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 42 of 85.
“Sir, I wish to seek clarifications from the Member for Cheng San GRC. He said he could not believe his ears when I said that some Singaporeans would object to us forming an economic union with Malaysia. I believe he has not quoted me in full. I have given the reasons as to why some Singaporeans may object. The first reason is that there is a disparity of standard of living and economic progress between the two countries. Some of these people may fear that if we join Malaysia in an economic union, our standard of living might drop. For this reason, they may object. The other reason is that there is a big difference in our exchange rate. These people may also fear that if we join Malaysia economically, then our money might also become smaller. Sir, I would ask the Member for Cheng San GRC, after having heard these two reasons more clearly, whether or not he would change his position. I would plead that when I ask for a clarification, the Member will answer directly and not make a counter speech. Sir, the other clarification I would like is in regard - Mr Speaker: You seem to be making a very long clarification, Mr Chiam.”
“Sir, I have got two points to bring up with the hon. Member who last spoke. He said that an uneducated child is the fault of the parents. If we had compulsory education, then it would not be entirely their fault. Does he agree with me? Would he like to clarify on this? The other point he said was that we should have our ethnic cultural heritage and preserve them. In other words, the Chinese will preserve their language, their culture; the Sikhs will continue to wear their turbans and eat their curry. He wants to preserve that, and yet in the next sentence he says we must have "common cohesion". I would like to ask him: Is it not a contradiction, when you compartmentalise everybody, and then you want to have common cohesion? Mr Choo Wee Khiang( In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I cannot blame Mr Chiam because his Chinese standard is not high enough to understand what I have said. If he has got a certain standard in Chinese Language, he will understand what I am trying to say. Mr Chiam See Tong: I am not ashamed of not knowing Chinese. I am a Singaporean.”
“Sir, I think he should refrain from these insinuations.”
“Sir, I think my sickness should not be brought up in the august House like this. It is very personal.”
“Point of clarification, Sir. Can the Member for Mountbatten cite the number of trips I had taken, please?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I do not think I was trying to amuse the House at all. I was never more serious. We are talking about the long-term survival of Singapore and the Member for Mountbatten is trying to make a joke out of this whole thing. I think it is not proper that he should be starting his speech in this manner.”
“How do Western nations become so advanced? It is because I believe they have got a good programme to promote character, to promote leadership, to promote initiative and to promote go-getters. This type of character can be promoted at the playing field, and even it has been said that the Battle of Waterloo was won at the playing field of Eton. It is due to the promotion of character-building in the English school students that make them win wars. I think Singapore should learn a lesson there. The other point which I want to bring up is not directly connected with education. But I believe that the Government should be looking into district schools rather than the student having to travel through two or three schools before he reaches his own school. The Government should encourage the students to go to the schools nearest their home. This will not cause further traffic congestion and it will be, in fact, easier for the pupils. Mr Eugene Yap Giau Cheng (Mountbatten): Mr Speaker, Sir, Mr Chiam is a very amusing speaker but, of course, not as amusing as Dr Lee Siew-Choh.”
“Many of them, in fact, have gone abroad involuntarily because they cannot get a place here. And the second point is that the Government can now establish neighbourhood libraries in all housing estates. The purpose of these neighbourhood libraries is not to duplicate the present libraries, but to make sure that our children, our younger Singaporeans have easy access to books. I have made this point before and I hope it will not fall on deaf ears this time. The other point which I have brought up before is a better teacher-pupil ratio, which I read also the Government has taken note, but it has not given a commitment to make sure that this policy is implemented now. I hope the Government will not make any more excuses and get on with it. The other problem in Singapore is the widespread use of private tutors. This is not a healthy sign for the education system. What does it show? It shows that our schools are not teaching our pupils effectively. It has been heard - even the teachers themselves admit it - that they advise the pupils: "If you want to pass Primary 6, you better get a tutor." If we have reached such a situation, I think it is very bad for Singapore. It is a well-known fact that private tutors are needed at Primary 6 level and at 'O' levels. Almost every child has a private tutor. Why the need for private tutors? It shows that the schools are not doing their jobs. And I hope the relevant Minister will take note and correct the anomaly in our education system. The other point in regard to education that is lacking in our schools is the promotion of sports and culture. This is an area which has not been given enough attention to. There seems to be a belief that to promote academicism is good in our schools. But this kind of policy is lopsided.”
“So what I am saying is that we should have a good democratic system and make sure that there is a check to prevent one person or one group of persons amassing too much powers, and in Singapore's case, probably bring Singapore to ruin economically and financially. The third point which I consider is important is that if we want to make Singapore our home then we must through time forge a Singapore identity. It is certainly a wrong policy to compartmentalise Singaporeans. I hope that in 20 years' time, people of Singapore do not want to hear their children say that they are Malay Singaporeans, or Chinese Singaporeans, or Indian Singaporeans, and not just Singaporeans. Each of us must be part of a whole and cannot be part of a part of a nation. If our intention is to build a Singapore nation, then we must first build a Singapore identity. This, I believe, many do realise that it is being eroded today, and we have to make a check against people who do not want to make sure that we have a Singapore identity. My last point is that it is important for Singapore's long-term survival that we must build an education system which is the best or near the best in the world. Our present education system falls far short of this aim. The Government has the means, and there is an urgent need, for a better educational system. And we should begin to construct it now and not just make future plans, and give excuses and delay in implementing an excellent or world-class education system. I would like to cite the following needs. I would call upon the Government to study and build a third university. There is a need for a third university. We have about 12,500 Singapore students studying abroad. It shows that there is a need for a third university. There is no need for them to go abroad.”
“Once the people drop their guard and allow only one group, or one person, or one party, to carry on ruling the country, sooner or later the government will become corrupt. History has shown it, and Singapore is no exception. This is perhaps Singapore's greatest fear. In the long term, Singapore's survival, if it ever were to be threatened, it will not be from an external aggression but rather from an internal degeneration through corruption. We have to be ever vigilant against the natural instincts and tendencies of man for power and greed. In this respect, for the sake of Singapore's long-term survival, we must truly have a democratic system with effective checks on the people in power. The Government was quick to take advantage of the invasion of Kuwait by Iraq on 2nd August. A big power invaded and by force annexed a small power. Singapore is a small country and it is only right that we should draw attention to the invasion of Kuwait. That is one lesson we can learn. But the other lesson which the Government forgets to tell the people of Singapore is, in the first place, how did Kuwait get invaded and annexed and conquered? It is because of Iraq not having a democratic system, allowing one man to wield so much power that he has become a dictator and his ambition for conquest was not checked. So the other lesson for Singapore is that we must not allow one person to amass so much power. In Singapore's case, I do not think that we will have a Saddam Hussein. But we will probably have a man who will not have expansionist aims but who will perhaps slowly siphon Singapore's reserves. I think that is the danger.”
“In the long run - we are talking about long term - the union with Malaysia will definitely be good for Singapore. Our manufacturers will then have access to a market of nearly 10-million strong. All the arguments put forward to show that Singapore will benefit economically when it merged with Malaysia in 1963 still hold good today. So this is one of the priorities which Singaporeans should work towards too if we want to have ourselves still economically viable in the long term. The second point I would touch on is that we must establish a truly democratic way of life. This, the Singapore people demand it. I believe that the Singapore people in their hearts want a democratic way of life not so much to satisfy their ego and in wanting to come forward and have a say in the affairs of the State. Singaporeans know that in the long term, there must be established institutions, especially the Opposition, to check and balance the powers of the Government. This is very important. We cannot allow one government, however honest it is, to remain in power for a long time. There must be institutions built into our system which can continually watch over, scrutinize the functions of the Government, its bureaucracy and the authorities. The Government must recognise for the sake of the long-term survival of Singapore that it should not hinder the establishment of an effective Opposition. The PAP must not be selfish and small-minded and try to remain in power forever. This is what it appears to do. For the long term good of Singapore, I would say that if there is only a single party, or one group of persons, who can wield unfettered powers, however good its intentions, there will be trouble one day.”
“I beg your pardon. The Government is encouraging the Growth Triangle comprising Johor, Riau and Singapore. [Interruption]. Well, we hope one day that it will be a "Golden Triangle", "Golden" in the sense that it will shine and make more money. That is an economic measure, in Singapore's case, to take away labour-intensive industries from its shores. But if we take away labour-intensive industries to the neighbouring countries, how will it help us? We still lack the market to export our goods. In the long term, should the Growth Triangle turn out to be a success, it may be a disadvantage to us. When the Indonesians and Malaysians have learned to be just as efficient as ourselves, then I think we will be in a bit of a spot. A better solution would be to approach the Malaysians now to negotiate with them for an economic union. Members of the House may like to know that the SDP was formed in 1980 and one of its objectives was to strive for the establishment of an economic union, first, with Malaysia, and eventually with the other ASEAN countries. I know, at this juncture, when anyone makes this suggestion, there will be many Singaporeans who will be objecting, because they say that Singapore is now so prosperous and economically ahead of Malaysia and also our currency is so strong compared to that of Malaysia. Of course I am not saying that the path will be easy. There will be many difficult problems and I think over time we can overcome those problems. I believe that if we went into negotiations this year, perhaps we could get results in five to 10 years' time, because the Malaysians themselves are already thinking of economic blocs when they suggested the East Asian Economic Group.”
“In fact, they are going one step further. By 1992 they hope to have a political union. And what is the talk in America? They want to form a Common Market with Canada and Mexico. When that happens, the Americans can get plenty of cheap labour in Mexico and they need not come to the Far East to set up their factories. And when that happens, Singapore will be in a difficult position. At the moment, the Government is encouraging the Golden Triangle at Johor, Riau and - Some hon. Members: Growth Triangle!”
“You could put in a few photographs and I think that should be enough. They must have spent quite a lot of money putting out a hard-cover book with so many photographs. For the long-term goals of Singapore, what are my views? In my view, the Government should be taking note of four areas, other than defence. Firstly, expansion of our market. For this, I would suggest the formation of an economic union with Malaysia. This is not a new concept but I believe it is important for Singapore's long-term survival. Secondly, there is a need to establish a truly democratic way of life. Thirdly, allow Singaporeans to forge a Singapore identity and, fourthly, give priority to building a world-class education system. Singapore has a land area of about 626 sq km. It is so small that it appears only as a dot on the world map. Demographers tell us that this island can take comfortably up to 4 million people. With a population of 2.62 million currently, businessmen say that the local market is too small. I would say that even when Singapore is expanded up to a population of 4 million, our local market still cannot sustain many of our local products. We certainly lack the size, and we do not have a viable local market. It is true we are reclaiming land. But if a short person puts on high heels, there is a limit to it. So the Government says its policy is to go international. There is really no choice. Singapore businessmen are encouraged to go abroad to look for markets. But I say, as time goes on, the effort to seek more markets internationally will be more difficult and not easier. There is a fierce competition with other exporting countries and the world trend today is towards building more economic blocs. In Europe, the economic union of countries there has come into being.”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker, Sir, for allowing me to join in the debate. It has been said that the long term goal of the Singapore Government is to make sure that Singapore survives. In the President's Address he said that his Government is planning ahead for the next 25 years. In the book titled "The Next Lap", projections of population are taken up to the year 2030. So the Government is talking about a time-frame of between 25 and 40 years from now. That is a long time in Singapore's context. Nevertheless, I agree that we should be taking certain steps now to get us to be in the right direction for if we travel in the wrong direction time will not be on our side. The Government has presented its long-term plans and its proposals which are contained in both the President's Address and the book "The Next Lap". The Member for Punggol has commented on the book. He has given his views. In my case, when I picked up the book and tried to read it, my attention was distracted by the many photographs that were in the book. I note that more than one-third of the book was filled with full-pages of coloured photographs and every page has a photograph in it, either half-page or a small photograph. Why the need for such a glossy presentation? It does not look like a book containing serious matters. If the Government wants Singaporeans to take its plans seriously, I would suggest that it presents the book in a less commercialised way. It does also reflect on the present leadership in the way the book is presented. It does reflect on the attitude and thinking of the leaders. It would appear to me they look more for the form than the substance. They appear to be extravagant and spendthrift. The book could easily be presented within 50 pages.”
“Yes, I wish to amend it. I beg to move, "That the words "not conflict" be left out and there to insert "through contention". Question, "That the words proposed to be left out, be there left out.", put, and negatived.”
“Then you word it. Mr Speaker, Sir, let us word it in very clear terms. Because, as it stands now, "consensus not conflict" is exactly the same as "consensus instead of contention". There is basically no difference. If you want to make an amendment, I would move that "consensus through contention". That would be a better amendment.”
“Please, let us have contention, debates, more debates, lively debates in Parliament, and not to emphasise too much on consensus.”
“They were telling the Americans they should not have protectionist measures against Japan. In fact, the Americans thought that the Japanese were exporting too much to America and wanted to stop their exports; enough was enough. But the Japanese put their points across, and said that they must still continue to export. They did not agree meekly with the Americans. No! They put their points across very strongly. I think if we want to follow Japan, by all means, let's follow Japan. But of course I do not think we want to follow Japan and fight pitched battles whenever the land is acquired, and that is what they do. We do not have that precedent in Singapore. In fact, I think most Singaporeans are amenable to consensus. As Mr Lee Kuan Yew had said, we are not fierce, intense people like the Japanese. I think we are more prone to agreeing than to disagreeing. So in order to make sure that people do speak up, the Government should not do away with contention. I do not think that if you have got this consensus idea across, it will strengthen our political system. I think it will weaken it. It will try to get rid of the Opposition, and very soon I think the word "Opposition" will also become a bad word. If you always want to get your decisions across easily by consensus, it would be just like growing our vegetables in a greenhouse, too protected. We must have plenty of contention. Put the plants out in the open, let them be hit by the storms, the wind, and then they would be very strong plants. In the end, that should be what we want for Singaporeans. We must encourage Singaporeans to think, to talk, and not to stop them from thinking. If we carry this idea of consensus too far and bring it to the level of our union discussions, then I think it will be a bad day for Singapore.”
“We have seen also, historically, societies which had stifled defence, which had refused open debate, and they would eventually retrogress and become corrupt and, finally, they would become the victim of other countries. The example of Japan is given. Let us follow Japan. I am willing to follow Japan. They have consensus but, at the same time, they have got plenty of contention. I have attended a seminar where some Japanese MPs were there. My goodness! When they spoke, they really spoke, thumping their hands, and putting their points very strongly across.”
“I think the best results can come from that. In the words of Mr Lee Kuan Yew, when you have Opposition, then you have this cut and thrust of lively parliamentary debates. If we are going to have consensus, and all of us sit here, what do we do? Debate will be out of the window, and no new ideas. So contention, debate, criticism become dirty words in time to come, and everybody will feel guilty to criticise the Government. We should not allow that situation to reach in Singapore's political stage. Contention is important. But contention must be for the good of the nation. We have already expressed ourselves. We are loyal opposition. Loyal not to the PAP, but loyal to the Constitution, loyal to the progress of Singapore's advancement and improvement, and to the national good of Singapore. That is what we are loyal to. We have already stated our stand. Please do not throw the word "contention" out of the window. Of course, we want to have consensus. It is good to have consensus. We must all agree and then we can get things done. But there is a danger. In time to come, when the Government is threatened, it might over-emphasise this word "consensus", and it does not allow open debate - let us agree; let us talk behind closed doors; please, no open debate. If the Government always wants to talk behind closed doors, it means that it is afraid to let people know its weak points. I think it is only publicity which is a good check on the Government. They have done that in America. Perhaps they have overdone it. The press is a watchdog of the government, watchdog of any public body. It is always publicising, giving notice to the people what local government, school boards, or some authorities are doing. And that is the way to check the government.”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker, for allowing me to speak on the amendment by the hon. Member for Fengshan. The Opposition could go along with the first, second, third and fifth values, but it would find it very difficult to accept the fourth value. "Consensus not conflict" is not much different from its original form, "Consensus instead of contention". They are basically the same. The Opposition of course has a great fear that the word "consensus" might be over-stressed, and Parliament will in time to come become not unlike the tripartite arrangement of the National Wages Council comprising the unions, the employers, and the Government. In that case, consensus for the need to have labour peace in the land grew out of historical necessity. I believe that when the Government first took over, there were problems from the workers. There were strikes and there were chaos and disruption of production. And I believe the Government got advice from a Dutchman, Dr Albert Winsemius. He advised the Government that in order to make Singapore prosperous it should accept these advices. Firstly, to get rid of the communist; secondly, to control the unions; and thirdly, to encourage foreign investments, set up good infrastructure, give plenty of tax incentives and get them to come and invest here. I think the Government was a good student and carried out his advice dutifully. And I believe out of that advice, there was this tripartite arrangement, and it worked well for Singapore. So let us keep it to the unions, and do not bring the idea of consensus into Parliament. Parliament, since its very inception, or when Singapore became independent, has an adversarial type of procedures. In other words, there are always two conflicting views, and all points of views are aired.”
“I asked our tour guide, "What is this all about? Why is the tight security?" And he told me that Narita Airport was built on land which had been acquired from farmers. Although many years have passed, up to today the farmers are still protesting, not only protesting but protesting vigorously. You see the high level of contention there. But in Singapore's case, you take their land, they peacefully give it up to the Government, although many of them have lost great sums of money. In Singapore we already have a better state of consensus than even in Japan. So I do not think there is a fear that we should have too much contention. I think of the two, we have got too little contention and too much consensus already. We should bring up more contention and get people to speak up more. It was also reported in the IPS seminar that many of the very learned people are afraid to speak up in the open. Why is that so? People in the know refuse to speak up. That is a bad sign for our society. We should do something to rectify that situation. If people who are academics, who are professors, who are holding high positions, dare not speak up, who will speak up? Who will lead the country? The Government should pay attention to this point and try to correct it. Instead of trying to stifle contention, I urge the Government to try to encourage contention, encourage people to speak up, contribute more ideas, and make our society more vibrant. That is how our country is going to compete eventually with the other NICs and that is how we are going to get rich. 1.35 pm”
“The Singapore Government do realise that in fact the trend is towards a more open society. As our citizens get more educated, they become more vociferous, they want to be heard. There is already evidence that a seminar has been held by 130 very well-educated professional people. There will probably be more of those types of seminars. More and more learned people would want to have a say in the affairs of the state and I hope it is not the intention of the Government to stifle this group of people from speaking up by implementing this policy of "consensus instead of contention". It was observed by the Deputy Prime Minister that we should follow Japan because they have got consensus there. But I think in Singapore's case, in fact, we have already got the ideal of consensus. In fact, many of the controversial and very harsh policies of the Government have been accepted by the people of Singapore without much contention. The people of Singapore have accepted the policy of doing national service, they have accepted the policy of Government acquiring their land, although they have made rightful claims to the law courts but eventually they surrendered their land peacefully to the Government. We do not see any extreme contention in our Parliament. Our Members of Parliament do not come to blows. But that happens in Japan. Only last month I had the opportunity of visiting Narita. I went in and out of Narita Airport and what did I see? The whole airport was fenced up with strong iron grilles of up to, I would estimate, 12 feet or more with barbed wires on the top. There were two gates you have to pass through before you get into the airport. At each of these gates, there were guards, not just guards, but they were well armed and well-dressed with battle gear. I was curious.”
“I do not think that Westerners will simply accept values which are thrust upon them by the government. Westerners, by their nature, are suspicious of the government. They will probably say that the government introduces values to the people for its own purpose and not for the good of the nation or people and they are probably right. Similarly, one suspects that the Govern- ment has brought forward these values for its own purpose. The one value which is controversial and is hard to accept is the one on "Consensus instead of contention". This value has to be scrapped or, if not, it should be amended to read "Consensus through contention". The Opposition, of course, cannot accept this value as it is. Of course, if this value is accepted unchanged, then it would mean that there will be no contention and no dissent. When that day arrives in Singapore, it will be the beginning of the dark ages here. In old China, there was no progress because the Emperor forbade dissent and criticism of his government. If anyone was caught criticising the Emperor, of course, you know what happened, his head would be chopped off. Do we want that to happen in Singapore? I certainly hope not. I do sincerely hope that the Singapore Government will allow criticisms of Government policies, alternative views, contention and dissent. Of course, contention must be for the good and for the improvement of Singapore and not contention for the destruction of our country. Therefore, as I said, contention must be preserved in these Shared Values and we should arrive at our consensus through contention. In fact, it is my sincere hope that there should be a two-party system eventually established in Singapore, where there is constant contention of how to improve and make Singapore a better place to live in.”
“The Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Trade and Industry yesterday pointed out that all the five values are communitarian in nature, and so they are, ie, in terms of these values, the people have only duties to perform and there are no reciprocal rights conferred on them. How convenient for the Government - thrust a set of values on Singaporeans, tell them that these are the values upon which Singaporeans can identify themselves, make them feel obligated to perform those duties, and the Government hopes over time the majority of Singaporeans will accept and live up to those values. I wonder whether the Government can succeed. Up to now, the Government has used either the stick or the carrot, or both, to make Singaporeans comply with its policies. The stick is used by way of legislation and the penalties thereto, and the carrot is effected by way of incentives, like the tax rebate given in respect of the procreation policy. In the present case of the Shared Values, I presume the Government shall be using only persuasion. I suppose the majority of Singaporeans, being reasonable people, can be persuaded to accept these Shared Values if they can be convinced that they are all for the long-term good of Singapore. Can the Opposition be persuaded? I, for one, think not, because there is at least one very controversial Shared Value. It is observed that it is not coincidental that none of the advanced Western nations has shared values, core values or national ideology, promulgated by the Government. If they do have shared values, they are those values which have been transmitted to them, either by custom or tradition, over a long period of time. Those are well and truly tested values and accepted by the majority of the people.”
“I, of course, do not support widespread welfare programmes but I do believe in a welfare programme for the less fortunate of our society, namely, the destitute, the aged sick and those workers, through no fault of their own, cannot work. I believe this was one of the original PAP ideals. What happens to all the idealism of the PAP which has brought it to power? If the Government abandons its ideals and, in their place, accepts and practises pure materialism, it may be good for a while. The Government may get rich in the short term but certainly it will not be good in the long term. We must have a vision. We must have ideals. If not, eventually, the society will tend to retrograde and be corrupted. The fifth value is "Racial and religious harmony". Maintaining racial and religious harmony has been always a way of life of Singaporeans from the day Sir Stamford Raffles stepped foot on Singapore soil. It is the Government, by its recent policies, namely, the formation of group representation constituencies, racial enclaves, promoting separate cultural months, highlighting the clan associations, Speak Mandarin Campaigns, encouraging one racial group to solve its own problems instead of getting all Singaporeans to do so, that have, in fact, heightened racial awareness in Singapore. Many participants in the seminar organised by the Institute of Policy Studies held on 11th January have expressed their concern of this fact. It is not the Opposition that is doing so. It is the learned academics, professors, senior executives, civil servants who have made this observation. We have seen, therefore, that the Government does not wholly practise the Shared Values, yet it wants to commend these values to the people of Singapore.”
“A Singaporean is given permission by the Controller of Immigration to enter into a contract of marriage with a foreigner. The foreign spouse is then allowed to reside in Singapore. The couple may have one or two children. Then suddenly the foreign spouse is served with a notice by the Controller of Immigration, asking her to leave Singapore. The foreign spouse is normally the wife. When she leaves, she usually brings the children along with her. In this way, the family unit is torn apart by the Government policy. This policy of separating a foreign spouse from her Singapore husband is still in force. So is it not hypocritical on the part of the Government to promote the value of the sanctity of the family unit when its policies dictate otherwise? The governments of Western countries do not preach pious values. They just practise them. The citizens of Western countries can marry any person of their choice regardless of whether that person is a citizen of that country. Once a citizen of a Western country marries a non-citizen, the foreign spouse can apply for citizenship and get it as a matter of right. The two spouses can then stay in that country without any fear of being separated by the authorities. In that respect, Western values are better than the values of most Asian countries, including Singapore. The third value is "Regard and community support for the individual". I think it is wrong for the Government to abrogate its duty to provide some measure of welfare. If the welfare services are properly administered, they will not be abused and a crutch mentality will not develop. It is important for the Government to support welfare because it is a demonstrative effect to show the people that the Government is a caring Government - it cares for the people.”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker, for allowing me to join in the debate. The Government wants the people of Singapore to accept the Shared Values as enunciated in the White Paper. Has the Government the moral right to initiate these Shared Values? I do not think so. It pays lip service to the virtues of the Shared Values but it does not seem to promote these values in many of its policies. In fact, many of the Government actions are inconsistent with all those Shared Values. Take the first one, "Nation before community and society above self". Almost everyone in Singapore knows that the Government is mercenary and governs Singapore as if it were running a commercial enterprise. It makes money whenever it can and wherever possible. Under other circumstances, people still have reason to quarrel with the Government, when it acts in a very commercial way, when they have to pay, in their point of view, too much to the Government. Now the Government preaches a good social value, like society above self, but it is practising "charity begins at home". Then the people will have all the more reason to pick on the Government. The Government should set an example - take steps to lower some of its social services, show some charity, like lowering hospital charges, especially charges on kidney dialysis - then the people will believe what the Government preaches. Or else all the sanctimonious, pious talk on the part of the Government urging the people to accept the Shared Values will sound hollow. What about the second value - "Family as the basic unit of society"? Sad to say, the Government's immigration policy has, on many occasions, broken up Singapore families. I am referring to families which have one spouse who is a foreigner.”
“That tells us that he believed that his chances of winning in that election were much better in a GRC. He has therefore contradicted himself. The answer to the Opposition MPs' problem is to find more candidates. If they can find more candidates and their candidates are as good as the PAP's, then they would not be worrying whether it is a single-member constituency or GRC. Do not blame your problems on what we are doing over here, which is to make things easier under certain circumstances for the Electoral Boundary Review Committee when it comes to reviewing electoral boundaries. I would not want to enter into a debate on proportional representation over here because it is irrelevant to the debate this afternoon. If Dr Lee Siew-Choh believes that proportional representation is good for Singapore, he can always bring this matter up either in a Question for oral answer or in an Adjournment Motion, or even in a motion before the House and we can have it debated. Mr Chiam hopes that Potong Pasir will be made into a GRC. That is a contradiction, because if he thinks we are making things more difficult for him, why does he hope that Potong Pasir should be made into a GRC?”
“More opposition and there shall be real participation on the part of the people and it should not try to close the doors and make it more difficult for elected Opposition members to be in Parliament. The Government has tried everything - from Elected President, NCMP, NMP and the lot. But I think the Government is going to find it difficult because the people do want real representation in Parliament, as indicated by the increase in the number of votes for the Opposition in the last election. If the Government is not careful - I think it should heed the warning - the people would say enough is enough and I think there will be a backlash on the Government. The number of candidates for the Opposition in the next election, whether there are four candidates in a GRC or not, I think the people will definitely not agree with the Government and they will elect more Opposition candidates. It is quite obvious why the Government wants to have four MPs in a GRC. I think their intent is to finally make the whole of Singapore Group Representation Constituencies instead of having single constituencies. Then the number of minority representation would be about 25%. If the Government intends to make Potong Pasir a GRC, I would certainly welcome that. The Prime Minister and Minister for Defence (Mr Goh Chok Tong): Mr Speaker, Sir, I find that there are contradictions in both Mr Chiam as's well as Dr Lee Siew-Choh's argument that we are making things more difficult for the Opposition. If Dr Lee Siew-Choh sincerely believes that we are making things more difficult for him now, as well as in the last election, can he explain to this House why then did he choose to stand in a GRC? He had plenty of single-member constituencies to choose from, but he chose to stand in Eunos GRC.”
“Sir, I rise to oppose this Bill. In principle, this Bill dilutes our democratic system. At first, we started with one man casting one vote for one candidate. The voter can vote for the person whom he wants to represent him in Parliament. But then the number was increased to three in a GRC - one vote is cast for three candidates. Where is the principle of representation when one vote is cast for three candidates? Because the voter may only want to vote for one of the candidates, and not the other two. So whether he likes it or not, he has to vote for the other two candidates. Now the position is even worse. You have to cast one vote for four candidates. The Goh Chok Tong Government says that it would encourage participatory democratic style of Government and I support that. But, unfortunately, the ideal is inconsistent with the action taken so far. It would appear that only lip-service is given to this principle of participatory democratic style of Government. How can there by participatory style when you cast one vote for four candidates? In fact, the participation in this democratic exercise has been reduced. It is obvious, like the sentiments given by Dr Lee, that the purpose is to make it difficult for the Opposition. The PAP has tried everything - from Elected President, NMP, to now having four candidates, instead of three, in a GRC. Instead of having this dilution, the Government should show its sincere intent on having more real participation from the people and there can only be real participation in the democratic process if there are more Opposition Members in Parliament, and not to keep them out. What we want is really a two-party system in Singapore.”
“I just want to ask the Minister a small point. What are the areas of R&D in which the Government funds have gone into?”
“I have just one small clarification from the Minister. The Minister says that if any Town Council wants to embark on any project which will improve rapport or to offer incentives or carrots to the residents, it will get the support of the MND. I want a clarification whether this kind of support is financial or otherwise.”
“We should go directly to the MND. That I think is more logical. Sir, in the case of Potong Pasir, the MP there is not the Advisor to the CCC. In fact, the MP there had defeated, at an open and fair General Election, the person who is now made the Advisor to the CCC. Fancy that - I am the MP there, having won the election, and I have to go to the person whom I had defeated for approval. It does not seem right at all to me. Sir, I think the Town Councils should be allowed to approach the CIPC directly which is under the Ministry of National Development. I hope that the Minister will look into this anomaly and rectify the application for funds which are disbursed by the CIPC.”
“Also as has been mentioned by the Minister, now when a tenant divests his HDB property, the HDB will recoup the money owing to the Town Council and pay it to the Town Council. Sir, may I also bring up a related matter which concerns the Town Councils? This is the applications for funds for certain community improvement works made by the Ministry of National Development (MND) and they are disbursed by the Community Improvement Projects Committee (CIPC). At the moment, Town Councils may apply for certain categories of community improvement works to be wholly or partially subsidized by MND, and when these projects are approved, funds will be disbursed by the CIPC. But the mode of application is something which we are unhappy about. Applicants, normally the RCs and other grassroots bodies and the Town Councils, are now allowed to apply for these funds for community works. The applicant in the first instance must go through the Citizens' Consultative Committee (CCC) and get the approval or support of the Advisor and Honorary Secretary of the CCC. The next stage is to go to the Secretary of the Community Development Secretariat or CDS. These two bodies are in fact under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Community Development. Although the Town Council is under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of National Development, it is only after going through these stages that the application will be processed by the Secretariat of the CIPC, and then later on to the MND. These other stages come under the jurisdiction of the MND. We would urge the Minister to do away with the first stage, that is, to apply through the CCC and the CDS, because the Town Council in fact comes under the MND. I do not see why we should go to another Ministry to ask for funds.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I have, first of all, to declare my interest. I am the Chairman of the Potong Pasir Town Council. Sir, I rise to support the Bill. I welcome the amendments because we at Potong Pasir run the Town Council ourselves. Unlike other Town Councils, we do not engage professional managing agents to do the job for us. Sir, we welcome these amendments because it gives more teeth to the Town Councils Act. But fortunately for us at Potong Pasir, even without the amendments, we need not resort to putting up notices of names of persons who owe the Town Council money. But, nevertheless, we welcome the amendments to the Town Councils Act which enable Town Councils to impose penalties and administrative fees. Without these amendments, when we send notices, and we put in a lot of manpower to get back the arrears, the Town Council in fact loses money. So with these penalties, we do hope to recoup some of the monies expended. The Town Councils are now able to compound fines. Again this is an improvement because, under the present law, when any offender is caught, he has to be brought to Court for a remedy. And also now the Town Councils are able to keep the fines which are paid to the Town Councils' fund. Apparently, before the amendment, the Town Councils have to hand over these fines to the State. And also another welcome provision is that any offender who parks his vehicle at the Town Council's common property is deemed a vehicle owner under the by-laws made by the Town Council. Also with these amendments, tenants are required to deposit with the Town Council a security for payment of service charges and also the interests are now imposed, instead of 30 days, on a monthly basis. This is a welcome change.”
“The Minister has not answered the second limb of the question,ie, whether the rate of property tax on these properties will eventually increase to 23% of their annual values.”
“Has the Ministry dealt with any pilgrim broker who has overcharged commissions?”
“Does the Minister know that brokers or sub-brokers are charging exorbitant commissions, something like $500 to $700 per person?”
“What is the range of haj packages in Singapore which are charged by local GSAs? Dr Ahmad Mattar: Mr Speaker, Sir, I do not have the figures with me. If the Member likes, I can give him the list of travel agent and he can ask them.”
“Is the Minister aware that many pilgrims have complained of the high cost of the haj package? I believe in Singapore it is being charged at $6,500 per package whereas in Malaysia it is only about $3,800. Why is there this big discrepancy in prices?”
“Sir, a point of clarification from the hon. Member for Jalan Besar GRC. Sir, I want to ask the hon. Member whether or not he thinks that Article 152 gives the Malay an educational right. Encik Sidek bin Saniff: From the Member's statement, I do not quite understand what he is aiming at.”
“Over in Singapore, if we do really cherish the principle of sovereignty of Parliament which really means the sovereignty of the people, then if we really believe in this principle, the Government has no right to change it or to tamper with it without really getting the consent of the people at a national referendum.”
“In 1988, Sir, the PAP won the general elections but I would say that that mandate did not really include the right to take power away from the people. Therefore, the Government must go back to the people to get their consent, whether or not they are willing to surrender part of their power to one person. This Government has harped on its new consultative style of government, and I agree with Dr Lee that the best way to consult the people on this issue is by holding a national referendum. Any measure short of this is not real consultation. If the Government takes the Constitution seriously, then it must not change it at any time it likes, just to suit its own political ends. In principle, it is not advisable to give so much power to one man without having real measures effectively to check his actions. Let us not have a charade of democracy. If we really believe in democracy, then let us practise it to the letter. In Switzerland, they do really have real democracy there. Over there, issues which are less important than changing the parliamentary system have to be put to a national referendum. As we know, Switzerland is a neutral country and the people really believe in the principle of neutrality. But in recent times, many politicians there thought that it was a good idea for Switzerland to join the United Nations so that they can have an international forum to voice the Swiss national point of view. They put that issue to a national referendum many times. And the proposal to join the UN was rejected at each of the national referendum held. So it goes to show that when the Swiss believe in a principle, they really do not change it so easily, even at a national referendum.”
“Sir, the Elected President issue is such an important issue that I would support the amendment to the motion, and say that there must be a national referendum on the Elected President. I do not agree with the hon. Member who says that the Elected President has no executive powers. He may have the custodial powers in relation to national savings but in relation to appointment of key civil servants, he will definitely have some say in the selection of the key personnel. Therefore, he would have executive powers. The introduction of an Elected President is really a very fundamental change to our Constitution and to our parliamentary system. At the moment, our Constitution only requires in two areas where a national referendum is required, and that is, the surrender or transfer of our national sovereignty or the relinquishing of our Police or Army powers. When we became independent in 1965, I am certain that our law makers at that time could not foresee that there would be such a drastic change to our parliamentary system. If they could foresee that one day a government could call for the surrender of the sovereignty of Parliament, I am certain provisions would have been included in our Constitution to hold a national referendum in such an event. What the Government effectively is asking now is for the surrender or transfer of part of the power which has been vested in the people to one man. This is akin to asking the surrender of part of Singapore's sovereignty which requires a national referendum. I would submit that it must be implied in our Constitution that should a government want to deprive the power of the people, then a national referendum must be held to ask the people whether or not they are willing to give up that power.”
“I can say that whether the participatory type of government will succeed or fail will be tested in future, long after the leadership transition. Only at that time can we find out whether the Singapore people can pass the litmus test, whether they can arrive at consensus through such a partici- patory process in order to cope with the new world and the new world economic order and the challenges that are brought to them.”
“Now that our people are better educated, they naturally want to involve themselves in the running of the country and so we have the so-called participatory style of government. This implies that the Government will have to spend more time in listening to the views of the people, in clarifying and explaining the Government's policies and their backgrounds and rationale. If by doing this, we can succeed in consensus building, this is all well and good. But what worries me is that such process may lead to disputes and divergent views. It may even lead to endless quarrels, arguments, divisiveness and mutual suspicions. This will be counter productive. Therefore, the people of Singapore should fully understand that the aim of this consensus building is to seek common ground in diversity. However, if we are not able to achieve unanimous view, then we have to seek common ground in diversity in order to arrive at a consensus. Only then can we progress. Mr Speaker, Sir, in the past one year, the Government has made a series of policy adjustments. Basically, this is in keeping with the world trend. The aim is to minimise the Government's intervention in our economy and in the livelihood of the people. The watchwords are privatisation and autonomy. However, such policy adjustments invariably have an impact on the livelihood of the people. All policy adjustments which have an impact on the livelihood of the people should be given careful consideration so that no adverse influence would be made on the people's livelihood or to minimise such adverse influence on the people's livelihood. What will be the future? Our future will be full of challenges and opportunities.”
“The grassroots organisations and leaders have also mobilised the residents in their constituencies to contribute to such funds. On the average, each constituency has given at least $20,000 to such funds. If this money can be given back to the constituency so that it can set up a welfare fund, this will be better. It will be a better way to help the poor people in the constituency. The Constituency Welfare Fund Committee can be set up by the grassroots organisations. There should be a special committee to take charge of the funds. And in order to avoid duplication and abuse, the Government can lay down certain guidelines governing the use of such funds. Mr Speaker, Sir, I feel that the constituency welfare fund will be able to give speedy help to those who need help. For example, among the poor families, when the sole breadwinner meets with an accident or is unemployed or is incapacitated or even dies, the whole family will be plunged into difficulties. Under such circumstances, the constituency welfare fund will be able to help them speedily in order to tide over the difficult period. Therefore, I earnestly hope the Government would consider this suggestion to make use of the 25th Anniversary Charity Fund to set up such welfare funds for the constituencies. Lastly, let me talk about the so-called participatory type of government. As the President has mentioned in his Speech, we are now at the watershed in our political development. An old era is coming to an end and a new era is about to begin. Looking back, we can safely say that in the past 25 years the Government has been leading the way and the people have been closely following the Government. And this style of government has been able to bring us through all kinds of difficulties.”
“What direction should they take in matters of culture? Now that we have to strengthen our task of nation-building and to develop our culture so as to evolve a more cultured and graceful society for Singapore, is it time for the Government to seriously consider the setting up or the re-establishment of the Ministry of Culture? I think there is a need for a Minister for Culture who will devote complete attention to cultural matters to help develop our culture. At present, culture is looked after by the Minister for Community Development who in addition to Community Development, has to take charge of Foreign Affairs as well. I do not think he can pay full attention to the matter of culture. Therefore, I hope the First Deputy Prime Minister, when he becomes the Prime Minister, will consider my proposal seriously, ie, we should have a Minister for Culture in his Cabinet. Next, I would like to deal with the plight of the lower income families. The President's Speech once again talks about the need to help the lower income group people. The Government has indicated that some of the money in the 25th Anniversary Charity Fund will be used to help such category of people or families, namely, to help pay for the PUB charges and HDB rentals. Such measure is to be welcomed. Many of us come from the poor families and so we understand better the plight of such poor families in our constituencies and that there is a need to help them through various means to tide over their difficult periods. For example, to provide bursaries for the students from such poor families. Meanwhile, the people of Singapore, while celebrating the 25th Anniversary, have not forgotten charity. They have given generously to the National Charity Fund.”