they are told, surprisingly, that that department is waiting for word from the top. We are just wondering whether a simple application for permission, say, to hold a lantern festival or a pasar malam or dinner, you must wait for permission from the top. Mr Yatiman asked for examples.”
“Free travel, like in Europe between the countries which have a free trade area. BG George Yong-Boon Yeo: I do not think that we will agree on the free migration of people without control, which is possible in Europe now.”
“Mr Speaker, how far would the FTA between New Zealand and Singapore go? Will it also include travel between the citizens of the two countries? BG George Yong-Boon Yeo: There is already free travel between the peoples of the two countries. I do not think we require visas to visit each other. I wonder whether this is the question which Mr Chiam is posing to me or he is referring to something else.”
“It would appear that if Singapore wants to compete successfully with the western developed countries, then Singapore must revamp its education system from an authoritarian type of education system to a democratic one. Anything less than that will not give Singapore a chance to enter the league of the industrialised western nations. Democracy is not a luxury for Singapore. It is a necessity if it wants to be vibrant, dynamic and creative. Sir, I regret that the President did not say that we shall have first to achieve a democratic society, for it is a democratic society which is the foundation, the bedrock, in which Vision 21 will be built on. So I call on the Government to have more democracy to ensure that Vision 21 succeeds.”
“The children or members of the household must obey the head of the family. The wife must obey the husband. The younger must obey the older. And in the family, there is a hierarchy. This kind of philosophy smacks of authoritarianism. If our philosophy is authoritarianism, then this philosophy shall be implemented in our schools. A system of education which is authoritarian teaches the children to obey and does not encourage the children to question their teachers. This type of education system is a one-way communication system. The teacher teaches, the pupils learn. The teacher is the one who imparts the knowledge, and the pupils receive them. Under the authoritarian system, the pupils' brains are like receptacles which are stuffed with knowledge by the teacher. There is very little interaction between the teacher and the pupils. Whereas, on the other hand, under the democratic system of education, the pupils are encouraged to question their teacher. The pupils are told that the teacher is not always right. Under this system, the pupils are not passive recipients of knowledge but active participants of the process of learning. Pupils are encouraged to do research and their learning process is project based. With this kind of system, the inquisitiveness of the pupils is enhanced. Pupils are encouraged to reason, to think and to acquire knowledge for themselves. They are not spoon-fed. This kind of system makes the pupils to be more creative and innovative and encourages initiative and leadership. The West, in particular the USA, has this kind of education system.”
“Although the opposition member was successful in his appeal, the payment of $3.6 million is still a very large sum of money by any standards. The opposition member did not pay the damages and he is now living abroad in Australia. Under such harsh political conditions in Singapore, there must be some element of fear pervading among Singaporeans. If that is so, then there exist restraining forces which curb Singaporeans to be creative and innovative. The Government must first remove those restraining forces and abolish the Internal Security Act. That harsh law is out of date. We are all progressing into the new millennium. We all want new freedoms. We want a new spirit, a new environment to create, to innovate, to build a truly prosperous Singapore. I wonder why the Government still needs to cling on to such a draconian law. The Government did not use the ISA to deal with an opposition member when he spoke at Raffles Place without a permit. The existing laws were sufficient to deal with that problem. I believe the Government was quite proud not to use the ISA on that occasion. The Government has enough laws to deal with the opposition. The time for the abolition of the ISA is now overdue. The ISA does not resonate with the new millennium. Another restraining force is our education system. Our education system must be overhauled, so that our children can be placed in a democratic environment where they have a better chance to grow up to be creative. At the moment, our education system is based on an authoritarian philosophy and not a democratic one. The philosophy in Singapore is authoritarianism, because our philosophy is based on Confucianism. Confucianism teaches obedience. Citizens must obey the ruler of the state.”
“One example was when soon after Mr Goh Chok Tong was made the Prime Minister, he said that he wanted to make Singapore a participatory democracy. Many people in Singapore were really excited about his pronouncement and were looking forward to steps taken by the Government to implement that policy, but nothing came out of it. It was just talk and nothing else. Singapore remains a tightly-controlled society. What happened was that the Government expanded the Feedback Unit. That was all. The expansion of the activities of the Feedback Unit cannot be said to be evidence of promotion of participatory democracy in Singapore. The Feedback Unit is not a unit to promote democracy. It is a device for the Government to get feedback, information or intelligence from the people. The Government, by the way, had to obtain information through the Feedback Unit, because its attempt to get direct feedback from the ground proved unreliable, as shown in the 1991 general elections. The Government was told that the ground was sweet in that year, but that information was wrong. The ground was not that sweet. Four Opposition Members were elected and many PAP candidates won only narrowly. Another example of the Government not promoting democracy is to maintain its tight control of the people of Singapore. The Internal Security Act (ISA) and all the other harsh laws are still intact. People in Singapore have seen how the ISA was used to detain a Singaporean in the opposition for about 23 years. And on another separate occasion, how after the last general elections, an opposition member was sued by PAP Ministers and was asked to pay damages amounting to about $8.3 million. On appeal, the damages were reduced to $3.6 million.”