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 52 of 85.
“I have already elaborated. So I think that is the fear of the people of Singapore too much power being given to a single person, or if he acquires it on the way. In that sense, if you have got a person having too much power, then where is your check and balance? Then we would have lost our democracy. As regards electing a bad government, I think sooner or later you have to trust the people of Singapore. You cannot always hold them by the hand. I do not think the people of Singapore will vote in a bad government. There is no evidence ---”
“There is a possibility. BG Lee Hsien Loong: How?”
“I have said that the issue is really the balance between how we are going about to preserve our reserves and also the danger of giving too much power to one person, and that power can be abused. He says that it is better to have two options, there is no possibility of getting a bad Prime Minister and a bad President. Is there not a possibility that if you get a bad President, the bad President will accumulate so much power that he cannot be removed? And then he can easily - BG Lee Hsien Loong: How?”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, can I be allowed to ask for certain clarifications from the Minister for Trade and Industry?”
“Now that the First Deputy Prime Minister has said that I can stand, under the stringent rules, I do not think even Mr Ronald Reagan, if he were here, will qualify. As far as I know, before he was elected to be the Governor of California, he was an actor and a radio broadcaster. I think there can be a comparison between the election of a President in Singapore with that of a Governor of a State in the United States, because many of the States in the United States have got budgets bigger than ours, and they have got a far bigger land area and a bigger population. I think election to the post of Governor is almost equal to or, if not, as important as that of election of a President of Singapore. Mr Ronald Reagan was elected, first, as a Governor and then later on stood for election to become the President of the United States. He was elected not once, but twice. The point is that the intended amendments to the Constitution try to limit the candidates and in that way it might, in fact, exclude many good eligible candidates who, if they were not elected, could be a detriment to the nation.”
“Then it must be his seconder. Anyway, one of them said so. If it is not the Member for Kebun Baru, then it must be his seconder. Sir, at a general election people go to elect their representatives in Parliament. They do not go to elect an elected President. So at a general election, there is a specific purpose of returning a new government. But in the case of a referendum the question is put before them whether or not they want an elected President in Singapore. I think that is very important and that question must be put to the people. If there is no referendum, there is a possibility that in our first Presidential election there may be only one candidate. I do not think any of the Judges, Accountant-General or Auditor-General, or any of the business people in town would want to stand as a candidate. So we might have only one candidate and he will be returned unopposed. If that happens, we still do not know whether the people of Singapore want an elected President. That is the reason why it is necessary to have a referendum. The First Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Defence (Mr Goh Chok Tong): You can stand.”
“--- and now I hear the Member for Chong Boon saying that we do not need a referendum. The Member for Kebun Baru has said that if the elected President is made an issue, then we would be killing two birds with one stone. We are not. At a general elections the people go to elect ---”
“So if you want to have an elected President, we must also have two-thirds of the people's vote at a referendum. It is important that the amendments to the Constitution must not come before the next general elections. The general elections should come first and the elected President should be made an issue at the elections. But the Member for Kebun Baru ---”
“In fact, it is the cornerstone of the American nation, its prosperity, its power, its greatness. But in the last four years we have seen there were three major amendments to our Constitution. First, we have the non-constituency Member of Parliament, trying in fact to erode democracy by trying to put Members who are not true representatives of the people. So the people of Singapore rejected the NCMPs. Then we have the GRCs (Group Representation Constituen- cies). In that amendment to our Constitution, we have really entrenched divisive matters in our society. We have highlighted race. We have highlighted the communities. Our aim should be to build a Singaporean Singapore. We should aim for one people rather than a division of our people. So that is, I believe, a step forward. Now we are going to be asked to amend the Constitution to have an elected President. Of the three, this one is the most serious because we are going to take away our present system of Parliamentary democracy. The Government may not agree. The Government has said our Parliamentary system still continues. But I do not agree, and I think many people do not agree. Can the Government say that Parliament is still supreme? If the answer is no, then we have eroded our Parliamentary system. As the last Member who had just spoken said, we need to refer it to a Select Committee. I agree that we have to air this whole matter fully. Not only should we refer it to a Select Committee but also a referendum. This referendum must not be based on a simple 51% majority. If the people of Singapore wants an elected President, then they must give two-thirds of their votes. I think this is reasonable because to remove the President we require a two-thirds majority. So there must be reciprocity.”
“That is the way they go about changing their Prime Minister. I think in Germany they have got the bitter experience of giving too much power to one person. I think this is the whole danger of our amendments. We cannot give power to one single person whereby eventually he will become so powerful that he will eventually usurp the functions of Parliament. We may all one day be reduced just to Town Councillors, doing municipal jobs, and the President will be the sole person who will take charge of the affairs of the nation. The future Prime Minister might be just the Mayor of Singapore, in charge of municipal matters. This scenario is certainly in the minds of other people because I have heard people speaking to this effect. What we actually should do is to increase more democracy and freedom in our country if we hope one day to reach the standards of Switzerland. We need to have a vibrant and dynamic society so that we can take off and become truly prosperous instead of stagnating as an authoritarian, paternalistic, elitist type of government. If we go along with this provision for the election of a President with the powers to be given to him, we will stagnate, although the intentions appear to be good. The way we are nibbling away at our Constitution is not a good thing. The Constitution must be distinguished from the other pieces of legislation we have. It should be treated close to being sacrosanct. There must be some kind of permanence in our Constitution to give us the direction in which our nation will take. If you look at the American Constitution (I am not saying that we should follow the Americans, but if you look at the American Constitution), it has lasted 200 years.”
“In fact, by the powers that are to be given to him, the President will have political influence in Parliament. So there is a possibility that one day, in the future, as I say, if we get a bad President, he may just abuse his powers and enlarge his powers because his influence probably on a weak Cabinet or a weak Parliament will be translated into giving him further powers. Sir, in this sense, this is the danger. Although we are trying to prevent a so-called irresponsible government from squandering our assets, we may be putting in something which in the future is more dangerous for our country because the essence of democracy is really checks and balances. I think that is the reason why the founders of the American nation, the early fathers of the nation, who drafted the Constitution, made sure that power does not repose in one single person or in one single group of people. There is a separation of powers and we all know that. Also, if you look at Japan, they make sure that their Prime Ministers are rotated regularly and no one Prime Minister holds office for too long. This is also seen in Germany. We know Mr Helmut Schmidt was a very capable man. He could continue to perform his duties because he is still young and strong. But the German people said, "Look, you have had your chance. Let Mr Kohl take over." Mr Chandra Das: He lost the election.”
“The Bill that is to come. You surely should know. The Bill to hand over political power to the President. That is essentially what we are asked to do. Sir, many people are concerned because we are handing power to a single person, and the manner in which the handing of power as spelt out in the White Paper seems rather easy. In order to have an elected President, we require only a two-thirds majority to amend the Constitution, and he will have to stand for election. But since the member of candidates is so limited, it will probably be a candidate from the ruling party who will be elected. In fact, the post of President will be perpetuated in the sense that the candidacy of the Presidency will always come from the ruling party because the choice is so limited because of the manner in which the elections are to be carried out. Sir, it is so easy for the President to get important power in regard to finance, appointment of key positions, and more powers will be given to him in the sense that he can refuse to give assent a Bill in respect of those Bills which would take away his powers, in regard to his concurrence to spending of the financial assets of the country and appointment of key public servants. And also, all Bills which he thinks are important are placed before him for his vetting; and he can also get information from the other government departments. So it is not really an automatic assenting of Bills as the President is at the moment when he is advised to do so by the Prime Minister. The fact that he can vet Bills shows that he will put his influence to bear on Parliament. Also, he can come to address Parliament. So his role appears to be very, very wide.”
“But this White Paper is silent and has made no mention about it. Sir, what the proposed Bill wants this House to do is to hand over power to the President.”
“A candidate must have at least three years of some kind of executive experience and he must be either a Minister, Chief Justice, Judge, Auditor-General, Attorney-General or Chief Executive of a statutory board or publicly listed companies. The other thing is whether or not this candidate can still be a member of a political party. If there is a contest between a candidate from a political party and any of these officers who are non-political, who do you think will win? These people or officers wanting to stand for election do not have the machinery behind them. They have got an uphill task. So right from the start they already are of a disadvantage. They are not used to electioneering. They do not know how to go about campaigning. Whereas a candidate from a political party would have all the machinery behind him. It is most likely that his chances are certainly be better than those which I have just named. So it would appear that under this system the President will always come from the ruling party. I think the candidacy of the President should not be limited. It should be open. If there is going to be any limitation, the only limitation could be his age. Maybe he should be a person who is more mature, say 35 years and above, because by then he should have experience. From his maturity people will know whether or not he would make a good President. After all, it is the people who are making their choice. I think we should trust the people to exercise their wisdom in choosing a President. So perhaps the Minister in charge of this matter could enlighten us whether or not the President, after he has been elected, could still remain a member of a political party. I would imagine he should not because there will be a conflict of interest.”
“Sir, if the President has executive powers, then Parliament is no longer supreme. Parliament will no longer have a completely free hand to act as it likes. For now at least, the proposal is in the areas of spending of the financial assets and appointment of key public servants. If Parliament is no longer supreme, it cannot be said to be truly representative of the people because it cannot completely exercise the will of the people whom it represents. It may be argued that the President is also elected by the people. But then there is a difference. The two types of elections are different. One is where the candidacy for the Presidency is limited. Only certain people can offer themselves for election as President. That, is, in a sense, not a true representative of the people because the choice of candidacy is not open. But in the case of parliamentary elections, almost every Singaporean above the age of 21 and who is not disqualified under the provisions of the Constitution can stand for election. Therefore, it can be said that Members of Parliament here are true representatives of the people. So although the President is elected, he is not the real representative of the people because the selection is limited. There will be three or five persons appointed to assess a candidate. The White Paper is silent on one point, ie, the choice of candidates. What happens if this committee of three or five persons refuse to approve even one one single candidate got? What remedy has that candidate got? What can he do? It is not stated whether he could go to court or to appeal to any Minister. Again, it is interesting if there is an election for a President. The candidates are so limited.”
“This money belongs to the people. And, of course, we have to protect the integrity of our public service. We do not want it to decay and degenerate and have nepotism and corruption. I think they are important. But if we go along and amend the Constitution to such an extent that we change our political system, then I think we are going too far. Not long ago last year in May/June, 22 of our professionals were arrested and detained. Amongst other things, they were accused of wanting to change our political system. I do not know in what way the Government has accused them of wanting to change our political system. But we are to be asked to change our political system. I think that is why there are so many professionals who are really concerned with the amendments. It is not just to protect the national assets alone or to protect the integrity of the public service. In fact, our present system is the Westminster parliamentary system. And the President has only a ceremonial role. His term of office is four years. When we have an elected President, he no longer acts on a ceremonial basis but he will have executive powers, veto powers. And his term is not four years but it is extended to six years. So if he is elected for two terms, it will be 12 years and that is a long time. The White Paper says that the President is just a watchdog of our financial assets. But I tend to disagree. If the President can block the spending of the financial assets, how can it be said that he is just a watchdog? In fact, if anyone could prevent the Cabinet from acting in any way, he would be exercising certain executive powers. You can even say that the President on certain occasions would be exercising executive powers jointly with the Cabinet.”
“To my mind, the protection of the assets and appointment of our civil servants are more procedural matters. I do not think it is wise to change our political system. Of course, we have to make provisions to safeguard our financial assets. Mr S. Chandra Das (Chong Boon): How?”
“The government elected by the people should be given a free hand to govern the nation. The people trust their Members of Parliament whom they have voted in. Why is there a necessity to go for another election, to elect another person to check on their elected representatives in Parliament? Yesterday the Member for Kebun Baru said that there was a need in the case of CCCs and organizations and companies to have two persons to sign a cheque. I think that analogy cannot be used to compare the protection of the financial assets of a company or CCC with those of a nation. Of course, we do not trust any single person to deal with money. I think that is not a wise thing to do. That is the reason why there is always a Chairman or another executive to countersign the cheque. I think that is natural. But in the case of a government, I do not think the Cabinet depends on the Prime Minister or any one person to make a decision. There is always a collective decision. So there is that safety there. It is not always that one single person will have to make any decision in regard to money matters. The Prime Minister must consult his Cabinet on any important decision he wants to make. So that is the difference. Cabinet now comprises, I believe, 15 persons or thereabouts. So there are always 15 wise persons to make the decision and not any one single person. Sir, the motion before the House, as we look at it, to my mind does not convey the real purpose for which the proposed amendments are to be made. The real thrust of the amendments is not really to protect our financial assets but, in effect, to appoint an elected President. There must be two-thirds majority votes in Parliament in any event to have an elected President. Of course, it is important to protect our financial assets.”
“In that sense, if the President accumulates more powers than the original amendments intended to, then he may become even more powerful than the Prime Minister. As the Member for Chong Boon has stated, he might even say that he has the moral authority because he has also been elected by the electorate. So if that day comes, if we do get a bad President, there is a danger of him squandering our financial assets. I think this is the real danger. Members may laugh but they have mentioned in the House of future governments squandering the assets. And there is this possible scenario of getting a bad President by chance and he may, in fact, defeat the purpose for which we have been asked to amend the Constitution. Sir, we have been told by the PAP old guard leaders that they have assembled the best team possible. The ground has been combed during the last 12 years to select the best men possible to take over the Government. It is now clear to everybody that this is not the case. They are not to be trusted completely and that there is a need to have an elected President to look over their shoulders in regard to two areas - spending of the financial reserves and appointment of certain key public servants. This system is akin to a pilot after having spent many hours learning to fly a plane, he is not allowed to fly solo. He is always required to have a co-pilot, sitting either beside him or behind him. In time to come, the co-pilot becomes his crutch so that if he were given a chance to fly solo, he might not have the full confidence to do so. Paternalism, Sir, in Singapore can be carried too far. The people of our nation must be allowed to mature and look after themselves and their own affairs. They cannot be forever treated like children.”
“Although the White Paper says that the President is only a custodian, in reality we are handing over executive powers to the President because the President can block, in fact, you can even use the word "veto", the spending of our national financial assets. Also the President is given another very important portfolio, and that is, the selection of Judges and civil servants. I think that power is a very important power. In fact, before this White Paper was introduced, I have heard friends say that there might be an amendment to give the President powers to select Cabinet members. But it is not so. If the President has the power to select Judges, members of the PSC and public servants, then, as one Member has said, they may be beholden to him. If they hold key positions, I think the President will have an influence on them. It is possible that a future President may abuse his power and influence them. The other thing is that we have noted that even under our political system, many Ministers and key Government politicians have been selected from the civil service. So in that sense, the President will have an influence on the selection of politicians and key Cabinet members. And if the President gets his own men into Cabinet, of course, they will do what he wants them to do. And if it so happens that, by chance, we elect a bad President, then of course he will try to influence the Cabinet members to hand still more powers to him. It has already been mentioned in this House that the list of the President's concurrence for the selection of important persons could be extended. Similarly, the powers handed to him can also be enlarged.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I am glad that the Minister for Finance has given many answers which I am sure members of the public and Members of this House here would certainly like to know. But I hope the Minister can still tell us how and in what manner some of the investments are made. I think we were given a rundown or an insight into some of the financial assets and savings of Singapore. Sir, after having heard the Finance Minister speak for the need to safeguard our financial assets and savings, I think we all agree with him. There is no doubt about that. I think they are all our hard-earned money and we have got very good reasons to preserve our savings. They are not only our safety net but also our life-blood because we do not have natural resources and we have nothing to fall back on in case of a crisis. I think the issue before the House then is a balance between what steps we should take to safeguard our financial assets and, on the other hand, also to safeguard our parliamentary system. I think uppermost in the minds of the public and professionals who were recently interviewed by the paper, without exception, everyone said that there was a need for a referendum. I think the fear expressed is that if we have these far-reaching amendments to our Constitution, we might end up in a situation where power is vested in one person and we would lose the system that we have tried so hard to preserve. In fact, there is also a danger if we go too far with the amendments by handing over too much power to one man because we might in the end defeat the very purpose for which the amendments were intended for, and that is, the preservation of financial assets and our savings. Now, as we can see, we are going to hand over executive powers to the President.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I do not believe the Leader of the House has addressed the point that I brought up. I think we should get an indication from the House now. I think this is the opportune time to find out whether or not Members themselves, other than Ministers and Parliamentary Secretaries, want to be addressed as "Honourable Mr", or do they just want "Mr", or they do not mind being called "Honourable Mr" or "Mr". I think if we have an indication, it would serve as a guide to members of the public in future when they address Members of Parliament.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, this is typical of the hon. Member for Whampoa. I think he loves to pick on me. Sir, he is completely out of order. We are debating on the amendment to the Standing Orders. I do not think we are touching on the issue of non-constituency MPs. Maybe at another time I will answer him.”
“When we address MPs by their individual name, it would appear that we are here by virtue of our own individual self. There would be no indication that we are here as a result of our election as representatives from a particular constituencies. I would really regret that. I think we should find a way out to indicate that we are representatives of certain constituencies and not by virtue of our own individual self. The Leader has indicated how we should address another Member. I think this is important. I would suggest that in addition to just addressing "Mr", we should also use the additional prefix "honourable", such as the hon. Mr Chandra Das, or whatever. If we set a precedent here, then members of the public would know how to address Members of Parliament. Because in correspondence and in other forms of communication, there is a standard form of address. I am not saying that I wish to be addressed as "honourable". It is not so much the status that I am concerned, but I think that as we are representatives of the people, the form of address given is to show the respect given. We are not here by virtue of our own individual self, so I think the honour should be given to our voters. Our voters voted us and I think they respected us. I think they want us to have a proper form of address. So perhaps I would urge the House to agree that we call each other, (other than Ministers and Parliamentary Secretaries) by using the additional prefix of "the honourable Mr So-and-So".”
“Sir, I am not supporting this amendment. I regret that there is such an amendment although I admit that there is a need for it. Because this is consequent on the amendment to the Constitution to introduce Group Representation Constituencies. This shows that when you amended the law or the Constitution, you have forgotten the consequences of that amendment. And this amendment to the Standing Orders is one of the unforeseen consequences. So I do not believe that Members of the House intended to amend this Standing Order, but as it is we have to do it. Therefore, I beg to differ with the Leader of the House that Westminster has this practice of calling a Member by reference to his constituency and not his name. That is the reason that he gave. And also it is not because one Member can make fun of the name of another Member. I think there is a more important reason. The essence of democracy is, of course, representation. All of us are here by virtue of our representation of a group of people comprising one or more constituencies. So we are not here by virtue of our own individual self. That is the reason why Members are addressed as representatives of their constituencies, for example, the Member for Kaki Bukit, the Member for Chong Boon, or whatever. He is here by virtue of the fact that he has been elected by the majority of the people in his constituency to be in Parliament. That is the reason why we address a Member of Parliament not by his personal name but by the name of his constituency, as a Member of Parliament for that constituency. So if we are amend- ing this Standing Order for the reasons given, we would have eroded a very important tradition, an important practice.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, may I just be allowed to speak on the amendment to Standing Order No. 47, paragraph (5), which says: 'No Member shall refer by name to any other Member.' This is to be amended to: 'A Member, other than a Minister or a Parliamentary Secretary, shall be referred to by the Constituency he represents or the name he was returned to Parliament.' Sir, I believe this amendment has come four years late. If you remember, in 1984, there was already an amendment to the Constitution to introduce non-constituency Members of Parliament. If one was appointed in 1984, how else would we address him in Parliament other than by his name? Therefore, I think in the Remarks, it is necessary to say that this amendment applies not only to Group Representation Constituency Members but also to non-constituency Members of Parliament.”
“Sir, may I be allowed to ask another question? We assume a situation where the President and the Cabinet cannot concur in respect of the use of the reserves. Will Parliament have the power then, despite the non-concurrence, to vote for the use of the reserves? In other words, will Parliament still have its supremacy?”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, may I be allowed to ask one question? Will this elected President come about before or after the general elections?”
“Another point is that I did not quote the Prime Minister in my Question No. 2. They are words that I have used myself. RE-EMPLOYMENT OF OLDER WORKERS 7. Dr S. Vasoo asked the Minister for Labour (a) how many workers retired at the age of 55 years in 1987 and how many of them have been re-employed; and (b) whether his Ministry has other plans to encourage the re-employment of older workers.”
“Yes, I can say his answer is absurd. But I do not think it is proper to say that any question tabled for the Minister to answer is an absurd question.”
“No, it is not. But in what context? He is saying that my question is absurd. That is the point. An hon. Member: Do you think his answer was absurd too?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, a point of order. The Minister for Home Affairs has remarked that my last question was an absurd question. I have looked up the rules, Sir, and it does not in any way breach the rules. That is the first thing. Secondly, if it were an absurd question, the Clerk would not have tabled it. So it is an insult on the Clerk to say that he has tabled an absurd question. So in the circumstances, Sir, I think it is proper for the Minister to withdraw what he has said.”
“Can the Minister of State please tell us whether or not after the third rejection the application is cancelled and the applicant's deposit returned to him?”
“Sir, if the First Deputy Prime Minister agrees with the Member for Whampoa, I will ask him one question. Why did he take out his candidate away from Potong Pasir and put somebody else?”
“Who else? I am the only Opposition MP here.”
“I object to that. I will ask the Member for Whampoa to retract that statement. He has never learnt his lesson. He has paid me damages once. If he dares, will he please repeat this outside this House?”
“My question is, does the First Deputy Prime Minister not agree that that is not a good basis of making his statement today - that the PAP is to be in charge after the next elections and that the people want the Opposition only to be represented? Certainly that is not a good basis. Unless we have got concrete statistics all given out, then I would sit down quietly and listen to you.”
“No. With due respect, Mr Speaker, I disagree. You will remember that in the last elections there was a swing of about 12.3% of the votes going towards the Opposition. And if this swing continues, and with another 15% more, you will be sitting on this side of the House. Therefore, my question is ---”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, am I to understand the First Deputy Prime Minister comes to this House, gives an answer on an assumption which he has got no concrete statistics? He just says, "Everybody knows". Is that the position?”
“Does the First Deputy Prime Minister not agree that this idea of an NCMP presumes that the PAP will always be in charge and people only want Opposition to be represented? Is that not true? That is the first question I am putting to the First Deputy Prime Minister. The second question is, on what basis does he come to the conclusion that the people of Singapore today wants the PAP to be in charge and that they want the Opposition only to be represented in Parliament? In fact, the First Deputy Prime Minister has admitted that there is a possibility of the Opposition winning the general elections. He has admitted that there is a possibility of what he calls "a freak election result". But to us, it is not a freak election result if the Opposition wins.”
“This question appears to be hypothetical.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, on a point of order. Just now the Minister refused to answer my question because, he said, it was hypothetical.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to differ. It is very related because the Minister has said that there are no grounds to take action against the security guards. If a search party was sent out, there must be grounds. Otherwise, they would just leave the ex-President to roam about the streets on his own. Why worry about him?”
“Sir, is it not true that after the security guards were aware that the President had left the Istana that a search party was sent out to look for him?”
“Sir, the question put is "if they so wish". At a later date if they so wish, will they be allowed to?”
“Only mad people will go on board that plane!”
“Of course. I am not stupid enough to go on the plane. BG Lee Hsien Loong: There are many passengers who are worried he may become the pilot. I would say not only would the passengers be worried, some might die of fright.”
“Much higher than Town Councillors. BG Lee Hsien Loong: Yes, it is a first step. In 1959 the Prime Minister was 35 years old. The Member was wrong when he said 34. Not inexperienced in five years of organizing trade unions, of debating, arguing with the colonial government, of fighting for the life of the party, and keeping on top in very turbulent times. And even then when he became Prime Minister with a team, the question was, with such a big job could he ride this and come out and bring the people of Singapore with him? Today, you cannot even deal with a little crack around the skirting of your block and you say, "That I do not want to handle. I want to be Prime Minister first." My goodness! The First Deputy Prime Minister yesterday said that if you are flying in a jumbo and a new pilot takes over who has not flown solo in a Cessna, some passengers might get worried.”
“That is a big job, Governor. BG Lee Hsien Loong: That is a big job. It is a first step. It is much smaller than being the President of the United States.”
“PAP supporters. BG Lee Hsien Loong: Or if he is Mr Chiam, I am sure he is not going to appoint any PAP supporters. Is he? Mr Chiam See Tong: Yes. BG Lee Hsien Loong: We had better send him an application form for party membership. So the MP will stand. You elect me, I will appoint people whom I trust and I can work with, who will belong to the community. There is a provision in the Bill to make sure that a certain proportion of the Town Councillors must be residents of the constituency so that they will live with the decisions they make, not at a remote distance, but day-by-day. If you decide to cut down the tree so that the birds will fly away, you make sure you live with the sunshine and don't complain that it is too hot. That is the kind of decision which we want people to make. And if you can make that kind of decision you can be fit, maybe, to be considered to be a government. Ronald Reagan - we thank the Member for Potong Pasir again for providing such a happy example - could not have become President of the United States if he had not first become Governor of California. Everybody would have thought of him, as a "B grade movie actor". He is not a B grade President. But who would have known had he not been Governor of California?”