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 51 of 85.
“I think the Opposition MP, just like any PAP MP, should be given a chance to guide and run the community centre in that Constituency. Let the people see whether or not the Opposition can also work for the country. Every time in the papers I read "Marine Parade Community Centre won first prize" and then "Braddell Heights Community Centre won a prize for their cultural activities". They forget that the Potong Pasir Community Centre was never in the running. Why don't you allow the Opposition also to compete? Put us in the community centre and let us compete, and see whether they can still continue to win the prizes. Then I would at least recognize the prize given to them. Up to now I still do not recognize that they are the best.”
“So they have to introduce things like glasnost and perestroika to change their system so that they can have quicker economic growth. Similarly in Singapore we should allow the trend to grow and not to stifle the trend. The only thing is that we want to make sure that this trend goes on constructively and for the betterment of Singapore and for the improvement of Singapore. That is what we all want. The Opposition is not here to tear down the Government and not to oppose just for the sake of opposing. I think the Government must recognize that. I hope the Government, if they are sincere, will not encourage this idea of consensus just for the sake of government. In other words, the Government puts up a policy and all of you have to agree. That is consensus. I believe that should not be the idea of consensus. It should be a two-way traffic. As far as I know, from my experience in the last four years there is no consensus. Why? Because the Opposition is shut out. We are not allowed even to visit the schools in our own Constituency. I think the Opposition should be allowed to get into the government, should be allowed to be briefed on how the government runs. What are the problems of the Government. I think only then we can contribute, then we would appreciate the difficulties of the Government and not shut us out. You shut us out and we grope blindly, and when we say something and we get hammered. I think that is not consensus. Consensus is a two-way traffic and the Opposition must also be given room to operate. In Potong Pasir I am shut out from the community centre. One of the community centres has been taken away. The community centre is the focus of social, educational, cultural, athletics, and other sporting activities.”
“So we learn from outside and we are enlightened and we come back and many intelligent, young, enthusiastic Singaporeans hope to contribute and improve Singapore. I do not think they are trying to pull down the system in any way. I do not think for a moment that our young people today want to tear down the system just for the sake of perhaps expressing themselves, their ego, whatever. I do not think so. I believe the average Singaporean is very constructive. There is a tendency now among the young people to want to progress and be allowed to voice their opinions, be allowed to contribute to the running of the country. I believe the trend is there. Therefore, we should try to steer, encourage and sublimate this new trend for the improvement of Singapore. We should not dampen it. What perhaps the Opposition fear is that the Government is trying to dampen this enthusiasm by introducing Confucian teachings among the majority community. Perhaps the Government should put up a very strong point and convince us that they are not doing that, and not trying to carry on with the authoritarian government that we have today. I think there should be a relaxation. Even China realized that after going through a period of strong government, they have to relax because they want their economy to grow. They want quick economic growth. They have to encourage foreign investments. They have to bring in all kinds of western ideas. They have to open up their society. They are doing it. In fact, Russia is doing the same. They have built-up up to a certain period and they find that they stagnate. They cannot grow any more under that system. They have to change. They have to have an open economy, perhaps the western style type of economy.”
“Sir, no political system can be exactly alike. In the Commonwealth, although all the countries have gained the political system of the Westminster parliamentary democracy from England, but if you examine it, you will find that, in fact, there are material differences and that each country must make its own path of progress. We cannot follow blindly any other country's form of progress. So when we say that we want democracy or we want more openness and more consultation, we do not mean by following blindly America or England. What we want is our Singapore style of democracy. Sir, I believe that the progress of a country takes on different ways. China has gone one way. They have gone the Communist way. They have got a strong government. It may suit a country like China because they have got a vast population and they do need a strong government at that particular point of time. I think India may benefit from a strong government (we do not know) instead of taking the liberal democractic path. Perhaps the countries cited by the Minister (he quoted the French colonies and Sri Lanka, India and the Philippines) may be taking the wrong political system. It does not mean that democracy will suit every country. Singapore has gone through an authoritarian period of strong government, and it has led us to where we are today. We are not quarrelling with that. But as we progress, as our level of education rises, almost every child has a place in school now, the next step perhaps is compulsory education. Then the people are more affluent. They travel all over the world. In fact, it was cited in the papers a few days ago that Singapore people are one of the most travelled people in the world.”
“Sir, the Member, Mr Heng Chiang Meng, I believe, as Dr Lee has pointed out, has really gone off in a tangent and in his enthusiasm he said, "I thoroughly reject". Either you reject or you don't. I think this little example goes to show that, in fact, there is not the democracy that we would like to have in Singapore. We have one speaker coming up and we get seven speakers putting on their heavy artillery against him.”
“Sir, may I be allowed to speak before we take a vote?”
“How can you have a melting pot with one race?”
“The Minister has said that Americans are not doing anything about the minorities. He said they leave things as they are. I believe that is not true. They are now taking affirmative action. And I hear that, in fact, the blacks must be included in a proportion of jobs. Even now in cinemas and if you turn on the television, you will always see black actors represented. It is not true. They are taking action to alleviate the plight of the minorities. I think it is wrong to say that the American government is not doing anything. Do you agree with me?”
“He said there is nothing wrong with any party. He said that.”
“No. You did not say that. You simply said that there is nothing wrong with a party to gain mass support. So, in fact, you are agreeing with Dr Lee. You are admitting now that, in fact, these four principles and the National Ideology are ways to gain mass support for the party. Yes, that is what I heard. An hon. Member: You heard wrong.”
“He says there is nothing wrong with the ruling party to get mass support. Is he agreeing with Dr Lee that, in fact, the Government is raising these four principles to gather mass support, and not for the nation? Are you saying that?”
“Can I get the Minister to clarify what he has just said?”
“We could also look into the possibility of widening the role for the Ministry of Community Development to one performing the function of Ministry of Community Relations and Development. Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the Motion.”
“We can also be fully aware of the Sikh crisis in Punjab and the violent clash at Masjidul-Haram (The Grand Mosque) in Makkah triggered by the Iranian Shi'ite extremists. These are real life lessons for us in charting our harmonious social life here. Mr Speaker, Sir, what I would like to say here is that while we can be proud with our economic achievement and be thankful with the political stability, there is a lot more room for improvement in the area of building a cohesive society. This is the area which we are lacking. This, Sir, should be our prime objective if we are to ensure our political stability and our economic progress continue. It is with this in mind, Sir, that the President in his Address had specially mentioned this aspect by emphasizing the need to have a National Ideology, to help the low-income group, to encourage and help Malays to better their future, to encourage consensus, to encourage participation in areas that shape their future, to emphasize the importance of religious tolerance and moderation and to separate religion from politics. In this respect, Sir, there is no half-way measure. In view of the fact that the process of creating social cohesiveness is a long and complex one, we have to apply the correct approach and use our financial and human resources effectively. Sir, I would like to suggest that the Government form a task force to identify the approach and coordinate ideas and efforts towards this end. I would also like to suggest that the Government give special role to the existing grassroots leaders in upgrading their social community relation, and I think there will also be a need to form committees for community relations at constituency level.”
“Sir, we do not have a long history or strong tradition. We are multi-racial, not homogeneous. When material success ceases to become the sole motivating factor shared by all towards unity, we have to find a new "binder". We, Mr Speaker, Sir, cannot speak of economic development per se. It must be in the form of a total linkage between social and economic development or socio-economy. Similarly, it is no more valid for us to speak about political development without accepting the fact that between the society and politics, there is an inseparable link. This is because economic development can only be made possible if there exists social cohesiveness among our multi-racial society. But, Sir, social cohesiveness can only exist if we realize that we live in an inter-dependent community, if we realize that we live to be tolerant towards each other, if we are able to share the bigger pie, if we place community above self, if we resolve major issues through consensus instead of contention, and if we uphold our family as the basic building block for our society. The social cohesiveness which is the pre-condition for economic upliftment and political stability can only be achieved if we do not force our viewpoints and values upon the others, regardless of whether such impositions are based on language, culture or religion. We have certainly learnt from the negative experience and the price which the Vietnamese Buddhist monks got to pay before the fall of Saigon to the Communists when the Buddhist monks decided to use religion for politics. We should also learn from the bitter experience from the Protestant/ Catholic conflict that has brought strife, death and blood bath in Northern Ireland for hundreds of years.”
“But while keeping our economic vehicle moving, we should not ignore the fact that social cohesiveness is the pre-condition to political stability which led to our economic growth and it shall remain so. In fact, it is not far from the truth, Sir, if I say that between social cohesiveness and economic upliftment, they are inseparable. Why is it so? Firstly, despite continuous economic development and general improvement in our overall standard of living, there are indications that some sections of our society, especially the Malays, are falling behind. Secondly, in our desire to create our cultural ballast through adopting and adapting our traditional values which are constructive from our respective ethnic group, we have also increased communal awareness among the citizens. Thirdly, such consciousness added with the fact that our younger generations have not experienced social upheavals or communal strife may cause them to treat our ethnic problems lightly. When the problem explodes in front of our face, it will be too late for us to recognize. Fourthly, because of anomie and feeling of "emptiness" created by affluent urban life, there has been a clearer trend to seek solace and spiritual strength through religion. This too may pave the way towards possible religious polarization among our multi-religious society. Fifthly, in our desire to encourage a more open society and to discuss issues openly and frankly, including those sensitive issues, there is a greater awareness of differences that exist amongst us. All these new phenomena, Mr Speaker, Sir, force us to look for some kind of a common motivating factor to help bind us together so that we can avoid our fragile society from disintegrating in face of difficulties.”
“Sir, we are able to secure healthy economic growth because we make sure that we enjoy political stability, because our people work hard and because we have able and honest leaders. We have acted firmly and decisively against anyone who are threats to our political stability, be they chauvinists or communists. We chose the English language which is not only neutral in terms of multi-racial sensitivities, but which also brought our people and workers nearer to the world of modern science and technology. This in turn ensures a continued economic growth through a steady inflow of foreign investors, especially the MNCs. Yes. Why not just continue doing what we have been doing. Mr Speaker, Sir, our political and social landscape has changed a lot. But the Member for Potong Pasir has failed to recognize the change of the backdrop. The comfortable life enjoyed by our people has raised their expectations. The wider use of English language in schools, despite our bilingual policy, is beginning to show changes in our people's perception of social life with far-reaching implications. Our collectivistic values are slowly being eroded and trends towards more individualistic inclinations are becoming clearer. Realizing the potential threat and possible dangers ahead, we acted to strengthen our cultural ballast. At the same time, such effort also carries with itself some new problems. Mr Speaker, Sir, there is a need, a greater need indeed, for us to strengthen our social cohesion. Social cohesiveness is becoming a more crucial factor now. In saying so, Sir, it is not that I disagree with the Member from the Eunos GRC who urged us to continuously strive for economic development. I am in full agreement with him.”
“They claim that by introducing elements taken from our respective ethnically-centred or ethnically-based values and traditions for our national philosophy, we may be creating a contradiction. Sir, for the last 30 years, our leaders have fulfilled their duties in nation building by providing all the necessary material needs of our people. We have provided them with water, overcome unemployment, built schools for our children and we have also embarked on massive public housing schemes at a scale unmatched anywhere in the world, that for every 8 out of 10 of our citizens we can find them living in the comfort of HDB flats. The Government launched massive industrialization to ensure that our economy continues to grow so that our workers can enjoy better salaries and a higher standard of living. For 30 years, we have used economic development and improvements in our standard of living as a vehicle for nation building. And now we are proud to enjoy a standard of living second only to Japan, in Asia. Using the economy as our post-independent struggle is the right strategy. It is not only neutral and enjoys wide public support but also able to show quick results if we work hard enough and concentrate our energy towards that effort. The history of newly-independent Third world countries has shown that using non-material elements as a vehicle for nation building can cause them to be trapped in their own minefields. Using emotional means such as language, culture and race as a means of rallying support without being balanced with the effective upliftment of the standard of living can be full of imponderables. So, if our approach of using the economy for nation building is so successful, why not just continue doing exactly that?”
“No. Encik Yatiman Yusof: You are not. Thank you. Again, Mr Speaker, Sir, he has failed to understand the full meaning of "melting pot". Sir, the President in his Speech last Monday gave a broad picture of our goals for the next 5-10 years. It is a guideline that will be the basis for charting a better and more prosperous Singapore. Allow me to focus my speech on the National Ideology, a subject which is very close to our hearts and has been touched by many of us yesterday and today. I feel strongly that a National Ideology is a crucial factor in enhancing our nation building effort and in creating a more meaningful society. Sir, after a long process of consultation, we have decided to go ahead and accept our National Agenda sometime ago. Apart from identifying the constraints that we face such as limited land and water, we have also identified our future challenges. Among some of the challenges are the perception of our younger citizens, building and maximizing our potential, the problem of ageing population, the multi-racial society, our defence and internal security. The National Agenda is our action plan to build a better future for ourselves and our children. However, Sir, such lofty objectives are difficult to achieve if they are not accompanied by a strong common resolve or a strong common motivating factor on our part. This is where the role of the National Ideology is. Sir, the National Ideology serves as our principles and guidelines in achieving our objectives. Some quarters, including the Member for Potong Pasir, are sceptical of the rationale of having a National Ideology.”
“I am very curious. How does a Western person sleep differently from an Asian?”
“We are talking about the next generation. What are we concerned about? We are not concerned about a few more Opposition Members in Parliament, like the Member for Potong Pasir or the Non-Constituency Member, Dr Lee. They are part of the system. As long as Singaporeans have a consensus and can gel and can support one government which is honest, capable, trustworthy and intrepid, I think we are all right. It does not have to wear the PAP badge. But if Singaporeans become fractious and divided, and whoever is the government, two-thirds of Singaporeans outside are throwing stones at it, or worse, whatever the election, no party can acquire a majority and you spend 56 days manoeuvring, negotiating, forming coalitions in order to create the next Cabinet, as indeed the Israelis have recently done and chronically do partly because of their system, but also because there is not that national consensus, that is what we are worried about. I do not know whether the Prime Minister will one day be Mr Chiam. But if he is, I do not think he will find this a very governable place, and I do not think Singaporeans would particularly enjoy that sort of a country either. That is what we are guarding against when trying to establish a National Ideology. Thank you, Mr Speaker. 3.50 pm”
“What about society's rights and entitlements? They are not guaranteed in the Constitution. We are looking for a National Ideology to redress this balance a little. The Member for Potong Pasir yesterday asked Mr Shanmugam whether he believes the Ideology should also contain a recital of all the rights and freedoms. I think Mr Shanmugam gave him the right answer when he said, "They are already in the Constitution." I would go further. The National Ideology is not going to be a constitutional document. It is a summary of our views. It is a credo. It is something which we will believe in, but it cannot have the force of law. Because we can prevent somebody from infringing on your freedom, but cannot force you to be considerate to others. To take yesterday's argument to the logical conclusion, the answer is not to put freedoms into the National Ideology. It is to put the National Ideology into the Constitution, same way that Pancasila is in the constitution of Indonesia. And then they will be of equal status. I do not advocate that. I do not think it is necessary. It will be felt as shoving something down people's throats. But if we see it in perspective, that is what it is about. We want to redress the balance. We are not going to be like the North Koreans. We cannot even be like the Japanese. We are different. But do we want to evolve conservatively? Or do we want to proceed pell-mell and say, "All's well, hell bells." I would proceed conservatively. Lastly, this other hesitation which people have, that all this is just a political ploy. Mr Chiam repeated it and says, "It's just to prevent a few more Opposition Members from getting into Parliament." Whether or not you have a National Ideology is not going to influence the outcome of the next three elections, at least.”
“In other words, am I going to have my personal identity, my personal uniqueness, my ineffable spirit, squashed down in order to fit in to a community, the way the North Koreans squashed their population, and other totalitarian governments do? That is the concern, is it not? We have individualistic drives in us. Of course. Every society does. And it is strong in Singaporeans. I am chairing this Advisory Council on Youth. One of the strongest feedbacks we have from the exercise is thatevery young person in Singapore wants to move up, because he wants to get ahead. If he has N levels, he wants to go to VITB. If he has 0 levels, he wants to go to the Polytechnic or A levels. If he has A levels, he definitely wants to go to some University. And if he has a University degree, can he get a Master's, preferably an MBA? It is a drive to get ahead, ahead of the other person. It is a constructive drive because that motivation to do well has helped them to succeed. But at the same time, it must also be complemented with a sense of group solidarity, so that you do not just get ahead one by one, but as a team. That is what we are looking for. We are not going to submerge that drive. We are not going to suppress persons. But we would like Singaporeans to be balanced, to be able to fit in to the group and at the same time express themselves and fulfill their potential. That is all we are talking about. We are not talking about making zombies of Singaporeans. There is no danger. You cannot do that. We will fail. But just shift the balance some, from forgetting your communitarian links and bonds to reinforcing them and holding back the process of dissoluton. That is all. Individual rights and freedoms, they are guaranteed in the Constitution.”
“Do you want a Muslim soup, a Christian soup, a Hindu one, or one in which there is no religion, because we cannot agree, so we all abandon? Do you want one which speaks Chinese, the language of the majority; or one which speaks English, because that is the language of none of us in the first instance, or do you want a soup so bland that there is no taste, in which case, we all de-culturalize? Let us forget about Indian-ness and Chinese-ness and Malay-ness, and let us all become - I do not know what colour - grey? Or better still, transparent? Will we still be here? How many non-Chinese MPs would prefer to take that route? So the non-Chinese are going to keep their cultures, and rightly so I believe, because that is what makes them what they are. How does it help them, if the Chinese becomes de-culturalized? And "de-culturalized" does not just mean transparent, because something moves in to fill the vacuum. You will give up ancestor worship or Taoism, you will believe in Christianity or some other religion. You will give up values which you have, like from the Confucian tradition, but you will grow up with some other attitudes and views which, whatever they are, cannot be neutral, because no set of attitudes and views is ever neutral. Will that be good for the minority, never mind whether it is good for the Chinese? Will it help to make us one nation? I doubt. Really, when you put all this down - if I may interpret the concerns and the hesitations behind what is expressed about the National Ideology - the worry is individualism versus the community.”
“Should we say, just with a whitewash brush, that Confucianism, that is old hat, let's throw it away? The Red Guards said that during the Cultural Revolution in China, just throw it away. These are all old things; destroy the temples; demolish the idols; burn the books; are the new people in the new world. Why do we want to do that? What will we start with? A white slate, or a vacuum? We have to amend what is in Confucianism because it is not all up to date; does not all make sense any longer; was never designed for Singapore. But do not forget: a large part of our population are still holding those values. And, in fact, those are some of the values which are holding the Chinese part of the community together. To say that we should drop them is to tell this part of the population, "You just change. And if you can't change, make sure your child grows up different from you." You try doing that to one of our Muslim colleagues here, or one of our Tamil colleagues here, and say, "You stop being a Muslim. That's un-Singaporean." Or, "Please don't wear a turban. The majority of us don't." That is what being a melting pot means. Do we want to become such a melting pot? What are the ingredients for this rojak? 75% Chinese, 15% Malays, 10% Indians, a few Eurasians and others. Now, you have seen Singapore art, wall murals, many of them - one Indian dancer, one Chinese lion dance, two Malays either with a kompang or doing a Malay dance, and MRT in the background. That's Singapore. That is not a melting pot. That is each community remaining itself. If you seriously want a melting pot, I will first ask you, all right, what flavour soup are you looking for?”
“I think it was Tung something. BG Lee Hsien Loong: Also Tung Tao Chang, yes. They did not want to preserve Chinese culture. They wanted to fan Chinese chauvinism and create upheaval, agitation, eventually riots against the other communities in order to collect votes. They were against multi-racial and multi-religious harmony. I do not think anybody here is. I do not believe Mr Chiam is - nor should anybody be. The very least we have achieved after all these years of nation building is that the form of words - multi-racial, multi-religious tolerance and harmony is conceded, and nobody says, "I'm going for my race." Whether that is deep is not clear. But at least, in polite discourse, you do not take the opposite, disastrous line. So are we or are we not in favour of these four basic values? You might have one or two others perhaps. But these four, that is what the National Ideology is. If we are, then I think we proceed. If you do not like the term "Ideology", if it confuses people, or sounds pretentious or ominous, change. Call it, "A Singapore Spirit"; call it "Shared values", whatever you will. I think Members have yet time to think out suggestions, which we will consider. But, do we or do we not want to preserve these values? If we do, then I think we are in agreement. Confucianism is not one of these four. I think many elements in Confucianism will fit these four virtues, because the sense that the community matters, the sense that the family matters, the sense that we work together, and we should be tolerant, are entirely compatible with many Confucian precepts. I do not have to cite them. The Member for Jurong just now cited a couple, and I am sure many other Members will.”
“I think with disco dancing taken in its clean form, if it is well organized, there is nothing wrong with it. We have to choose those western values which if properly done would be good for nation building. Only in this way we can succeed. Singapore will have to comb the world for good values. It is not necessary western values. Any value that is good for us we have to adopt it. Western values are neutral, just like the English language and we should continue to accept western ideas in our process of nation building. More importantly, we are in an area where the Malay race is predominant and we cannot be seen to be advocating values which will make us more and more distinct and different from the rest of the region. I think western values, if properly promoted, will be the future of Singapore.”
“I think that will conflict with our idea of a secular state in Singapore. Religion must be treated as personal to the individual as long as it does not harm the nation. All these things that the Government are bringing up are, in fact, sensitive issues. Assume just for a moment the Government has not brought these matters up and it was the Opposition who is advocating: "Chinese, you must speak Mandarin; Chinese, you better study a lot of Confucianism in the school." If I had advocated them, say in 1976, I would be arrested in a jiffy. There would be a detention order for me for promoting Chinese chauvinism. I remember in 1976 there was one Opposition leader who was detained because he wanted to promote the mother tongue. But it would appear there is a change of thinking on the part of the Government. But if the Government promotes such a policy, "Okay, it is all right." But the fact is that it is not all right. We have heard the hon. Member for Siglap say that he never felt so uneasy in his life when the question of race was discussed so openly, and his race was the target for unmeritorious comments. Question of race being stirred up. The pond has become calm and clean, we take a stick and stir it up again. I think there is nothing wrong with westernization. What is wrong with westernization? In fact, it is the answer to Singapore's multi-racial problem. I hope it is not a selfish political purpose of the PAP to go against westernization now. We must be objective. We are not stupid people. We have to choose those values that are valuable to us. We cannot always highlight only the bad western values such as disco dancing, but we are still encouraging it, drugs, permissiveness.”
“I heard that many times. Our roots are here in Singapore. I am a third generation Singaporean. My grandfather migrated to Singapore with my father when he was seven years old and I was born here. I am the third generation. So my roots are deeply implanted here. I am comfortable as I am in Singapore. I am sure all other Singaporeans feel like me. It will be remembered that in the early 50's many young Chinese Singaporeans still thought China was their homeland. They asked to be repatriated to China in shiploads. Even in the early 60's a few Chinese who advocated strong Chinese chauvinism were banished to China. We are now independent. All our links, our ties with China, are severed for good. Why are we now reviving the idea of our roots? When we introduce Confucianism we must inevitably refer to China. In this way, we are reviving our racial links with China. That must be one of the consequences of emphasizing our roots. I do not advocate that. It is dangerous and shall have harmful effects on the promotion of racial harmony in Singapore. The Minister for Trade and Industry has suggested in his recent speech that the Chinese in Singapore be taught Confucianism, the Malays will continue to study Islam, as they have always done, and the Indians to stick by their traditions. He forgot the Eurasians. He did not mention what the Eurasian children will study in our school to strengthen their roots. Remember, we have Eurasians also in Singapore. So the Chinese study Confucianism, Malays stick to Islam, Indians to their Indian tradition, Eurasians are lost. If that was the policy, is it not divide and rule? Each community being brought up differently. It is always true that the Malays have always studied Islam. But we need not make that a national policy.”
“Tu Wei Ming, as reported in The New Paper of 21st August 1988, said: 'Singapore is best represented by Rasa Singapura (it is the hawker centre) because it gets the best of the kitchens of various races. Singapore must not become a melting pot because different types of food cooked in the same pot becomes quite disgusting.' This is the view of an expert on Confucianism. Instead Singapore should strive to be a beautiful piece of mosaic. Those Members who have got flooring of mosaic would know what it is. The patterns are quite distinct and apart. I would imagine he would have meant Malay, Chinese, Indian, Singaporeans just living side by side with each other distinct and apart. Of course, we include the Eurasian Singa- poreans who have already become part of the melting pot. If I interpret Prof. Tu correctly, Eurasians are disgusting to him. Strangely, Prof. Tu himself while advocating that Singaporeans should not become a melting pot, he himself is part of the American melting pot. He chose to live in the United States of America instead of native Taiwan, married a white American girl. And I quote from the same newspaper: ' ... and for that reason he has never forced his son to assume a Chinese outlook and respect his wife's ideas on bringing up the child.' So Prof. Tu preaches Confucianism to us but he practises liberal western lifestyle in America. I attended one of Prof. Tu's lectures on Confucianism and I will never forget what he said in his opening remarks. He said: 'The uniqueness of Confucianism is its Chinese-ness.' If that statement were true, we must never promote Confucius' teaching at the national level. Any promotion of Chinese chauvinism must be dangerous in our multi-racial society. Have we lost our roots? I do not think so. We are Singaporeans.”
“In fact, we must accept them as part and parcel of our lives. I would say that we can just educate every one of our individual citizens to be loyal, honest, truthful; do not cheat or steal; obey the laws of the land, pay their income taxes, do their national service, in the case of male citizens, and be patriotic. I think we would have already gone a very long way. Of course, in Singapore, we also have to accept multi-racialism and religious tolerance. For the long term, I differ from the Government. I would advocate a melting pot of our cultures. For successful nation building, our guiding principle must be to cut down as many differences and divisive factors as possible. This, of course, is the opposite of the concept of divide and rule. In the end, we hope one day to have a Singapore identity. We are all Singaporeans. We are not Malay, Indian, Chinese or Eurasian Singaporeans. In fact, I think an important issue is: what road should we take? Should we keep the communities separate and apart? Or do we want to have a melting pot? This is an important issue and I think it should be discussed. I am for the melting pot of all cultures in Singapore. So when the Senior Parliamentary Secretary for Communications and Information spoke of culture and art, I was tempted to ask him what was his policy with regard to art. I think our policy should be one of trying to get all the cultures hopefully into one type of art that we have and also this art must be for a purpose, and that is, for nation building. Of course, Confucianism does not seem to agree with the idea of a melting pot concept of the different races of a nation. An expert on Confucius' teaching, Prof.”
“PAP, of course, they do not believe what many people have said but I think this whole exercise is just another tool for electioneering and to preserve their power. Singapore is different from the other three so-called little dragons - South Korea, Taiwan and Hong Kong. We are more westernized, right from the beginning. And our people are not of one race. Many western academics have alluded the economic success of Japan, South Korea, Taiwan and Hong Kong and, to a certain extent, Singapore to their Confucian cultural background. I do not agree in the case of Singapore. Singapore's economic success cannot be said to be due to its Confucian culture. In the case of Singapore, the majority of our people are of migrant stock. And migrants like any migrants everywhere else work harder than the native people and that is the source of our success. It is not due to our Confucian background. The Greeks, the Italians, after the Second World War, migrated to Australia and prospered. They were very hardworking. They had no Confucian background in them and yet due to their hard work over the native Australians, they became economically successful. We have already gained much experience in nation building by accepting English as our main language. Children of all races now are enrolled and admitted into English-medium schools. These schools are all the same and they are now learning to live as one people. We are, in fact, on our way to achieving our nation building goal of having one people. But, of course, I do agree that we must have moral education. For this, we can inculcate in our children the accepted universal values - love, kindness, honesty, hardwork, thrift and others. These are important values. We must not belittle these values and try to supplant them with others.”
“After having gained independence, did we use any Asian ideas or values to help get rid of our poverty and unemployment? The answer is again no. The Government in their wisdom invited Dr Albert Winsemius to advise them. Dr Winsemius is not an Asian. He is a Dutch and very much a westerner. He advised the Government to do three things: (1) to get rid of the Communists; (2) to control the workers; and (3) to set up industrial estates, invite foreigners to invest here and give good tax incentives. The PAP Government was a good pupil. It accepted all the recommendations of a westerner and we progressed. But, of course, it must be said that our economic progress was more complex than just accepting good western advice. But nevertheless it was western help, assistance and advice that really got our economy going. The Government in their wisdom again accepted the English language, which is a Western language, as our main working language. I agree with this choice. It is a neutral language. Politically, it can be accepted by all the races in Singapore and it is an international language. Our knowledge of English has helped us tremendously in our economic development and I am sure also in our political development. Westernization has certainly got us to where we are today. I am therefore surprised to read now that westernization is a problem in Singapore. Of course, as our people become more westernized, they do want opposition. They want real democracy, and real democracy can only exist if we have elected Opposition Members in Parliament. Or they may even want a change of government. I think that is the crux of the matter. That is the real problem, not just westernization. It is politics.”
“Sir, it is precisely westernization that has brought us where we are today. To start with, our independence was not won by a group of men with Asian training. All the main PAP leaders were western trained. I wonder if Mr Lee Kuan Yew, Dr Goh Keng Swee and Dr Toh Chin Chye had gone through their primary and secondary schools in the Chinese-medium stream and had gone to China or Taiwan for their university studies and are steeped in Confucian training; and as for Mr S. Rajaratnam, he had studied only in Tamil schools, firstly, would we have got independence? And, secondly, whether Singapore could have developed to this stage of prosperity and economic level? I would say no. Our early leaders would be thinking not in terms of democracy, equality, the rule of law, justice, the rights of the individual, the right of men to decide their own destiny, they would be thinking of revolution and violence. If they did that, it would have been, of course, their end. They would have been crushed by the British and lost forever in the oblivion of history. It was precisely that they had western education, western training, western know-how, that we are all sitting here today. And what were their slogans in their fight for self-rule? They were democracy, socialism, freedom. Those political concepts were all western ideas. Those ideas were accepted by our people. Our early political leaders did not at any time advocate Confucianism, filial piety or harmony in those days. How are we going to win our freedom if we practised harmony with our British rulers? In fact, the British colonial masters would love to have strict Confucian ideas imposed on their Chinese subjects. But the British were honest enough not to do that.”
“Allow me to finish. I have never interrupted anyone in this House. The Government thinks that we can be wholly westernized. The Government does not agree with that quotation. I personally do not think so. We shall be forever distinct. We are Singaporeans. We shall be Singaporeans. Anyway, why the sudden fear of westernization? I believe the reason is really the fear of loss of more seats in 1994 or even losing the general elections in 1999.”
“Can you please allow me to finish my speech?”
“I am much obliged to you Mr Speaker. Sir, I rise in support of the motion of the hon. Member for Siglap. I agree with the Government's goal as set out in paragraph 1 of the President's Address. Sir, please allow me to speak on the national ideology. I must give credit to the Government. They are never short of ideas where politics are concerned. The last time it was Agenda for Action. This time it is the National Ideology. What are the problems? According to the Minister for Trade and Industry, he thinks that it is westernization and our people losing their roots. Mark Twain once said: 'East is East, and West is West, the twain shall never meet.' This Government does not appear to think so.”
“I can understand why he says that Singapore's miracle in economic progress was due to the Prime Minister (he was here) and his successive Cabinets and Singapore-style of democracy. Can I have one clarification? Has he not missed out one very important element, and that is, the hardworking population of Singapore?”
“Sir, whilst I agree with the speech given by Dr Hong Hai, I have one clarification.”
“Sir, I want to say to the Member that when we talk of a national ideology, we cannot bring in these fundamental rights at all. He seems to think that they are distinct and separate.”
“I want to make sure whether or not this is what he meant.”
“Sir, the last speaker seems to make it a point by saying that fundamental rights - freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, freedom of thought, freedom of religion, freedom of the press - these fundamental rights must be distinguished from the national ideology. It would appear to me that what he is saying is you render to Caesar what is due to Caesar and to God what is due to God. So he is separating these two concepts. One is fundamental rights in relation to an individual.”
“I think the Members of the House here should understand clearly what a Member says. If he says something which we do not really understand, I think we should ask him to clarify. I waited until he sat down. I did not interrupt him, Sir.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, would you oblige me to ask Mr Shanmugam to clarify a point?”
“Sir, I do not think Dr John Chen or the Leader of the House ---”
“Can I have a point of clarification from Dr John Chen? I was a little surprised to hear him say that the rights and freedom of the individual cannot be the cornerstone of our nation. Sir, this is entrenched in our Constitution - the rights and cornerstone of the individual under the law as it stands now. My clarification is, what does he propose to do if he knocks all this off?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, if you will just allow me a moment also to convey my congratulations on your elevation to the Speakership. Sir, I think it would not be complete if it is just the Leader of the House conveying his congratulations to you. This is to make it complete. You have the approval of the whole House. I would also like to say a word of thanks to the previous Speaker who had a very good rapport with the Opposition. [Applause.]”
“Does the Member for Whampoa agree that the Burmese had a one-man or one-party rule for the last 26 years? That was probably the reason why the country went down.”
“Sir, may I be allowed a point of clarification?”
“All right. My question is: do you really think that the people of Singapore cannot be trusted? The third point is: I have said that I have no aspirations to be the Prime Minister. What about you? BG Lee Hsien Loong: We are discussing future Presidents, not future Prime Ministers. First of all, if a President is given these reserve powers, can he amass further power and become so great that he is irremovable? How? Unless Parliament becomes supine and does his will. But why should Parliament become supine? Parliament is a supreme body in the land. It votes. Unless it passes legislation, no powers can be granted. If Parliament in its wisdom wants to create a presidential form of government, that is for the future Parliament to decide. I do not think so. I do not see any reason why this first step should make it more likely. As for trusting the people of Singapore, we have full trust in the people of Singapore. But that does not mean we have to live dangerously. The US Constitution, which Mr Chiam has such full praise of, is full of checks and balances. The President, the Senate and the House of Representatives, the Supreme Court, they regularly stymie one another. They regularly fight one another, veto Bills, side-track, circumvent. It is an amazing system. Some people say that is why it has worked 200 years. I am not proposing to do what they are doing. But while the Americans in their Declaration of Independence says "We The People", even they think it prudent to have checks and balances. Are we such superstars at political balancing and equilibrium that we can do without?”