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 50 of 85.
“Sir, I am very much obliged to you. I am very thankful, Sir. Sir, I have on record an offer in relation to Chia Thye Poh to the Government. I think it is only proper the Minister should give me an answer: either he accepts, he rejects or is he going to have more time to ponder over it?”
“I wish Mr Peter Sung would stay awake and not sleep while I am talking. I did not say any of those things. I did not accept the concept of an Elected President, but I am putting your arguments to support the review by our courts in regard to detention under the Internal Security Act. Sir, as regards the Privy Council, I have not touched on that part of the law in regard to the ISA at all. If you have followed my speech, I have left that out completely. I do not know how he could bring it up.”
“Much obliged to you, Sir. Sir, I brought to your attention that Dr Ong Chit Chung, in my view, has committed a contempt of court. The Privy Council is part of our judicial system and he cannot just say five Law Lords sitting there in England and if they make the wrong decision it is just too bad. I think it is contempt of court. It is a very irresponsible statement. You have to make your ruling. If it is not contempt we will leave it on record. If it is contempt then we have to strike it out.”
“Sir, I have brought one matter before you. You have not made a ruling.”
“Sir, may I point out that Dr Ong Chit Chung has said that five Law Lords in England, if they give the wrong reason they would just say, "It is too bad." I think this is contempt of court.”
“Sir, it has been said that the American bases in the Philippines are to protect us from the Communists. Why should they undermine our security?”
“This is a serious matter. But Mr Davinder Singh has attempted to turn it into a joke. If one of his brothers were to be detained for 20 years, I wonder what his feelings will be like. This is not an illegal contract. The Government itself wants Chia Thye Poh to sign an undertaking so that he can be released. It is not a legal contract. We are men of our words. We have given an undertaking not to be decided by the courts of law but to be decided by the people of Singapore. Where do you stand? Are you bound by your words? That is what it is all about in politics. I think Mr Davinder Singh, briefly only in Parliament, has a lot more to learn.”
“Sir, if the review board is to be effective, I think some non-government people should be in it. Otherwise it will always be seen to be not independent. As regards whether or not I would let the people of Potong Pasir down, I think it is no concern of Dr Arthur Beng. It is between me and my constituents. 2.02 pm”
“I object to the tone of turning this into a joke, Sir. This is a serious matter.”
“' I would have thought, Mr Speaker, Sir, that is as clear a statement as you can make. The cards were put on the table. Ican understand Mr Chiam might be squeamish about making a speech on this subject in an election campaign. But I would further ask whether a corresponding paragraph could be found in the SDP or Workers' Party manifesto. Mr Chiam See Tong: Sir, I think the Minister is trying to divert the issue at the moment. The issue at the moment is whether or not Mr Chia Thye Poh is a threat to national security. If they say no, release him, accept my undertaking. We are not talking about internal security generally. There may or may not be grounds for retaining the Internal Security Act. But the point is that exercise of power has been done and one of our citizens under the so-called administrative detention has been locked up for 22 years. Is that right? If we have got a conscience, if we have got feelings for our fellow citizens, I want to ask the Government: is that right? Is he really that great a danger or is it just a face-saving device like what the Asians say, they are trying to save their face? I have given an undertaking because I take the seriousness of this. I think Singapore people must have a heart. And if we are going to have a heart, let us show it. Release Mr Chia now. I have got everything to lose. I have got no connections with Mr Chia whatsoever nothing to gain. But he is a Singaporean and we must care for him.”
“They were harping only on the town councils. In fact, even the Agenda for Action, the programme in it, was never discussed at the General Elections. That is as far as I know. BG Lee Hsien Loong: Mr Speaker, Sir, the reason the ISA did not get discussed was not for want of trying of the Government or the PAP. The reason it was not discussed was that all the Opposition parties, including the Workers' Party and those who had newly joined the Workers' Party, funked the issue. May I quote, therefore, to establish this from the Party programme, the PAP Programme "More Good Years", which we issued before the Election campaign and, when we gave a press briefing introducing this programme, I specifically highlighted these paragraphs: 'To safeguard our prosperity and stability, the Government must be vigilant. From time to time, foreign elements and their proxies try to meddle in Singapore's affairs. Subversive groups try to exploit our rules to break our system. If we allow them to destabilise our society, by organising a covert network of pressure groups, staging mass protests, and causing rioting, bloodshed and violence, as Vincent Cheng intended to do, then we can forget about 9% growth or extra bonuses. The PAP government believes we need the ISA to preserve our tranquillity and freedom. Without the ISA, no government can protect Singaporeans from those who mean us harm, and seek to overthrow our democratic system. But the Government can only act on behalf of the people of Singapore. Ultimately, you must decide: do you still want to deal firmly with threats to our security? Or should we be more tolerant of potential threats, even though they may exploit our tolerance as a weakness, and grow stronger and more dangerous to tackle later? The choice is yours.”
“Sir, I want to ask the Minister and ask the Government: Is it not cruel, is it not inhuman to have preventive detention of one of our citizens for 22 years, coming to 23 years next October, and his health is failing and he has got no organization, nothing? The question is: Is he a threat to national security? Sir, in my judgment, I do not think so. That is why I dare to give this undertaking. I am sticking my neck out and putting it on the chopping block. Sir, because I do not think so. I have thought about it, my party members have spoken to members of his family. And by looking at the family background we can tell more or less the person from that family. So it is therefore now a question of my judgment against the judgment of the Government whether or not he is a security threat. I say no; the Government says yes. But I have given my undertaking. I want the Government to respond to that. Does the Government accept my undertaking and release Chia Thye Poh now without conditions? BG Lee Hsien Loong: Mr Speaker, Sir, that is not the question. I have already, in passing, referred to the futility of forcing Mr Chiam out of this House as a result of Mr Chia Thye Poh committing violence. Attractive and inviting though the neck may be on the chopping block, I fear it is the wrong neck. The question is: Why did he not mention this during the General Election? Mr Chiam See Tong: Sir, as far as I know, during the last Elections, the Government hardly mentioned the Internal Security Act. Some hon. Members: No!”
“Sir, the Minister for Trade and Industry has made a long speech although he was only supposed to ask for clarification.”
“] Sir, the undertaking reads: 'I Chiam See Tong, MP for Potong Pasir, in consideration of the Government of Singapore releasing Chia Thye Poh from detention, ordered under the ISA, immediately and unconditionally shall act as his guarantor that Mr Chia Thye Poh will not participate in any violent activity calculated to overthrow the legitimate government of Singapore for the duration of the life of the 7th Parliament and should Chia Thye Poh be proven to participate in the said violent activity within the said period then I shall resign as Member of Parliament for Potong Pasir and refrain from taking part in politics for the remaining period of this Parliament.'”
“Sir, I believe that if we are going to practise what we promote the Government is going to promote Confucianism I think we have to be human. Sir, I have never met Mr Chia myself. I have only met his father and sister quite recently at two dinners (one organized by the Workers' Party and one organized by my Party). He is not in any way affiliated to me politically. Two of my party members had visited Mr Chia's home and they reported to me that the family is law-abiding; the sister is a devout Christian and the younger brother is an engineer. It was also reported that Mr Chia Thye Poh's health is getting bad, his eyesight is failing. I think it is humane and compassionate if the Government should release him immediately. Sir, I am willing to give an undertaking to act as a guarantor for the release of Mr Chia Thye Poh and should he within the next five years, within the duration of this Parliament, participate in any violence, I will undertake to resign my seat as Member of Parliament and refrain from taking part in politics for the remainder of the period of this Parliament. Sir, this is no laughing matter. If you think it really properly, a man has been detained for 22 years. Let us not be insensitive; let us not be so hard. I think there is good ground for releasing Mr Chia. If I could act in any way as an intermediary, or in any way, for the release of Mr Chia Thye Poh, I will do it. Sir, I have prepared this undertaking in writing. Perhaps I will submit it for circulation. [Copy of undertaking handed to the Clerk.”
“But under the present system, Sir, there is no check on the Government at all. It can smack down anyone it likes. It requires only to give a flimsy reason. There is no effective avenue for remedy if the Government is wrong in its decision. The Advisory Board, Sir, is seen by the public not to be independent. In any event, it only advises the Government and the Government is not bound to accept its recommendations. Sir, as a result of having the Internal Security Act which allows administrative or preventive detention, as the Minister terms it, there is one citizen of Singapore, Mr Chia Thye Poh, has suffered under this so-called preventive detention, 22 years of incarceration since October 1966. Sir, we have gone through this matter in 1985. The Government says that Mr Chia only needs to sign an undertaking that he will not support the Communist Party of Malaya or to be its member and to give up force to overthrow the Government of Singapore. But Mr Chia has written to the Minister, I believe, denying that he is a member of the Communist Party of Malaya or, in fact, even applied for membership, and that he has not really advocated violence to overthrow the Government of Singapore. Sir, I am myself convinced that he is no security threat to Singapore under our present conditions. If he were a security threat, why does the Government allow him to be released under certain conditions. If he really wants to indulge in violence, in any event he will give an undertaking and come out to participate in violence, because violence does not obey the law. Sir, to detain a person for 22 years is inhuman, whatever way you look at it. I feel that I have come here not just to ask for his immediate release.”
“If the Government can convince the Opposition that there is justification for each arrest under the ISA, the Opposition shall support the Government in the exercise of that power.”
“On the issue of whether or not to continue to give the Government absolute power, I believe the majority of the people of Singapore will oppose it. I know for sure the spouses, parents, relatives and friends of Chia Thye Poh, Vincent Cheng, Chng Suan Tze, Kenneth Tsang, Kevin De Souza, Chew Kheng Chuan, Teo Soh Lung and Wong Souk Yee, will definitely oppose this amendment. Sir, Singapore's present political system is still a copy of that of England, the Westminster parliamentary democratic system, and our judiciary, except for a few changes, like the abolition of the jury, is basically a copy of the English judicial system. Under such a system, unless there is imminent national or security danger to the state, there is really no justice for the state to be allowed to arbitrarily arrest or detain its citizens without the recourse to our courts. Our courts, if the amendment is allowed, can only look at the procedural matters in regard to an arrest under the ISA. That is not justice. What this House is asked to do is likened to giving a big bully in a kampong all the powers to do whatever he likes. Is this analogy wrong? I do not think so. With absolute powers of arrest and detention, this Government sooner or later will act like a big bully. The whole population will be coerced and cowed and the majority of our people will become intimidated and become submissive. We shall perpetuate the culture of fear in Singapore. Unless of course the Government changes the ground rules and follow the Japanese model, as explained to us by the Minister of State for Trade and Industry at the previous sitting, then it could be a different matter altogether. The Government shall have to take the Opposition into confidence.”
“Sir, may I be allowed to speak on the amendment to the Internal Security Act? I rise to oppose the Bill. The Minister wants this House to continue to give the Government absolute power for detention of any person in Singapore. The amendment before the House arises from our Court of Appeal's decision on 8th December 1988. Sir, I have the highest regard for our courts. In that judgment, our learned judges said that henceforth they shall want to see, like precedents set in England, the evidence from the Minister whether the person to be detained is a threat to national security. The Government holds that if that is the case our High Court judges will be the final arbiters in questions of national security. That is not true. What the decision of 8th December really means is that (1) the Government is not above the rule of law; (2) the courts want to ensure the freedom of the individual; (3) there is no arbitrary use of power and the abuse of power by the Government; and (4) justice not only must be done but manifestly seen to be done. Sir, the Government in campaigning for the installation of an Elected President advocates strongly for a second key to protect our national reserves. Similarly, Sir, it is not wrong for the people of Singapore to ask for a second key, that is, the said review of evidence by our courts, to protect the freedom of the individual. How can, Sir, I agree to a principle to give absolute power to the Government to arrest whoever it likes? I cannot do that. It is true that in the last general elections the people of Singapore gave the Government an overwhelming mandate 80 seats in Parliament out of 81 seats but that does not mean that the people of Singapore have given the Government a blank cheque to do whatever it likes.”
“Sir, may I be allowed on a point of clarification from the last speaker? He says that the Communist threat to Singapore is still real or something to that effect. Sir, he has made a very strong statement. May I know whether this threat is from without or within and, if so, what evidence has he got for saying so?”
“Yes, that is the position. It was a precedent set in 1984. So there is a clear distinction. They are, in fact, coming into this House under the invitation of the PAP. About numbers, I think we have got a small constituency and therefore our numbers will have to be less. But the percentage, I obtained 62.3%, better than many of the Ministers here.”
“Now it is not so. Let me clarify. In the previous elections, Mr Tan Chee Kien was invited. He refused, on principle. Then Mr M.P.D. Nair was invited. He also refused, on principle. But the Government stopped at that point. By right, you should have invited the third best. But it was your choice. In other words, the Government is given the discretion whether or not to invite whoever they like to come into Parliament. An hon. Member: No.”
“I am much obliged to you, Sir. I think the Minister for Foreign Affairs has brought up an irrelevant point. We are contesting under the first-past-the-post system. So even if you lose by a whisker, you lose. Whether it is 49.999% or whatever, it is still a loss. This is the system that we have. We are competing under your system. We are not talking about proportional representation. That is another distinct system whereby under the law which says, "If you get 5% or more or whatever percentage, you are in by virtue of the law." But the difference here is that these MP-designates have to wait for the letter to come from the ruling party.”
“Of course, it is no. If you start to compromise on this principle, Sir, then we might as well not have any elections at all. We leave it to the ruling party to invite whoever they like to come into Parliament.”
“Sir, immediately after the last general elections, our party announced that we were not accepting any NCMP seats if letters of invitation were received from the ruling party. Because this is a very important principle.”
“The difference is that the elected MP has the mandate of those who have put him in Parliament. Whereas the NCMP has no mandate; he has been invited by the ruling party. He is here by the grace of the Government. That is the distinction.”
“Sir, we are talking of representation as it stands at the moment. Of course, everybody represents somebody. Each one of us here who is elected represents a constituency. But there is a difference between the NCMP and an elected MP.”
“Sir, I gave a talk to university students, lecturers and professors recently and this same question was asked of me. The Prime Minister apparently has remarked that we are not having good people because I fear competition. I do not fear competition, Sir. In fact, I love competition. That is the reason why I want the Potong Pasir community centre to be run by the Opposition so that we can give them more competition. Sir, I am not afraid. In fact, if there are more elected Opposition MPs in this House, I would be very very happy. Unfortunately, we tried our best but only one got in.”
“I want him to clarify. I am asking for clarification. The other thing that I require clarification is that he supports the Minister for Trade and Industry. He says bring in NCMPs drawn from the university and the Chambers of Commerce. And to have more NCMPs is a step in the right direction. He says this is democratic. But does he not agree with me that democracy means representation? All these people who come in as NCMPs do not represent any constituency at all. So where is the principle of representation in regard to this type of MPs?”
“Sir, may I be allowed to ask for clarifications in regard to two points? The first one is in regard to the statement made by Dr Ong. He said that over 1% drop of the PAP's vote is disappointing and disquieting. What I read in the papers about what the Ministers say was just the contrary - it was an overwhelming victory. How does he explain that this is disappointing and disquieting? Mr Chandra Das (Cheng San GRC): Why can't he say it?”
“What is their approach towards the opposition? BG George Yong-Boon Yeo: Apart from factionalism in the Liberal Democratic Party in Japan, I think there is merit in the way the Japanese political system has evolved. There is national stability because when push comes to shove, the interest of the country gather around the ruling party. So there is political stability. They have a highly professional civil service which provides for further institutional stability. At the same time, there is an opposition which in its own way is effective. And which in its own way has to deal with the ruling party. The ruling party, as a matter of course, does not push Bills over the heads of the opposition. And very often, they seek consensus with the opposition. But for that to happen, the opposition itself learns that it must bargain and deal with the ruling party. That may be the way we will evolve in this Parliament.”
“I am very happy with the answers that he has given. But I still cannot fathom: how are you going to reconcile democratic values and Confucianist values which are basically undemocratic? How do you reconcile the two? How are you going to adapt Confucianist values and fit them into our democratic system or democratic values? How do you do that? BG George Yong-Boon Yeo: I do not have a precise answer because that is a solution we are now seeking in this House. But by way of analogy, by way of example, I think it would be instructive for us to look at how Japan has successfully integrated democracy with Confucianism. The institutional forms are outwardly democratic. In fact, their parliamentary system, their Diet, is not unlike the British system. The original inspiration was American and many of their laws are, in fact, based on American laws. But the practice is Japanese. So if we look at Japan, look at the way they have, in their own style, blended the two together. I think there is in the Japanese example a case study for us to look at.”
“What about democratic values? How do you reconcile them with Confucianist values? BG George Yong-Boon Yeo: They too must evolve. The democratic and Confucianist values that we evolve for ourselves must represent a new synthesis of past ideas. Such is the nature of human thought. Ideas appear to reflect what they were in the past. But in the process of cyclical change, new developments have taken place. And what we are talking about are ideas which will enable us to exploit the full potential of the technological age. Look at what societies in the West today are doing. They are scrambling to find out why East Asia has been so successful in the last 20 years. And they have exhausted their own indigenous intellectual resources as to what makes the East tick and what is now giving the West problem. I think there is today a situation where Western theory lags behind world practice.”
“Yes. If I heard him correctly, apparently the Taiwan way is the way we should take. I do not know whether he said it. Taiwan is different from us. They are a homogeneous race. Our problem here is multi-racialism. He did not address this area in which is perhaps our main problem. On democratic values, he said that we should uphold democratic values. How do you reconcile democratic values with Confucianist values which are not democratic? BG George Yong-Boon Yeo: I am not recommending the Taiwanese model for ourselves. When I said that this is the approach we should follow, I was referring to the approach of syncretism, that we should not only be looking back to the past to decide what we want for the future. What we are witnessing in Asia today is a clash of civilizations, of Western ideas impacting on Eastern civilizations with its own long traditions and producing a new synthesis. So in deciding what our national values should be, we should look forward and not backwards. That was the point I was making.”
“Can I get a clarification from the Minister of State?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, that must be one of the most enlightened maiden speeches I have heard.”
“Now the Government has realized the seriousness of the problem and is now taking the correct stand on cultural development. But it is necessary to recognize the root cause of the problem and correct the attitude towards cultural promotion before we can carry out the task better. When promoting cultural educa- tion, it is necessary to recognize the fact that it is a task that will require a long time to achieve, quite unlike economic development whose result can be seen in a shorter time. It requires patience and resolution in order to promote this task. EXEMPTED BUSINESS (Motion) 3.40 pm Resolved, That the proceedings on the item under discussion be exempted at this day's sitting from the provisions of Standing Order No. 1. - [Mr Wong Kan Seng]. PRESIDENT'S ADDRESS Debate on the Address Debate resumed.”
“I feel, when promoting the work in these matters, it is necessary to seek out the root cause of the problems and thoroughly change our past views and attitude on these questions before we can effectively carry out our work. Cultural education work is a long-term process. It is not like building a house which can be erected within a short time. In the course of gradual cultural development, we can see young people in succeeding generations, under the teaching and influence of culture of correct value, developing correct concept of life, strong national consciousness, bringing up good families and establishing good relationship with relatives and friends. What I would like to point out is that unlike economic development we cannot expect to see the results of cultural education development in a short time. We must be patient and persistent in promoting this task. In conclusion, what I want to say is that our Government now is stressing the importance of Asian value concepts and National Ideology. This is correct. At present, the trend of westernization of the thinking of our younger generation has caused grave social problems in Singapore. This will damage our national unity and social cohesion and destroy the achievement that we have acquired through much effort in the past. To solve this problem, we must seek out the root causes of the problem, one of which is the Government's past policies and manner of implementation or administration. This kind of influence has affected the society and produced the phenomena of a society where people attached much importance to profit and tended to neglect cultural and spiritual values. Such has been the social vogue.”
“On the other hand, other Ministries such as Ministry of Culture, Sports Council and so on which have to spend money were not given much attention to, as a result, their work was hindered or delayed or progress slowed down. Government's attitude towards personnel was also like this. The Government's excessive emphasis on academic qualifications has made the students and the parents also to acquire the same attitude, paying attention only to academic results. So, extracurricular activities which will not help them in getting a better job or in joining a higher institute of learning were generally neglected. What the government look for in these personnel was the material contribution they could make to the State. Therefore, engineers and economists were held very much in esteem and were greatly admired. The Government's attitude towards others was one of benevolent indifference, such as regards the artists, musicians and writers. The attitude of the Government was that, as the grass will bend with the wind, other social and private institutions would take their cue from the Government; as a result, such social vogue was formed. Sir, I fully understand that during nation building, economic development is important. But after a certain stage of economic development and having attained a certain degree of achievement, we must pay attention to the development and promotion of culture and other forms of spiritual growth as the foundation for further national development. I am glad to see that now the Government has paid more attention to non- materialistic topics and has formed many committees to study these topics and propose guidelines for their development.”
“Sir, western thoughts may have their good and bad points. But under the impact of western culture, the traditions we value, such as our concern for the society and the family and respect for the elders, our thrifty and simple lifestyle and our diligent work attitude have been gradually replaced by a more materialistic, individualistic and hedonistic outlook and lifestyle. In recent years, this phenomenon has become more apparent. If this trend were not arrested and if it were allowed to continue and develop, then it will cause great damage to the building up of our national consciousness, the unity of the people and cohesion of our society. This will endanger our future development and wipe out all our past hard won achievements. So we must look into the root causes of this phenomenon in order to solve the problem better. Sure, some people will say that this is the price to pay for modernization or that Singapore is an open society; therefore it is inevitable that western thoughts will filter into our society and their influence felt here, and that the thoughts and behaviour of our young people are consequently affected by western cultures. But I would point out that the Government should also bear part of the responsibility in this matter. Up to very recently, for the cause of nation building we paid much attention to economic construction and development, so much so that whatever was profitable was given great attention and importance to. Therefore, those Ministries or units which could yield great profits, such as Ministry of Finance, EDB, etc. were given great approbation and attention to.”
“--- then I think it is a step backwards. It is not a good value. If you accept Confucius' teaching, you must teach our children the five relationships between the Emperor and his subjects, husband and wife, between the siblings, between citizens. So the husband and wife relationship is one of them. And the husband and wife relationship is not on equal basis. Whereas our law now says that they are on equal basis. When they divorce, they have, in fact, a distribution of matrimonial properties. So how are you going to relate the two? You cannot. You either accept Confucianist values or Western values. Mr Ong Teng Cheong( In Mandarin):I think the Member for Potong Pasir is confused with what I have been saying. I did not propose that we adopt wholesale the five relationships of Confucianism. I have already said that we should discard practices which are bad and outdated, including any Confucianist values. We must skim the cream out of Western or Eastern traditional cultures and values. We should preserve the good ones, and discard the bad ones. I think the Member would not disagree with this. 3.31 pm Mr Chin Harn Tong (Aljunied GRC)( In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, first of all, I would like to thank the President for his Address in this Parliament. His address stresses the importance of Asian value concepts in building our National Ideology. This is very clear. This is also the goal that we should strive for. The trend of westernized thinking of our younger generation is now causing grave concern to all of us. I would like to stress that this problem is very serious. In the period that I lived in, from the 1930's to the 1980's, I have seen many changes in our society and I have also seen the changes in the thinking and behaviour of our young people.”
“Sir, if we are going to replace Confucianist values of husband and wife relationship ---”
“We should accept good values. What is wrong with that?”
“Sir, may I have a further clarification? The Second Deputy Prime Minister says that good values from the West can be accepted. So we have accepted one good value from the West in respect of relationship between husband and wife. Is it not correct? Although we are Asians, we have accepted wholesale the relationship between husband and wife and embodied it in the law upon which the PAP Government pride itself of and, in fact, I think helped it to win elections. So what is wrong with accepting other Western values which are good for us? You have already accepted one in relationships. An hon. Member: Accept one, accept all?”
“Then why are you complaining now? Mr Ong Teng Cheong( In Mandarin):Mr Speaker, Sir, earlier I have explained very clearly. We have learned and absorbed many systems and things from the West, such as freedom in contracting marriage and about the relationship between the husband and the wife, equality between them. It is not wrong. But what I mean to say is that after adopting and enacting the Women's Charter, divorce cases have been on the rise. We are afraid that we may follow the West in having more divorce cases. We must find ways to avoid going in this direction. There is much we can learn from the West. But since we are Orientals, we should be proud of our own cultures and value concepts. If they are good, we should preserve them. It is correct that there should be freedom in contracting marriage. But the husband and the wife should also mutually love and respect each other and be mutually responsible for the family so as to preserve the unity of the family. This is not wrong.”
“Sir, with your permission, may I ask for a clarification from the Second Deputy Prime Minister? I think there is going to be a confusion of what we are going to discuss unless we know exactly what the Government means by "Westernization". Now we hear a new term "modernization". But in any event, the clarification that I want is on family relationship. Is it not true that the Government introduced the Women's Charter and, in fact, took away all the traditional Chinese values and relationships between the husband and wife and introduced a Western system? Is it not true? An hon. Member: Of course.”
“Can I ask one question of the Acting Minister for Health? He says there is a decline in the requirement for C-class beds at the moment from 70%-odd to 64%. Could it be that patients could not get the type of medical attention they want in hospitals having only C-class beds. Therefore they have to go to SGH or NUH to the B2 wards where they can get the type of attention they want?”
“Mr Speaker, I did not speak for the motion. I supported the hon. Member for Siglap in thanking the President for his Speech which I think should be made in any event. An hon. Member: I am still not sure whether he supports the amendment.”
“Sir, as we debate in this Parliament about how our country and our nation should progress, I think there should also be provision for the Government and perhaps the Opposition and other groups to have a more open discussion outside this House.”
“Yes, we are going to prove it. As I say, no two systems can be exactly the same. So the Opposition in Singapore can never perhaps also be the same as the Opposition in any other Commonwealth country. Perhaps we should be more controlled, be more Asian-like, if you like. But it does not mean that we do not have democracy. Sir, as the Minister for Foreign Affairs has said, the important thing is to make sure that the system works, the system runs. The Minister for Trade and Industry also has said that it does not matter whether it is the PAP or the SDP or any other party that takes charge of Singapore as long as the country is run properly. But how are you going to get another group of people to come forward and run the country if they are not given a chance? I think there should be a relaxation of the way in which the Government handles the Opposition. I think some kind of cue should be given by the Government and perhaps more professional people and more so-called qualified people to come and join the Opposition and perhaps learn the ropes. So if there is only one government and if anything happens to that government, then it would be really trouble for the country. There is no other group who can assist and come forward to take care of the affairs of state. I am not saying that we should have Opposition just for the sake of Opposition and the PAP Government can go around the world and say, "Look, we have Opposition." I think there is room for Opposition in our system. There is room for Opposition to be groomed, to also become part of the system and not Opposition which has up to-date been branded as crooks or whatever. In fact, up to very recent times the word "Opposition" is a bad name in Singapore. I think it has over the past few years thrown away that stigma.”