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 53 of 85.
“Residents. BG Lee Hsien Loong: Residents. Therefore, the MP who is elected will appoint residents to help him on the Town Council.”
“They are extinct. BG Lee Hsien Loong: But the HDB is not. So is it better to leave the decision with the HDB or is it better to devolve it out? I think it is better to devolve it out. I know that many MPs will be hesitant because it is a major responsibility, both PAP as well as Opposition. None expresses his fears so openly and unashamedly as the Member for Potong Pasir. But many are concerned at the additional load which they will now take on. Luckily, I do not think they will have to take it on alone. The Member for Potong Pasir says we should give responsibility to people who know the job. Taxi drivers know about taxis, workers know about conditions in their factory. He is right. Who knows best about conditions in the housing estate?”
“The Member for Potong Pasir has a point when he says the HDB is too large, like a dinosaur, slow to move, therefore not effective and therefore we have to devolve. In different words, that is what the First Deputy Prime Minister said yesterday. It is good to have small, light, supple, quick reacting organizations instead of a big one like the HDB. I should warn the Member for Potong Pasir, however, that a dinosaur may be slow but he can be powerful and by accident he steps upon you, you are in deep trouble. So if I were him, I would not laugh at the dinosaur too much.”
“Right. Yes. BG Lee Hsien Loong: Now he says, "I am a national MP. Potong Pasir, look after yourself." It is quite a change. So that being the de facto position, the question is, should an MP who is so concerned about his constituency, and rightly so, not also have some power over the constituency, not just to recommend, but to decide? Why should I have to ask HDB for permission to build seats for old people to sit on in the void deck? Why should HDB be the one to cough up the money to do that and to determine whether to give it to me, or to somebody else, or to give it to another project which I am also demanding of him? As MP,I want to have the right to decide and I think I am qualified to decide because I have stood to represent the people in my constituency and to look after their interests: their interests in their community, their interests nationally. It is right. If any MP stands in the next election and says, "Please elect me. I will pay no attention to municipal matters. You go and find some non-political Town Councillor on your own to manage that and you have it out with HDB should anything happen", I do not think he is going to be elected. I do not think the Member for Potong Pasir will put that in the SDP manifesto. Will he? Perhaps not. So should we or should we not put this additional responsibility on MPs ? It is a heavy responsibility, onerous, a considerable burden. It means time, effort, concen- tration, dedication. If people say, "I can't be bothered with these matters", perhaps case we should ask, "What are they bothered about? Do they have a place in Parliament at all?" That is a fundamental question. Having decided that we should devolve, the question is, should we give it to the MP or should we leave it with the HDB?”
“Common property. Dr Lau Teik Soon: --- the common areas in the HDB.”
“No. I believe the Member for Serangoon Gardens has said that our Town Councils are local governments. I want him to clarify in what way. How can he say that the Town Councils are local governments. That is not what I know what local government means. The other point is that he says that I have mentioned and said that we should have MPs who are construction workers, taxi drivers, and generally workers. He says that if one of these people get elected, is he going to be a potential chairman and ask to run the Town Council? Can I clarify? What is wrong with a worker being a Chairman of a Town Council?”
“My clarification is in regard to the words "local government". Can he please clarify? An hon. Member: Only as far as you have used it.”
“Firstly, in regard to local government. The emphasis is on the word "government". I know the Member for Serangoon Gardens has a doctorate in Political Science. In what way can the Town Council established under the --- Mr Dhanabalan: Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, point of order. Sir, if I understand the Standing Orders correctly, a point of clarification is when a Member stands up to clarify what he has said which has been misunderstood by somebody else in the House. It is not an opportunity for a Member to stand up and ask another Member to clarify what that Member has said and to make a speech.”
“Allow me, Mr Deputy Speaker, to ask for two clarifications from the Member for Serangoon Gardens.”
“I hope the Minister will clarify this point.”
“Unless you allow the residents really to take care of their own affairs without this political crutch, political control, we cannot build up real self-reliance, real independence, on the part of the residents. I think this is an important thing and I hope the PAP will not use the Town Council concept for the elections. What about the facilities? Assuming an opposition wins in a Town Council area, will they be accorded all the Yes? Is there any assurance given? Can the HDB give that assurance? Because the HDB still has a lot of say in the Town Council. The Minister has a big say in Town Council. Unless we get that assurance, we will still feel uneasy. Because under clause 44, if there is no Town Council to maintain the place, the Minister can appoint somebody to take care of the Town Council. So the Government still has a very big say as far as the Town Council is concerned. If there is no real divestment of power, I think the Opposition will still feel unsafe. I shall, of course, not touch at all the problems in regard to common property. I am sure there are many of them, and I think the most important one is in regard to the common property. Because the common property has not been really defined, particularly to land. The common property in regard to common corridors, lifts, roofs, these are easily identifiable. But when it comes to land, as far as I can see, all that the definition of "common property" says is "so much of the land". But how much? Is the HDB going to have a map drawn out and say, "Well, these are the areas which are common property." Because, as far as I can see at Potong Pasir Estate, there are still vast areas of empty land. Are they common property? They are adjacent to the buildings. But are they designated "common property"?”
“In other words, nearly half the residents there do not support the PAP. And what do we have? We have a Town Council which is, in fact, PAP controlled. How are you going to get harmony when there are people who are not supportive of the PAP? But if you remove the political element, then it is their own members who are elected and they will give full support to the Town Council. And they can really build up a harmonious relationship in the Town itself. I also think the Town Council should be above politics for another reason, for the sake of continuity. MPs can come, MPs can go. But we have a set of people there who have continuity. Out of so many Town Councillors, two of them may be phased out and two new ones in. But in any event, there will be continuity in the Town Council. It is just like in the civil service. Ministers can come, Ministers can go but the civil servants are still always intact. I think this is a good point. I think if an area has been designated a Town Council, it should not be changed. In principle, it should be left intact and not merged with another Town Council just because the ruling party feels, "Oh, they are too supportive of the Opposition." We hope none of this gerry mandering will be involved. Because once if you have got a town council concept, there must be some form of permanency. [Mr Deputy Speaker in the Chair] 11.48 am I think if the PAP is sincere in wanting to promote real democracy, then they should allow the residents of HDB estates to be more involved and less and less of the politicans should play a part in the affairs of HDB estates. As long as the politicians are there, as long as the politicians head the Town Council, the crutch will still be there. You cannot really promote self-reliance.”
“The RCs are, of course, supportive of the PAP. Otherwise, they would not be chosen as members of the RCs. I have not seen any Opposition member being chosen as a member of the RCs. If this is the case, how can we promote harmony, how can we promote unity, how can we promote a good relationship in the Town Council area? In fact, there will be a dichotomy. In fact, there will be a polarization of residents in the Town Council. Assuming the PAP wins in a town council area with 55% of the votes, then there are 45% who are not in favour of the PAP. This is a real situation. You look at the statistics of the last elections. Many areas were close-fought contest in the last elections. The PAP coming in with 51-54%. That is very common. Dr Augustine Tan: This time it's 70%.”
“If the building should collapse tomorrow, due to an earthquake or some other disaster, the owners there still own the land, one fraction of the land. And that is the difference between private housing estates and HDB housing estates. So there is in fact an inconsistency or a contradiction there because you do not own the property and you are asked to manage it, to take care of it. So what is the true position of the Town councillors? They are the agents of the HDB. But, of course, we have a law which we are going to make in Parliament giving the Town Councillors certain statutory powers which are, in fact, very artificial. They do not own the property. You ask them to manage. But since you ask them to manage, we give you some powers. That is the real situation. As I said, it is best if the Town Councillors are above politics. I was just looking through the Ang Mo Kio East Town Council. If you look at the membership, we have got the Chairman who is a Member of Parliament; Vice-Chairman who is also a Member of Parliament, and another member who is a Member of Parliament. The rest are all either Chairman of the CCC, CCMC or RCs. In other words, the whole Town Council is very political in nature. An hon. Member: RCs are not.”
“I am talking about HDB housing estates, not private homes. Under this system, the residents still do not have full control of their affairs. The political control is still very much there because the MPs coming from the political parties still have to head their committees. They do not really have a free hand. And to say that the Opposition can have a truly free hand to manage things in a Town Council, I do not think that is completely true because the definition of "common property" is still very vague. Now, we have a lot of problems. Take an example, if we want to hold a dinner in an open field, say in Potong Pasir. We have to get permission from the HDB. We have to get permission from the CID to get a public entertainment licence and, perhaps, if we want to have banners, again we have to get permission. And if we want to hold a procession, again we have to get permission. Our hands are still very tight. And if that particular field is not designated as a common property, we still have to get permission from the HDB because the HDB is still the owner of the land, it is still the owner of the common property. So in actual fact, what are Town Councillors? Town Councillors, technically, are nothing more than the agents of the HDB to do the cleaning and the repair of buildings in HDB estates. That is all. Because the residents there do not own any property other than their flats which are on lease. This is completely different from the management corporations of private apartments and condominiums. In that case, under the Land Titles (Strata) Act, the owners of the units of flats or condominiums there actually own the common property.”
“And no other person can take care of their affairs better than those people who have got property there, those people who are living there, those people who will, in fact, have all their activities in their estate after their working hours. An MP is, in fact, an outsider. I have not known of any Member of Parliament coming from the same housing estate in which he is representing. An hon. Member: Why not?”
“But you do not vote a Town Councillor to change the direction or have a national policy in regard whether to foreign policy or to national policies on education or defence, or how you should have a relationship with your neighbours. These are not the work of town councillors. These are the work of Members of Parliament. So there is a distinct different role. And now what do we have? If this Town Councils Bill is passed, the voter will be voting both an MP as well as a Town Councillor. In fact, I think that is unconstitutional because an MP is not supposed to hold an office of profit. If an MP becomes a full-time Town Councillor and he is a public officer under the law, he is like a Government servant. So I would say that he is defined as holding an office of profit, and that is unconstitutional. I think we should not get our roles mixed just up because you hope that you will keep the Opposition at bay and for political gains at the next election. MP is involved with strategy on a broad basis, whereas a town Councillor or a City Councillor is more involved with, I say, ractical matters. It is the actual implementation of day-to-day administration of estate. So I would urge this House perhaps even to put this Bill at bay for a while and see whether we can make Town Councils non-political. We should not politicize Town Councils. We should make it non-political, a body which is above politics, a body which is purely formed to take care of the interests of the Town itself. And I believe the residents can do it. It is not necessary to have the guiding hand of a Member of Parliament because the residents who reside there are going to reside there for a long time. It is in their interest to vote in persons who are responsible, who can take care of their affairs.”
“So I think it is a fallacy to say that we must only have people with MBA or some kind of high-sounding degrees to be elected as MPs. So this Town Council concept, I believe, is political. I would suggest that MPs elected at a parliamentary election should not be made Town Councillors. If that were the case, I would support this Bill. The Town Council must comprise representatives from the residents of the estate itself. They have a separate election and elect their own Town Councillors. Then I would support that. There are reasons for not getting MPs involved. Members of Parliament have a different role from Town Councillors or local government officers or municipal representatives. MPs have a different role from people who are operating municipal councils or Town Councils. I believe MPs operate at a different level. They operate at a national level. Town Councillors and local government representatives work at a municipal or Town Council level and are involved in the day-to-day administration of the council, whereas MPs are elected more to give direction to the nation. A party is elected because of its policy. The people may want the party to represent them so that the nation can move in a particular direction. The PAP first came into power on a socialist platform. People of Singapore voted them in because they thought that was good for Singapore and so they went on a socialist principle, up to lately, of course. Some people may want to vote people like Margaret Thatcher, free enterprise, the capitalist line. You vote her in. So that is the purpose of voting Members of Parliament and a particular party.”
“You say that workers are not knowledgeable. But I can tell you that if there is a problem involving them, for example, the taxi-drivers, no person can voice a better case for them than a taxi-driver himself.”
“Don't blame him for that. He probably took over a bad situation. But in any event, the people of the United States still want him for a second term. He was reputed to be a person being able to choose good advisors. And I think the first lot of PAP leaders, had a good sense of choosing good advisors. They asked for help and help was forthcoming from the World Bank. I believe they sent for Dr Albert Winsemius. He gave good advice. The Government took the advice, filled up industrial estates, industrialized Singapore, and we were on our way. So this theme of playing up on so-called people with experience and that the Town Council is a place, a school, where you can learn the art of administration, I do not think it holds water at all. This is just all political talk to put the Opposition at bay. Of course, it is easy for the PAP to catch hold of people with degrees, doctorates, specially from the universities, and parade them before the electorate and say, "Look, what a good team we have." But I do not think the PAP should play too much on this line because what we want are people who represent the interests of those people who elected them. I think we should have a mix in Parliament, not all graduates. In particular, I think we should have workers in Parliament. Who can better represent the interests of the workers than workers themselves? People from the factory shop floors, taxi-drivers, people who work at construction sites, all kinds of workers must be represented in Parliament. Why do we need university graduates? What do university graduates know about the problems of the workers?”
“What we want is good managers, people who can use the expertise of others. For one, I do not think I want the Member for Whampoa as an Economic Advisor. What about Mr Ronald Reagan? He was an actor, movie actor; he was a radio broadcaster. And yet they elected him to be the Governor of California, and yet he performed well, so well that people of the United States made him the President, not for one term, two terms (the maximum number of terms that he can hold office).”
“The main thrust of the PAP's political line is telling the people of Singapore, "You must get good men. You must get graduates to stand for elections." This kind of a line has been overplayed. Again, in this Town Council concept, the same theme is promoted. Yesterday, we heard the First Deputy Prime Minister say, you do not get an untrained person to pilot a jumbo jet. He compared the jumbo jet with the state and the pilot to probably administrators of the state or MPs. But he has taken the wrong analogy, a completely wrong analogy. The pilot is like the surgeon, doctor. They are specialist people. You do not want an MP who is not trained as a surgeon to operate on you, open up your stomach, would you? Cer- tainly not. When you elect a Town Councillor or elect an MP, he is an administrator, a manager. His duty is to manage. How do you manage? If you cannot do it, you get others to do it for you, the experts to do it for you. The Prime Minister, when he took over office as Prime Minister in Singapore, how old was he? 34 years old. What training has he got in running a state, a country? None. Nil. And yet he managed. Singapore today has been a place which many people have praised the Prime Minister for it. But what training has he got?”
“But if the car has got major problems like the crank case or the cylinder casing, if it is cracked, then it is an irreparable fault. You may have to scrap the car and that is where the real problem comes. This divestment of maintenance is like selling away an old car. Of course, the Town Councils that take over the estate, if they are lucky, there are no major faults, they can get along well. But if there is a big fault, an irreparable fault, then they are burdened with something very troublesome indeed. Potong Pasir Estate is not that old. I believe the residents came in to stay around 1984, at the time of the general elections. Some may have come in late 1983. So the estate is about four years old. And what do we have? The earth beneath the blocks of flats has started to sink. So that is a major fault. With the HDB around, we can get the problem solved. Can you imagine. If I take over Potong Pasir and the Town Council, just four years, a very brand new estate, we have already such a major fault? What happens in 10 years' time? I do not know. There may be more serious troubles. I think probably the most compelling reason why the Government is having this Town Councils Bill is, I believe, political. Why did the Government not come up with this idea in 1972 or 1976 when I first took part in the elections? Because in those days, the PAP was firmly entrenched. They did not have to take any corrective measures. But in 1980, the wind of change was already there and by 1984 real trouble for the PAP has really cropped up. So we have all kinds of change of the law. We have GRCs. We have yesterday, for no reason at all, increment of the deposit for candidates from $1,500 to $4,000 and now, today and yesterday, we are discussing about this Town Council.”
“I am obliged to you, Mr Speaker. Sir, we all know that the HDB is going to divest some of its powers in regard to maintenance management of its estates. I believe that the HDB is not doing this out of altruistic reasons or the desire to promote the growth of democracy. There are other reasons. One of them is, I believe, the HDB has grown too large, too cumbersome. Like the dinosaur of old, it is buckling under its own weight. It has become unwieldy and cannot function efficiently and meaningfully. So it has taken steps to give up some of its functions and perhaps the most convenient functions it can give up are the troublesome ones like maintenance and management of its housing estates. The second reason I can think of, as has been mentioned, is that housing estates will get old, they would not get newer, and trouble will multiply with age. Maintenance repairs will get more difficult. Why not let somebody else take over the trouble? I believe the HDB is managing something like 640,000 units of flats today. Just imagine when the flats become troublesome in 10 years' time, the management and maintenance of these flats can be quite onerous. Just to give you an analogy. We all own cars. At least all of us here. You buy a new car you get trouble-free use of it for three years. Fourth year, fifth year, you get a bit of problems cropping up. You can get them repaired. The sixth year onwards, you will find that there are more and more engine problems. You come to a stage where you say, "I might as well sell away the car. Get rid of it." The person who buys that car from you, if he is lucky, he manages to get the parts changed and get the car in reasonably good condition and he gets a good second-hand car.”
“Much obliged to you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I think we have to consider the principle involved. We cannot increase an amount just for the sake of adhering to a formula. Who proposed this formula in the first place? The Government can come out with all kinds of formula and they say we have to adhere to the formula. But we have to examine the real effect of this increase. What is really at stake? At stake is the question of democracy in Singapore. Whether or not we want more people to take part in the electoral processes and to make it a real thing rather than just get it over with, as in the past general elections. There is no question of publicity. I do not think anyone would want to take the trouble to come out for nine days and campaign if he did not really believe in something. If there is no drive in him, I do not think he would really want to take part in elections, especially in Singapore. We have to talk of elections in relation to the context in Singapore. What is the situation in Singapore? What is the reality? The reality is that there are, in fact, not enough candidates. The last time, straightaway, you got 30 seats uncontested. [Interruption.] That is the point. That is the crux of the matter. All the rules are made in favour of the PAP. The PAP probably is a very rich party. So $4,000 per candidate is chicken feed to them. There is no problem. But to the others, there may be a problem. As I have pointed out, the workers of today do not earn more than $900 per month on the average. So $4,000 is a sizeable amount. As I say, the Government should not just pick up from the air a formula and increase the amount. If you really want to simplify the procedure, do not increase it at all.”
“That is the point. If you keep it at $1,500 then you do not bother at all. So it would appear that this is one of the devices put forward by the Government to keep out the Opposition. One of them, of course, was the much-heralded GRC concept. Now we have an increase of the candidate's deposit. We do not know what next. I must say that other parties or Singaporeans generally are not as wealthy as the PAP. You have got beautiful premises, headquarters. I think other parties or up-and-coming parties should be given a fighting chance, and I urge the House to oppose this Bill. You all must, if you really care for the increase of democracy in Singapore.”
“So the number of people taking part in general elections is, in fact, not increasing. So why the necessity to increase all of a sudden this $1,500 to $4,000? There is no rationale at all. The Minister says he wants to simplify procedure. I do not think it is a way to simplify procedure. The election officer can just announce the amount on the day of the issue of the writ of election and everybody will know it. What is so difficult about reading the papers and finding out and the best procedure is not to increase it, keep it just like that. Then we do not have to go and calculate how much I have to pay - whether it is $4,000 or $4,500.”
“Like in England not so long ago, the Thatcher government had to increase the amount because over there, for every one constituency at every general election, I believe there are at least 100 candidates vying for it or a huge number in any event. They get all kinds of people with all kinds of issues wanting to stand as a candidate in a general election. Some of them may just go in for the fun of it. But this is not the case in Singapore. We are just the exact opposite. In fact, there is a dearth of candidates. So if the Government is sincere in wanting to have the democratic process to get greater participation in our electoral processes, they should not put obstacles in the way of all those people who want to take part, especially working people who want to take part. As you know, I think more than 50% of our workers earn less than $900 a month. So you want him to put a deposit of over one month's salary. If the Government is really sincere in wanting to increase democracy in Singapore then it should reduce and not increase the candidate's deposit so that we get more people coming to take part in the general elections. We just look at the last general election in 1984. On Nomination Day, there were 30 uncontested seats. It proves beyond a doubt the scarcity of people wanting to take part in the general elections. Out of the 49 seats that were contested, every constituency had only two candidates except for two constituencies - Pasir Panjang and Chua Chu Kang where there were three-cornered fights. Other than that, it was a straight fight, one to one. We do not have five or six candidates coming to fight in one constituency. In fact, if you look back at previous general elections, the pattern is the same.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, there is really no necessity to vary the amount of $1,500 to $4,000. This amount has been left untouched since 1978 and I do not see why we should disturb this amount at this juncture. I say that this increase of the candidate's deposit from $1,500 to $4,000 is unjustified, discriminatory and unfair. There is really not a good reason given by the First Deputy Prime Minister - simplify procedure. I think this is not a valid reason. If there were good reasons I would certainly support this Bill. I will have to oppose it. The opposition has always been accused of opposing but, on this particular occasion, I think it is my bounden duty to oppose this Bill and it is the reason why we have opposition in Singapore - to prevent such unfair Bills from being passed. It would appear that I am going to be the only speaker on this particular Bill other than the First Deputy Prime Minister. I say this Bill is bad, bad for the nation. If we really believe in democracy and if we want the institutions of democracy to survive and to improve in Singapore, then we should not have bad laws to curb this process of the growth of democracy in Singapore. I am referring to the institution of opposition in Parliament. If we do not have opposition in Parliament, how can we say that we have democracy in Singapore? As I see it, there is really one reason or one purpose why this election deposit amount has been increased and, that is, of course, to keep out the opposition. It is a big increase from $1,500 to $4,000, a jump of $2,500. As we are all aware of the purpose of a deposit of candidates at every election, the deposit is essentially to keep out the frivolous and the not-so-serious candidates. This amount of $1,500 will serve its purpose, more than serve its purpose.”
“Sir, it is obvious to the Minister that I am not convinced that Francis Seow is a threat to national security. So we want to know exactly why he has arrested. The fact that the Government is willing to release him when election comes around-the-corner, assuming next month, he will be released next month. It proves beyond a doubt that he is no danger to the national security at all.”
“Sir, the Minister has mentioned the name of Francis Seow. If Francis Seow is not a Marxist like Teo Soh Lung and the others, what exactly is he detained for?”
“I think it is unfair of the hon. Member to say that Hendrickson has not denied the allegations made against him. He has not come forward, I believe, as the Member has said, to deny the allegations made against him. But is the Member aware that Mr Hendrickson, by virtue of his position as the First Secretary, is not allowed to speak to the public in these official matters. Is he aware of that? So the denial made by his Government is his denial. So I think it is unfair to attack a man when he is not in a position to deny it. The second point is this. The hon. Member asked me whether I could be persuaded to vote for the motion. I will vote for the motion if the Government can produce evidence, either in an open court or in a public inquiry and not obtain the evidence under duress, when the detainees are under confinement, on their own free will as free men, and if it is found to be true, then certainly I will be persuaded to vote for this motion. Until then, I will have to oppose the motion and oppose all allegations made against not only our own Singapore citizens but against foreigners based on evidence obtained from persons who are under detention and under psychological pressures.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, I wonder if I could be allowed to clarify two points made by the hon. Member for Mountbatten. Is it all right? Mr Deputy Speaker: All right. Two points.”
“Are you saying that all doctors have feelings?”
“We also talked about this matter. As about the contents of our conversations, I do not think I should disclose here. The Member for Potong Pasir also talked about Marxism. In the NUS, apart from the Department of Political Science, also in the Department of Economics has also taught Marxism as part of the course on history of economic thoughts. We have to look at Marxism in two aspects: the theoretical aspect and the practical aspect. About Marxism in practice, the situation in different countries was different; therefore, in the Latin American countries, Marxism in thought and in practice differ from those in the other countries. What we want to pay attention to is the Marxism and Leninism promoted by the local Malayan Communist Party and their objectives. So, I hope the Member for Potong Pasir would not distort the whole fact. He also mentioned about Chia Thye Poh, I hope he would not under-estimate Chia Thye Poh who has invested half of his life in the cause of so-called "proletarian revolution". If he is released, he will not be easily influenced and so discard his faith by the attractions of materialistic enjoyment and the other niceties of life from the higher standard of living in Singapore. Dr Lee Ting Hui, one of my colleagues in the NUS, has pointed out that although the ramification of the branches and leaves of Communism has been wiped out in Singapore and Malaysia, but it still has its roots there. So, given favourable environment, communism would still grow up again.”
“Someone among my MP colleagues has pointed out that the US is trying to export its models of democracy, freedom of speech and human rights. In fact, let us examine it: among our intellectuals, how many of them are just "copying" without scrutiny and importing these models of ideologies and philosophies for duplication in our country? Yet these people who worship blindly such ideologies and philosophies are not faithful to what they believe. Once they feel the pressure they start to retreat. Afterwards they retract what they had earlier admitted which might yet be retracted. Is it because their stand not firm and their thinking not matured? Or, is it because the values of our intellectuals have gone aberrant? This indeed calls for our self-examination. Now,because of the facility of language and because of rapid development of communications, and hi-technology, this problem of value aberration is getting more and more serious. However, if this incident can alert our Government and our people to the danger of ignorance of our state of affairs and blind imitation of Western culture and mores, while negating one's own good tradition and system and make these intellectuals of Singapore realize with self-examination their own social responsibility and to work out appropriate solutions, then the experience of this Hendrickson affair might yet turn out to be a blessing in disguise. Earlier, the Member for Potong Pasir challenged my two Parliamentary colleagues whether they dare to face the detainees' family members and church members. First, I do not see the relevance of detainees' church members here, as this fundamentally is not a religious matter. Secondly, before the NUS vacation, I used to meet a detainee's (Chng Suan Tze's) brother, Chng Meng Kng.”
“The Criminal Procedure Code has been amended so that a criminal once apprehended by the police has really got two choices: either to admit or deny he is guilty. If he remains silent, that silence will in fact be used against him, to his disadvantage, when the trial comes on. Dr Ow Chin Hock( In Mandarin): The Member for Potong Pasir has misunderstood me. What I meant was that these critics who wrote to the press protested that the police should not have shot Ah Huat without reciting to him, a criminal, his basic right as seen in American TV shows, if these critics were to handle Ah Huat's case. These two matters differ in nature, the one relates to a criminal while the other concerns foreign interference in politics by US officials. Although they are different in nature, there are some similarities in the critics' starting point. That is, these people imitate the West by emphasizing the personal rights, or the rights of the smaller "self" ( ) including the rights of the criminals. They emphasize the rights of the minority while they are blind to or neglecting national safety and interests, the rights of the bigger "selves"( ). This illustrates their syndrome of not seeing the Tai San mountain because of a leaf covering up the eyes. I regret to notice that these people who are involved in this matter are our intellectuals. They are the elite groomed by the nation. Yet they do not treasure the prosperity and stability that we have achieved through more than two decades of nation building. They have also neglected the state of our nation and our social structure. These people having learned foreign languages blindly admire foreign civilization and they try to imitate the western ideologies and -isms.”
“I think the hon. Member is wrong in saying that in Singapore today a person who has been apprehended by the police for suspected crime can remain silent. I think he has lost that right. If he remains silent, the position is that, in fact, his remaining silent will be taken against him when the hearing comes. Really there are only two choices. Either you admit or you deny.”
“Ah Huat's case differs in nature from the recent case of subversion. But the starting point for the critics in each case is the same -”
“The great majority of our people, whether they are workers, grassroots and civic leaders or intellectuals, have made their stands very clear. Under the premises of national interest, they took to actions, expressed their opinions and protested against foreign interference. In face of external threats, our whole nation, government and people, should act in unison, in fulfilling their duties, in preserving national dignity. Should there be any person who for personal grouses or favours makes fallacious speeches to confuse the people or for personal political interests, willy nilly, takes an opposing forum always singing anti tunes, such speeches and actions would not only undermine the reputation of the Government, mislead the people, but also weaken our posture and steam against foreign malcontents. There is also another type of reaction by some people involving the rights of the detainees. A small number of Singaporeans repeatedly emphasizing that the rights of the detainees should be protected. This argument reminded me of the recent Ah Huat incident. Some readers wrote to the newspaper forum page, expressing disgruntlement about the manner of Ah Huat's death. They stressed on the rights for Ah Huat, but neglected any consideration for the safety of the police officers and members of the public at the site. They also doubted the professional judgment of the police. If these crities were to handle Ah Huat's case, I suppose before apprehending Ah Huat, they would follow the American model as shown on TV by reciting to him the accused's rights, "You have the right to remain silent, but if you give up this right, whatever you say can be and would be used against you." Very likely, before the message could be completely read out, our police officer would have been killed.”
“If the US persists in denying and condoning, even to the extent of distorting the facts it will not help in anyway in solving the matter and maintaining our mutual relationship. On the contrary, it could only serve to arouse greater anger in our people. The statement by the United States State Department further expressed regret that the Singapore Government did not attempt to resolve this matter privately. This is indeed a very strange argument. Because of this matter, there were altogether 11 Singaporeans arrested, including Francis Seow and Patrick Seong. Our people want to know what are the reasons for their arrest. Once the Statutory Declarations by Seow and Seong are made public, it is impossible for our Government to cover up the improper behaviour of these United States officials. Don't forget that in this incident, the party that is victimized is not the United States but Singapore. The Singapore Government as an independent sovereign country has the right to and should adopt the most appropriate measures to deal with this matter, to explain to our people and to protect our national dignity. Under a democratic system, our people have the right to know the truth of the matter. To resolve this matter privately amounts to denying our people the right to know the truth. If this not a great mockery on the Americans who talk of nothing but human rights and democracy all the time? Does this private solution as suggested by the US State Department not indicate its guilty feeling nd pretensions? On this matter, we also noticed the reactions of our people. Generally, the initial reaction was one of shock and surprise as the interference was from a friendly country! As the truth unveiled, the feelings of the people developed into anger.”
“Fourth, we have expressly stated that we treasure the friendly relations between the US and Singapore. Our Foreign Minister had reiterated in Parliament on 26th May that we would want to prevent this matter from damaging the mutual relationship and the greater interests between our two nations. Let us look at how the United States dealt with this matter. First, they repeatedly denied their officers had interfered in our internal politics. Then a tooth for a tooth they asked that our First Secretary, Robert Chua, of our Embassy in the United States be recalled. On 25th May, the State Department of the United States issued a very strongly worded statement which was published in our newspapers on 27th May, ie, the same day that our Foreign Minister's statement on 26th was published because of the difference in time. There was a strong contrast between the tone adopted by our Foreign Minister and statement of the US State Department. The US statement warned our Government that if we continue to allege the interference by the United States officials in our internal affairs, it would damage the traditionally close cooperative relationship between the two countries. It was couched in threatening tones. The statement again denied that the US officials had interfered with our internal politics and also regarded the allegation by our Government as groundless. However, they have not expressed their views on the goings-on of this incident, nor have they raised any counter evidence to rebut the statement by our Government or the relevant contents of the Statutory Declarations by Patrick Seong and Francis Seow.”
“" He would just wait until not only have these people come in and messed up but even controlled our household, and only then would he say that there is a threat. But, by then, it would be too late for us. I support the motion by the Member for Braddell Heights. Dr Ow Chin Hock (Leng Kee)( In Mandarin): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I support the motion by my two colleagues. On this matter of interference of foreign powers in our internal affairs, our whole nation should adopt the same attitude. Outwardly, we should be neither overbearing nor servile ( ). Internally, we must also share the same bitter hatred for the adversary ( ). The Government had to go through diplomatic channels to voice its strong protest. As for our people, we could speak out and take such actions as to express our anger in this matter. Although Singapore is small, we are an independent nation. We would not allow any foreign interference in our internal matters. This Hendrickson affair is a test of our Government and our people in dealing with such foreign interference, especially when this interference comes from a friendly country. The Government has adopted a firm stand and a careful posture in dealing with this matter with justifiable reason and tactful handling. First of all, in order not to embarrass the United States, the Government did not disclose the names of the three officials from the State Department. Secondly, the Government has accepted the United States' explanation that the improper behaviour of those officials was not supported or condoned by the United States government. In other words, our government has made a distinction between the US officials and the United States government. Thirdly, we requested the US to recall Hendrickson; we did not expel him.”
“Because it is not just carbonic acid rain that would fall from the Singapore sky, it is a poison rain, bringing poisons that will slowly be absorbed into our bodies. What I mean by this poison rain is none other than the concepts of life being shoved upon us by certain parties from the West. In this regard, Mr Deputy Speaker, we must differentiate between the United States Government and the people of America on the one part, and certain people who seek to take advantage of the various masks that they hide behind, who come into Singapore through their officers, on their own behalf, as tourists, as students, as journalists, to meet citizens of Singapore, to influence them or to use the mass media to influence not only the young people of Singapore who read their articles, but also to publish articles to be read by people of like mind, such as in Hong Kong, in New Zealand, Australia or the United States in order that these people, individually or through their respective organizations would exert pressure on Singapore to change. Mr Deputy Speaker, the western world considers Singapore as mischievous, misbehaving child who has failed to observe the norms of the west. They use various means to turn this child Singapore into a Western child, who would act appropriately as clones or as minions or henchmen of the West. The problem is there are some people among us who are prepared to become their henchmen and minions and that is why Singapore's domestic affairs are prejudiced and that is how they have been able to come into our house, to run havoc with our bedroom, to mess up our kitchen. And the Member for Potong Pasir says,"Never mind, This will do us no harm.”
“I sincerely hope I would not be pulled in under the ISA and made to swear statutory declarations. Encik Yatiman Yusof( In Malay): Mr Deputy Speaker, the Member for Potong Pasir is well known for making wrong calculations. He said two out of five represented 40%. But he concluded that the whole statutory declaration could not be accepted because there was a mistake in one respect, and that represents 40% of the whole issue, the whole contents of the statutory declaration? That is why I say he tends to make generalizations based on minor facts. This can be misleading. Mr Deputy Speaker, he said that Francis Seow could not and would not represent a threat to Singapore's security because in just 10 days he has spilled the beans. And he wondered whether the "Plen" is still alive today. We cannot take these matters lightly. The Member for Potong Pasir realizes that the young people of Singapore are detached from the events that threatened Singapore in the 1950's. By saying that these threats no longer exist, he has tried to pull the wool over the eyes of the people, blinding them to the real dangers facing Singapore. In his half-an-hour speech he has tried to say that all these things did not happen. I would like to say that Singapore is an open society. Although our airspace is small - our land area is only 600 sq metres - our skies are wide open. With such an open airspace, all kinds of influences could come into Singapore. If the Member for Potong Pasir thinks that these influences should be allowed to continue to come in because the rain that falls would contain no poisons and even if there is any poison it is no more than the carbonic acid that gives us headaches which we will soon recover, then he is mistaken.”
“On a point of clarification. Does the hon. Member know that Patrick Seong mentioned that at a meeting there were five lawyers whom he was certain and two he was not very certain. Out of those five lawyers, he mentioned two names, Jacqueline Baruch and, I believe, it was Edwin de Souza. And these two denied that they had either been there or one of them might have been there, but in any event, not the way Patrick Seong put it. So two out of the five, is 40% error. So don't you think it is a big error there?”
“Of course, we found that we have restrictions. We ask for a permit to go on a bus tour of the constituency, they say, "No." We ask for a rally, they say, "No. Only on May Day and National Day." There you are. But we will take the Prime Minister at his face value and we shall be insisting on what he says to be the position for the Opposition. And if he does not, we will come back and see whether or not his words really mean anything.”
“" It is just like the Teh Cheang Wan affair. In any event, I still take the Prime Minister at his word and I shall be writing to all the police departments pointing out what the Prime Minister has said here, "He can write, he can thumpertize, he can go through new towns, town centres, market centres, organize talks, there is no restriction on him."”
“If you release him, the poor chap probably will have to take at least two or three years to rehabilitate himself. And once he sees the good life outside and the attitude of modern Singaporeans, I do not think he would want to continue with his cause. He will not get support from overseas. Russia and China - they are all going the capitalist way. They are not interested in exporting revolutions. And without the support of China, the Communist Party of Malaya has not got a ghost of a chance to survive. So what has Chia Thye Poh left? His only chance is to try and recruit from our local young chaps, probably the MacDonald kids or some other young people running around in Singapore, but I doubt he will be successful. Because the whole situation in Singapore has changed. There is full employment, as the Government tells us. Everybody has a job and every body wants to get on in life. That is what all the opposition is about. Really, Singaporeans just want to get on. I do not think Singaporeans want to revive communist ideas. They just want to get on in life, but they see that the Government is a stumbling block there. That is why the call for more opposition becomes stronger and stronger every day. As for the Prime Minister's assurance that the Opposition will be allowed to canvass, as he puts it, referring to me, "We give him full rights [referring to me]. He wants meeting, Toa Payoh Stadium, Queenstown Stadium, any hall, National Stadium, is open to him." Well, the Prime Minister has said a lot of things in this House, but when we try to get it, his administrators said, "No, you can't do this, you can't do that." When we come back to the Prime Minister he says, "Well, I allow you, but if they don't allow you, it is none of my business.”
“Because I strongly believe that Mr Chia Thye Poh is no longer in contact with modern day Singapore. An hon. Member: You know that?”