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 47 of 85.
“But if one of them refuses, then the other will have no chance. Normally, of course, the person who feels that he is going to lose will not consent. And it has just been mentioned by Mr Shanmugam that there are sensitive cases involving the Government. Will the Government automatically consent? There are so many cases involving Government - administrative cases, immigration cases, land acquisition cases, passport cases - you name them. So will the Government give their word that they will consent for parties to appeal to the Privy Council? And as regards criminal cases, we see that there must be an unanimous decision. I have been in the Bar for 13 years or so, I have not come across a dissenting case in capital cases. So probably in capital cases there will be no appeals to the Privy Council. Sir, I think if we want to take away appeals to the Privy Council, there must be an alternative, a good alternative - appeal court, perhaps a permanent appeal court. We cannot just remove a thing without really replacing it with something else. In fact, we are taking a major benefit away from the people of Singapore without giving them something in return. It would appear to me - now in my second term in this House - that the Government really has got no long-term policies. They only change the law when it is necessary.”
“Allowed there and they were dismissed. Sir, under the Civil Cases are the cases involved with the Internal Security Act and the Legal Profession Act grouped in these statistics as Civil Cases? Can the Minister please tell us. I think the appeals to the Privy Council are very relevant. I am just looking at the statistics given by the Minister. They are very relevant because many of them were allowed by the Privy Council. If you look at the left-hand corner, starting with the earliest date (1978), you will see: 4 cases went up to the Privy Council, 3 were allowed; only 1 was not allowed. In 1979, 5 appealed, 2 allowed; 1980, 6 appealed, 1 allowed; 1981, 7 appealed, 2 allowed; 1982, 10 appealed, 1 allowed (1 in 10); and 1983, 5 appealed, 3 allowed. I think it is important that we go to the Privy Council for civil cases. And then in 1984, 15 appealed, 6 were allowed. I wonder whether these included all the lawyers who have appealed to the Privy Council in disciplinary proceedings and whether all were allowed. Sir, 1985, 2 appealed, and both were withdrawn; 1986, 3 went on appeal and 1 allowed; and the rest are still pending. But in 1988, 4 are pending and 1 is allowed. So according to statistics, appeal to the Privy Council is very relevant in our case. I think the Minister has to convince this House why he is taking away the appeal to the Privy Council. Sir, this amendment is really a disappointment. It appears to me to be just an expedient move or an ad hoc amendment. I do not believe the Government has really given proper thought and made the amendment in greater detail. In effect, this amendment is to take away appeals to the Privy Council in both civil and criminal cases, although it has been said that consenting parties can still litigate in civil cases.”
“There is no harm, in fact, in enlarging our laws to take into account laws in Europe. Sir, I had a good look at the statistics given by the Minister. Maybe in criminal cases, it is relevant to take away appeals to the Privy Council because out of the three all three failed. It is just like in Malaysia. Apparently, all cases that went to the Privy Council had the same result as that decided in the court of appeal in Malaysia. But we should ask the Minister the reasons why so many of these criminal cases were not granted leave of appeal to the Privy Council. I think there is still something lacking there. The statistics are very flimsy. In fact, only three cases were allowed to go to the Privy Council and three were dismissed. An hon. Member: 44.”
“It does not mean that other countries have taken away the Judicial Committee as their final appeal, we should do the same. Then the Minister goes on to say that now there are divergent paths taken by England and Singapore. What divergent paths? Basically, our laws are still the same. The only point I can think of is in regard to internal security matters. That we have taken divergent paths. The law in England requires that in cases of such matters the courts want to have a look at the reasons or the circumstances given by the Executive whether or not in fact it is justified to detain a person without trial. I think that is very basic and that is really divergent. But I think liberty of a person, freedom of a person is important and I think we should adopt the path taken by England and other Commonwealth countries. I think we should not take away the freedom of a person without really telling the person why or the public wants to know why that person is detained. We have heard of local conditions, judicial attitudes, values are also divergent, and we have heard there are constitutional changes in England because of the fact that England is joining the European Community, and that even in England the House of Lords is no longer the final court of appeal in regard to certain matters under the enlarged European Community laws. Singapore is not an isolated country. It has been declared that our policy is to make Singa- pore a global international city. We do our business with the whole world and not with the region. So what is wrong with opening even new avenues of law into the European Community? I think it will benefit us in the long run. It will, in fact, be an improvement and not a retrogressive step.”
“Sir, this amendment is really a momentous event. It has been said that we have the British system of law in Singapore since 1823, I believe, over a century and the final appeal to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council has always been part of our system. I take the point of Dr Lee Siew-Choh that in fact we should really be given more time - I think the Singapore people should be given more time - to discuss and air this matter, especially relevant bodies like the Law Society, to give their views. What we are really doing is in effect to cut out appeals to the Privy Council. Basically that is what we are doing. Sir, the reasons have been given by the Minister and, as I sat there and took note of the reasons, I am not convinced at all that there is a compelling reason to abolish or almost abolish the Privy Council from our judicial system. The most relevant reason is that the Minister should convince this House that at this point of time the Privy Council is not relevant to our judicial system. If he says so and convince us, then I think we will support him. Look at his reasons. He says few Commonwealth countries have this link to the Privy Council. It does not mean that if other countries do not have that link, we also, should cut off the link with the Privy Council. This is not a reason at all because countries like Australia, India, Pakistan, from their point of view the Privy Council is no longer relevant or, for nationalistic reasons, they feel that they want to build up their own independent judicial system. It is strange that the countries in Asia retaining links with the Judicial Committee are rather small countries - Hong Kong, Singapore and Brunei. Probably they do not have the means to support that many judges. So this is not a good reason.”
“I think I have to put on record that the Minister should not take objection to me asking that question. He should thank me for it because now he is given the opportunity to clear the air and put aside all rumours. I think the Minister should thank me for it.”
“Can the Minister tell us whether or not these 10,000 were, in fact, employed originally by the MRTC? Or employed to construct the MRT? Now that the project for the MRT has been completed, they have stayed over.”
“That was not a problem. That was never mentioned.”
“So I think the Minister has not really given a proper answer as to the seriousness of this problem. I think he has not dealt with it.”
“The reason I did not support the Bill is because it is a draconian step.”
“Sir, What is more important is that these people who overstayed, according to the reports, were able to go undetected because of the documents which they have. So I thought the Minister's reply should give us a clearer view as to what exactly is done to get rid of these syndicates. I mean if there are a lot of foreigners around here with forged documents, it is a serious problem for Singapore.”
“Sir, this question is put because of the large number of overstayers and also ---”
“Could the Minister please comment on the report that many of them who overstayed had forged documents. How does this come about?”
“Not that I know of. Mr Lee Yock Suan: The Member can confirm it with all the other Members in this House. It is at the education centres. The facilities are provided by the party.”
“Just a clarification. Sir, I regret that such an answer has been given because I have seen the letter and that letter is from the NTUC and signed by an official of the NTUC. So he was not employed by a political party. Mr George Sita was specifically employed by the NTUC. So do not twist the facts around.”
“No. He does his job. A day's work for a day's pay.”
“No. Mr Ong Teng Cheong: That's all. Since he is acting against the interests of the organization, the organization has the right to remove him.”
“Sir, whatever the employer does is no concern of the employee. The employer can have 10 resolutions, the employee can affiliate himself with any number of political parties. We are talking about the livelihood of the employee. He believes in something. He has got the freedom to choose. And he works. He gives of his best, he is best suited for the job, he has got the best skills. He does not get himself involved in politics while doing his job. He does it outside his job. He does not persuade others, fellow workers, to adopt his political leanings. But per se, because of his extra-curricular political activities, he is dismissed. This is what we are discussing now, in principle.”
“Sir, as far as I know about the cases in point - the two taxi-drivers - it was reported in the papers soon after the elections. They had been deprived of their permits to drive NTUC taxis. And their dismissal or relieving them of their jobs was never challenged by the NTUC in any way to say that they had misbehaved or they had misconducted themselves. It was never challenged by the NTUC. So there was a strong implication that they were removed. And I believe the NTUC came out with a statement, and the words used by the NTUC were that they were "opposition political activists". Those were the words used. So my question to the Minister for Labour is this: does the Government condone employers from dismissing workers whose political affiliations are different from the employer's? I think he has made the case quite strongly that there should be no prejudices as regards race, age, religion, or even language. And I thoroughly agree with him that the best person should be given the job. And I think he should not make an exception with regard to politics. Sir, just another point. The person does not involve himself in politics at the job, he just does his work, and he was dismissed. In fact, there is nothing, no implication that he was involved in politics during his work. I think that is important.”
“Since the Second Deputy Prime Minister has brought up the name of George Sita, Sir, I have seen his appointment letter to teach at BEST classes, and he was appointed by the NTUC. The letter of appointment was by the NTUC. There is no clue or there is no sign to say that he was, in fact, in any way employed by the PAP. So that is quite clear. If you challenge that in court, you can see that that letter wholly comes from the NTUC and there is no employment from a political party. As regards the other two taxi-drivers who have lost their job, Sir, I do not know what employment contract they have with the taxis. But I believe they have been given some kind of a permit to drive NTUC taxis. But in any event, they have lost their job - that is the important point.”
“Sir, NTUC has affiliated companies. I believe NTUC Comfort has got some connections with the NTUC. I am not clear as to what the connections are but the fact that the name is NTUC Comfort and the company was initiated by NTUC, I believe there is some connection. As far as I know, there are two taxi drivers who have been deprived of their driving permits to drive NTUC taxis. Nevertheless, they have lost their jobs as a result. Also I believe the NTUC organizes BEST classes and they do employ teachers directly. I know of one case, a teacher, who has been employed by the NTUC, and not by the PAP NTUC, who has been relieved of his job because of his political affiliation. So there are, in fact, three cases already in point.”
“Sir, I wonder if the Minister supports this view - not taking the NTUC as an example - is it right for an employer to select his employees based on political affiliations or to sack a worker subsequently if he has got different political leanings of his own? Let us not take the NTUC. Let us take a case in principle. The Second Deputy Prime Minister (Mr Ong Teng Cheong): Sir, I think it will be good if Mr Chiam would explain or specify the particular case he is referring to so that we will be able to answer his point. Mr Chiam See Tong: Sir, I think this is an important principle because if NTUC is the only labour organization in Singapore or I should say probably the main labour organization, it is setting a precedent. If that precedent is not challenged, other employers could do the same and I do not think workers who are members of the NTUC could then complain.”
“Sir, may I get the Minister's view on employers who discri- minate against workers who have got a different political affiliation. I agree with the Minister that there must not be advertisements which state that an applicant must be of a certain race, age or religion. I also agree with him that an employee should be selected on the basis of his skills and qualifications. We have noted that certain employers have sacked workers because they join different parties for themselves or have different political affiliations. May I have the Minister's comments on that?”
“Sir, how many of these Construction Brigade national servicemen have been trained to date and how many of these trainees have, in fact, gone into the construction industry?”
“Sir, are these conversions the amalgamation of two or more flats together? For these converted flats, are there special conditions for people who want to apply them?”
“Sir, will the Minister be willing to put this amendment to the Select Committee? I am sure there are many other suggestions which could be very fruitful. The second one is: why the need for a guarantor when there is already a minimum sum of $30,000 as a requirement first?”
“Sir, how many percent of our refuse are dumped instead of being sent to the incinerators?”
“I do not know. If you are just going to get men based on just pay, then if there is really a final crunch, will these people stay in the midst of the greatest danger? So I am objecting, as I said, not for political gains or score political points, but based on principles, because I say that Ministers are leaders of the country and their aim is to give public service and therefore our criteria should not be the salary to attract them. There must be something more. I believe in the idealistic approach.”
“There is no basis of comparison. If you want to go into public service, go the whole hog. I know in our materialistic society today, probably there are difficulties in getting good men. But in the early days Singapore was able to get good men and I cannot see why we should not strive harder or, in fact, get some of the old guards back. In the army, if you want to be the General, if you want to be the leader, you do not get the best position. You do not adopt the safest position. The leader is the one who, when he says "Charge", he is right in front, charging, just like the Prime Minister. But with all these incentives of salary, pay, I do not know whether or not our leaders today, when they say "Charge", will be in front or will they be behind. Because if you are going for pay alone, you have not got that commitment to really be in front. It is those people with the commitment who will, when they say "charge", be in front there. But if you pay them a salary, even a bigger pay, when you say "charge", he will look around and say, "You chaps better go first. I don't want the salary." I think that is a problem there. If we adopt this materialistic approach, in the long run if there is a real crunch, let us say if there is a war, what will happen to our leaders? Will they be here? Like Winston Churchill, he refused to get out of London.In the midst of the blitz he remained there. He was not concerned with his pay and salary. He was there, the leader. The leader must be in the midst of the war.”
“Sir, now that the Prime Minister has mentioned about my pay as MP, is $4,000 enough? I am not saying that it is not enough. I did not say that. It is very subjective. The Prime Minister has said that this is my 13th year in politics. After three tries, the fourth try I was successful. How do you gauge your salary for all those works done and trouble and the sort of uncomfortableness that you have put in. I think it is really difficult to put a peg at a certain pay rise. In Singapore's context, I think Ministers' salary should have a basis, not based on market value, but really what is enough for that standard of living and a bit extra, if you like. Because I think basically Ministers should take the lead, if we really want to build a nation. Of course, if we are running a company, then it is a different matter altogether. The whole idea of going into business is profit. That is the aim. If anybody who says he wants to go into business for public good, I think you had better close your business. That is the main fault of the Malaysians. They get into politics and they want to set up cooperatives. There is a conflict. You cannot go into politics and do business at the same time. Either you go into business or you go into politics. You cannot mix the two. That is their mistake. So if you want to go into business, by all means and if you can make $151,000 a month, I wish him good luck. I do not envy him at all and if they are paid $196,000 per month or even $10 million if he makes in one deal, I do not envy him. That is his aim in business. But we cannot compare political salary with people in the private sector. There is no basis of comparison because the two aims are different. One is public service, the other is profit. How can you compare the two? You cannot.”
“People will be asking. To me, I think it is embarrassing to give myself a pay rise.”
“Yes, Mrs Thatcher, the English Prime Minister. How much are you going to pay her for that? Really there is no such thing as a pay which is enough. We should look at Singapore's context and look at what philosophy we are applying, whether it is an out-and-out capitalist philosophy or whether there are some socialist principles, which we should adopt. If we are going to adopt the socialist principles, then there must be a lot of self-restraint. Salaries of Ministers appropriately, I think, should not be decided by Ministers as I think the Second Deputy Prime Minister has said, it is embarrassing to give yourself a pay rise. Have I got it correctly?”
“Sir, can Singapore produce Albert Schweitzers? I think we actually did. [Laughter].Do not laugh. I think we have one. I remember reading in the Straits Times we have got one Dr Ang. I think she went to Lebanon in the danger of losing her life to treat the wounded in the civil war there. How much are you going to pay her? In the case of Margaret Thatcher, she was responsible at least for policy making. I believe she was responsible for the victory in the Falklands War. An hon. Member: Is it?”
“I do not know how our Members of Parliament in this House from the labour movement are going to explain to their members. I believe the average worker in Singapore earns not more than $1,000. I think 80% earn less than $1,000 per month. If you look at the advertisements in the papers, you see all kinds of perks given to a factory operator - $560 starting pay and together with this and that, at the most it is $700-plus. If we look at it another way, a worker has to work 30 months to get the same pay as a Minister if we take the average pay of Ministers as $30,000. A Minister works one month, our average worker has to work 30 months and if our --- [Interruption]. Yes, I think that is a basis of comparison. Can we say that a Minister is so valuable that the differential is so great as far as nation building is concerned? Sir, how do you pay Albert Schweitzer? Albert Schweitzer was a German philosopher, a great organist of Bach, he was an expert in the works of Bach, and he was also a great surgeon. He went to deep Africa, gave his life to the Africans.”
“And I remember also reading, when the other Ministers got a pay rise, the Prime Minister voluntarily refrained from getting a pay rise. Why did he come into politics? It is the drive, the urge to contribute to nation building, to make Singapore independent, to make Singapore great. That is the drive, not the pay. I think the Prime Minister himself said pay was irrelevant. That is very true - pay is irrelevant. People who go into politics in the early days did not think of pay at all. They did not think of material benefits. They just had one goal, and that is, nation building. Sir, of course, this is a different era. Today in the eighties, the situation is different from the early days when the PAP started out to strive for self-government and then independence. But it is a pity, really a pity, the PAP has lost much of its idealism. I believe the PAP started out with great ideals. They had democratic socialism in mind. They were working genuinely for the people and the masses of the people supported them wholesale because they had that idealism. They were not working for themselves. They were working for the people. Now the PAP has come to a situation where I think even the old guards say that the PAP is not recognizable to them. It is a differet PAP today. Sir, we have this revision of Ministers' salary. As I said, salary scales are subjective. There must be a basis for these salary scales. Of course, the PAP's basis is to attain the market value of Ministers. But there is another way of looking at Ministers' salary, and that is, to compare it to the average salary of the worker. The workers contribute to the creation of wealth in this country. Labour is a true source of wealth - labour, land and of course other resources.”
“I suppose in the circumstance, if you look at it, if the Government wants this kind of a system, I suppose the people will have to decide whether or not we want the system that the Government is building for Singapore. Pay Ministers, pay civil servants, that amount of salary which the Government thinks should be enough and then no more for you, no more corruption, that is all you are getting. I suppose in a way there are merits in this kind of a system. In other words, you pay the person up to the limit, and that is all he is getting. Unlike other countries, as the First Deputy Prime Minister has said, it amounts to hypocrisy - people coming into politics, get a very low meagre pay and then from the side they make big, big monies by corruption. I suppose that is also a very bad system. So I think we understand what this present system is: to attract, as the First Deputy Prime Minister has said, the people from the limited talent pool to encourage them to come into politics and then, with their eyes open, "This is all that you are getting, and no more." Sir, but pay is a very subjective matter. How much is enough? You cannot really determine an amount. As I see this Annex B, the Prime Minister is getting $38,275. Is this enough? If you really look at his contributions, it is peanuts. It is really not enough. He has brought Singapore to what it is today (I mean, of course, with the help of others) not he alone, but his leadership. It is not enough. What is enough? Even if you pay him $1 million a year, it is not enough. $2 million? Sir, I remember a long time ago, I believe the PAP Ministers started off with $3,000 a month, or was it $3,500. That was all.”
“Of course, they get paid. Sir, that is the idealistic approach to leadership. Sir, we can tell countless stories of British administrators, judges, teachers, doctors, who have gone to far-off tropical places. I know, for sure, of two teachers who had taught in a Kuala Lumpur mission school all their life and on retirement they went back to England to spend their last days in a nursing home. This is the sort of dedication they give to their service. They were unmarried; they were ladies. They even had no one to take care of them on their retirement. Sir, this is the sort of idealism that the British were able to build up. Sir, there are vast numbers of people working in professions, in jobs, which need this kind of idealism. I am thinking of nurses, doctors, teachers, perhaps even our armed forces, people who keep law and order. So how are you going to judge the salary of these people - nurses, doctors, who save the lives of people. What is the value you are going to set for them? You cannot really set a price. It is their dedication to the job that saves lives, that keeps the health service up. And teachers. This Government is moaning that there are not enough teachers. Why? Because probably the system we are building up is based on materialism, on pay. So our young talented people are not idealistic enough to go into the teaching profession and we have difficulties getting our bright young boys to go into the teaching profession. Hopefully, many of our real good talents would not be disappointed with our system and run to places where they feel that they can get a more fulfilling life. Sir, this Government I believe takes a materialistic approach.”
“Sir, I believe that was how the British Empire was built, not by materialistic pay. It was the idealism that was built in the British people. In the early days, I believe that if you go into any British classroom you will see a map of the world and you can see the red markings all over the maps, and the teacher will say, "Look, that is a British colony under our domain. And we are there to rule these people for their benefit". Of course, they put it in another way. Whether you agree or not but this is how the British approached it in an idealistic way. And in the public schools they bring up their children to be administrators to their colonies to work for the Empire, not specifically for pay. An hon. Member: They didn't get paid?”
“Or we can have the second principle, and that is, to take an idealistic approach - a sense of public service. These are two contrasting approaches to the salaries of Ministers and other political appointees. Sir, in most western countries, I think they adopt not the former but the latter - an idealistic approach. Because Mininisters and political appointees and Members of Parliament, they are leaders of the country, whether they like it or not. Sir, they have to set the example; they have to set the mores, they have to set the standard of honesty, they have to set the standard of conduct for others to follow. I think it was Mr Chou En-Lai. He was once interviewed and he said, "Yes, we leaders have to go 100% and if our followers at least keep up to 50% or 60%, we know at least that they are getting on somewhere." Sir, I remember when I was in England, not in the last general elections of the British Parliament but the one before, Mrs Margeret Thatcher, in her speech after winning the general elections, thanked all voters for returning her to office again, and she said that the appointment of the Prime Ministership is power given to her by the people on trust. It is not beneficially given to her. It is given to her on trust. She is holding that position on trust for the people. It is not hers at all. So that is how politics is approached in England. It is the idealistic approach. She is there to work for the people, not for herself. Sir, the British all these years have the idealistic approach to leadership. If you are in London and you visit the cathedrals or any of the prominent buildings, you will notice that there are many statues, many plaques put up on the walls extolling their citizens who have given public service.”
“Thank you, Mr Chairman, for allowing me to speak. Sir, before I begin, may I ask the First Deputy Prime Minister to clarify certain points. Other than the amount of salary received as stated in Annex B, whether or not Ministers have other perks. If there are, what are they? Whether Ministers pay income tax? And how does this salary scale of Ministers compare to that of England, Australia and New Zealand, if he has got the data? Sir, I certainly do not have any objection to the increase of salary for the civil servants. But I think the civil servants and the political appointees are distinct and separate. They are two different entities. Normally, in a democratic country the civil servants are a permanent feature. Whatever political party is in power, the civil servants are left intact. There is a sense of continuity. In Japan and in England the civil servants have a very big say in the running of the country. In fact, in Japan, I believe, they not only carry out the day-to-day administration of the country, but they are also responsible for policy. So I do not begrudge them. They are really carrying the burden of running the country. What we are talking today is salary revisions of political appointees. I think there are really two principles to be adopted. I am objecting, not as Mr Chandra Das has said, to score political points. I hope I have not spoken in this House just to score political points. I think one must speak of one's belief and of one's conviction. Sir, I am objecting to the increase of Ministers' salaries on principle. As I say, there are two principles, I believe, which are at issue today. The first is you pay the Minister with a materialistic approach. You pay him his market value, as we have been told in this House.”
“Of course, in the communist countries and the eastern countries they excel in sports for a specific purpose. Sir, that is to prove to other countries their social system is better. They might be true in certain aspects. But in Singapore today, I think our emphasis just on academic excellence is really lop-sided. There should be a balance up with some sporting activities so that our children can really grow up to be developed all round.”
“And as regards the social level, sports is a very good means of getting social cohesion because if people are really interested in sports, whether he is a company director or he is a labourer, they will get together for a common pursuit. Sir, above all, our schools should encourage our children to enjoy sports. I think that is the key, not to tell them, "If you take up sports you will be healthy." I do not think we should approach in that aspect. Teach him to enjoy, teach him to acquire a skill for life and the health aspect of it will come with it.”
“Sir, the Government has announced that it would promote sports. But when I look at the budget allocations I only find that most of the money were given for capital development. $12.37 million to the Singapore Sports Council to take over canteens, cafeterias of sports complexes from the HDB. Then there was an increase of $2.37 million or 4.8% in grant mainly due to a large grant given to the Singapore Sports Council to meet additional recurrent expenditure on maintenance of new sports facilities. Then a sum of $2.05 million was provided as a loan to the SSC to carry out major repairs to the National Stadium. There was no mention of allocation of funds to sportsmen and their coaches. Sir, I think the Minister should look more into this area because our sportsmen are really not given enough financial support. If we want to shine in the international level, our sportsmen must be given real support. Sir, sad to say, our sports level as far as the international standard is concerned, is at the kampong level. I think we have to do something to build up one or two champions and that will give inspiration to other sportsmen. Sir, the Member for Yio Chu Kang has talked about culture. I think sports is, in fact, part of culture. I think it should not be downgraded. The public schools in England stressed on sports. It was said that the Battle of Waterloo was won at the playing fields of Eton. That has much to say for sports. Sir, sports has many benefits. It is not just for the materialist aspect of getting good health. Sports builds up courage, character of a person, disciplines him, teaches him fair play, his ability to take defeat and get him into the right spirit of cooperation with others.”
“Sir, may I seek clarification from the Minister? I am interested in the 12 child care centres that have been proposed to be built in void deck blocks. May I know from the Minister whether her Ministry has already decided where these child care centres will be built? And whether or not Potong Pasir is included in the programme?”
“Sir, I thank the Minister for his answer and I also would like to accept his suggestion that there should be a full debate on this matter. I would certainly take it up.”
“Is there not a role for the Opposition in Singapore to be part of this nation building?”
“Sir, can I be given just one minute to clarify one point? It has been stated many a time by the Government that the CCs are also a tool of nation building.”
“Only Opposition MP. Correct, thank you. Long before the last general elections took place, I announced that if I were to be elected again, the Town Council at Potong Pasir shall be non-political. I have carried out that promise. Out of a Council of 9 members excluding myself, 7 have no political affiliations whatsoever with my Party. I can be outvoted on every issue by the majority of the Town Council if they so wish. But I know I have no fear at all. I have full confidence in my Council members because I know they are all responsible and good citizens and will only act for the interest of Potong Pasir Town. In similar vein, the Government should have no fear to appoint me the adviser to the CCMC of Potong Pasir CC. If I were to be appointed, the CC at Potong Pasir will really become apolitical. As I see it, the real issue is really not whether the Opposition will convert the CC to become a hive of political activities which the Government knows that it cannot be done in present-day Singapore social context. But the issue is the acceptability of the Opposition into the system. The Opposition up to now is still treated like a stepchild and has still not been accepted fully into our social and political system of the Government.”
“There is no chance whatsoever that the social, political, economic situation can be reverted back to that of the early 1960s when there was mass unemployment and the nation building process had just begun. The Government's early fears of the Communists cannot be translated into fear of the Opposition today. The Opposition today is not conspiratorial. We are open and above board in all our activities. We have worked within the parameters laid down by the Government. In fact, it is insulting to the Opposition to be treated with great suspicion by the Government. As far as I am concerned, as the only elected Member in Parliament, I am in fact angry.”
“Yet, I have been refused as an MP to take charge of the community centre at Potong Pasir. In my place, as I have been told, a PAP candidate rejected by the voters at the last general election, despite his promise to build an Olympic-sized swimming pool at Potong Pasir if he were elected, has been installed as the adviser to the community centre management committee (CCMC) of Potong Pasir CC. Anyone who followed the last general elections will also remember that that PAP candidate promised to pack up together with all his grassroots supporters and leave Potong Pasir if he lost the elections. The question is: what is he doing at Potong Pasir Community Centre now? Sir, the Prime Minister was reported in the Straits Times of 30th June 1985 to have said: 'The style of the community centres has changed with time. However, the objectives and role of the PA remain as embodied in the People's Association Act passed in 1960. From the outset, the government anticipated the necessity of insulating the PA and the management of its community centres from interference by political parties or opposition MPs. The PA and the community centres are instruments of the government to carry out its policies of nation building.' Sir, I do understand why that policy was adopted in 1960. Those were turbulent times. The threat of a Communist takeover was there. The Government had to use the community centres as political instruments to win over the hearts and minds of the people and also to be as listening posts for the Government. We are now in the 1980s, more than 20 years since the People's Association Act was made law. There are no more internal or external Communist threats. The Opposition is constitutionally elected.”