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 54 of 85.
“But our former President has come out and said, "brazen abuse of power". I may tend to agree with him. On Friday, the Prime Minister, made a long speech. We were all enthralled by it. We did not want to interrupt him. But I thought what he said basically are now all out of date. It does not apply to modern Singapore. We have read of Fang Chuang Pi, otherwise known as "the Plen" or the Plenipotentiary of the Communists. I have heard this story many times. But the way the Prime Minister told it, I thought it was enjoyable to listen to it once more. Where is the Plen? Probably he might not be around any more. Is he dead or what? I do not think he can create any more mischief? And poor Chia Thye Poh. He has been in there for 22 years. The Prime Minister says that if you release him, the SDP will not stand a chance. It is a pity the Prime Minister is not here. I will personally go back to my constituents in Potong Pasir and ask them, "Can I step down because I am going to make a challenge to the Prime Minister?" That if he releases Chia Thye Poh and if really the SDP cannot stand a chance, then I will ask the permission of my constituents to resign and give up politics forever.”
“And we note that there is already an inconsistency in his statutory declaration. Three of the lawyers named by him have come out categorically to deny what was stated by Patrick Seong. So we have found grave errors in one area of the statutory declaration. What about the other areas? If he were his proper self, would he have made such mistakes? So we are beginning to question whether or not he is subjected to psychological pressure. He was not himself when he made those admissions in the statutory declaration. We can already see there is inconsistency. So how can you rely wholly on a statutory declaration which is already shattered or its credibility already shown that there are mistakes? The only thing the Government can say of Patrick Seong is that he is out to make mischief. Make mischief to whom? Certainly not to Singapore but probably to the PAP. Does that really justify using the full force of the ISA on him? What about Francis Seow? I for one never for a moment thought that Mr Francis Seow would be taken in under the Internal Security Act. It was really a shock to me. I do not think you can say that Francis Seow is a security threat to Singapore. As the Government has put it, he is not a person committed to a cause. All of a sudden, he was interested in politics. As far as the Government knows, he was a man furthest away from politics and suddenly he got interested. As the Senior Minister has said, within 10 days he spilled the beans. I think you should give him credit that he could last 10 days. I do not know how many of us in the same situation can last 10 days before we spill the beans. To me, in the case of Patrick Seong and Francis Seow, I think there is clear abuse of power on the part of the Government. In fact, I use the words "abuse of power".”
“Yes. If Government has ownership of 85% of the usable land in Singapore, then the private sector has the balance of 15%. So 85% is as good as almost abolishing private property in Singapore. Of course, the only one that the Government is quarelling with is how you get power. But even that the modern Marxists in Europe, the Euro-communists, I think they say, "Look, we don't need violent revolutions. We can go by gradual means." These are the gradualists. As I said, which of the Marxists that the Government is really against. Obviously, they are against the violent overthrow of the Government. Are Vincent Cheng and all his friends of the Gramsci-type, or are they of the early Second International or the early brand of Marxists? Please let us know what they are really guilty of? And do not just say that they are promoting Marxism in Singapore. What evidence has the Government against Patrick Seong? It is only his statutory declaration.”
“Yes, about 85% of usable land. The Minister for National Development is not here to bear me out. In a way, the Singapore Government has already abolished private property as far as land is concerned. Some hon. Members: No.”
“The PAP stresses on nothing but economic survival, which is uppermost in their minds. "We don't want democracy, wasting our time talking and arguing over issues. What we want is economic growth, the more the better." Is this not what Marxism also advocates? The ultimate aim of society is for economic growth. And the second tenet: the abolition of private property is necessary to ensure equality and an end to exploitation. What is the greatest private property in Singapore? It is land. I have been told that 85% of usable land in Singapore, in fact, has already been acquired by the Government. Please, I may be corrected on this.”
“No. I want to bring home the point that Marxism is a very vague general term. It is important for the Government to say under which area of this definition of Marxism have the eight detainees and those who were earlier arrested been guilty of. Just let me quote the basic common tenets of Marxism. There are three: '(i) that economic matters ultimately control political and cultural phenomena; (ii) that abolition of private property is necessary to ensure equality and an end to exploitation; (iii) that the road to such a society must come about by the proletariat, or its (not necessarily proletarian) leaders developing a revolutionary consciousness, grasping power, and acting as a vanguard to issue in the Communist society.' Then it goes on to say that, in fact, now there is a school of thought that: 'the question of the nature of, and need for, revolutionary rather than a gradualist road to the abolition of capitalist society has great importance, especially in the thinking of the EURO-COMMUNIST parties and their theorists like GRAMSCI.' So there you are. We have got a broad general definition of Marxism. And under which area of this definition has the Government arrested the 22 people originally and the present 8, and what are they guilty of? Of course, Mr Vincent Cheng, as he has said, wants a classless society. But "classless society" probably means no private property. Are the Singapore people willing to accept his ideas? I am sure they will not. Because even the Government itself has said that 85% of Singaporeans are already property owners. But as I look at this definition of Marxism, I note that there are some similarities to the PAP Government's philosophy - that economic matters ultimately control political and cultural phenomena.”
“The Marxism associated with the Second International, for example, is rigorously deterministic in an economic way, whilst the Marxism associated with the French school inspired by Althusser has distinctly 'functionalist' undertones, and that of the other French Marxist leader in the post-war years, Poulantzas, allows considerable autonomous political power to the state. Other brands of Marxist-derived theory may not even have 'Marx' as part of the title - TROTSKYISM and MAOISM, while they are 'deviations' from what many would regard as proper Marxism, have much in common with original writings by Karl Marx that modern developments of his insights lack. As far as the actual doctrines of Communist societies go, it is probably better, for the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe, to talk of Marxist-Leninism, because LENIN, and to some extent still STALIN, left major impacts in the process of turning a general theory into a practical doctrine for revolutionaries and subsequent post-revolutionary governments. The most one could require as a common thread to all forms of modern Marxism would be the following tenets:' Sir, please bear with me because it is in point.”
“And the Prime Minister himself has said that the Catholics have done good work in Singapore, schools run by the Catholics in Singapore were the only ones not subverted by the Communists in the early days. That was the reason why he sent his son there. So his son is not contaminated. And now suddenly they accuse the Catholics of being Marxists. Is there a new definition to the Government for Marxism? What is the definition of Marxism? I want the Government to define it. You arrest some people on some vague terms. I have attempted to look up the meaning of "Marxism". I bought a copy of Penguin's Dictionary of Politics. I hear it is very reliable. This is how it defines "Marxism": 'Marxism is a general label to attach to any social theory that can claim a vague philosophical derivation from the works of Karl Marx. In fact Marxism as a general position has become so broad that there is often little serious connection, even in theory. When Marxism is taken to refer also to the operating policies of so-called Marxist or Communist states, as with the Soviet Union, the philosophical gap becomes enormous. This is not to suggest that the various branches of Marxism are themselves theoretically incoherent, nor that they do not have all that much in common. But by now the connections between different forms of Marxism can best be described as involving 'family resemblances' rather than the minimal set of necessary common postulates.”
“This bit of information was reported in this morning's Straits Times. It has been said by members of this Government before that the Americans do not invest massive amounts of money in Singapore because they love Singaporeans, but simply because it is good business for them to do so. They come here to make profits. They get a better return in Singapore for their investments than elsewhere. The reasons for the government wanting to invest in Singapore are purely economic. So it does not make sense. You put money in a place, you go and destroy that place. How crazy can Members of this House get when they accuse the American government of trying to sabotage Singapore? How do you expect Singaporeans to believe the PAP Government when some of its own members talk like that? It completely does not make sense. It boggles the mind. I think the more probable reason is the one that is circulating in the public. The Americans think that our Prime Minister is walking towards an uncovered manhole and they are trying to steer him away from this manhole. But, unfortunately, I think this Government thinks that the Americans are trying to push him in. So in this particular instance, I think the Government should give the benefit of the doubt to the Americans. Of course, it is against their Party's interests. But I want to make it very clear in this House that I do not condone or support foreign interference in our internal affairs, whether they be Americans, British, Chinese or any other foreign government, Chinese from the People's Republic or from Taiwan. The Government accuses Vincent Cheng and his friends of being Marxists. But Vincent Cheng has, in fact, taken steps or wanted to be a Catholic priest and all his friends, most of them, are Catholics.”
“Now, of course, the grave issue before this House is still the detention of the eight Singaporeans. And the issue is still whether they are Marxists, whether they are agents of foreign governments, whether they are a threat to the security of Singapore, and whether they have been assaulted and tortured as detainees. I think these are the issues. And, therefore, the rightful thing for the Government is to clear the air and have a public inquiry. There is no way out. If you really want the truth, get to the bottom of the matter, then there must be a public inquiry. Until a public inquiry is held, I am afraid whatever the Government tries to say day after day in this House will fall on deaf ears. Government has tried with the full force of the mass media, that is, the TV, radio, newspapers, under their control, to make its stories stick. But I say that the majority of the people of Singapore are sceptical. They do not believe what the Government tells them. The Americans who profess from the greatest democracy on earth do not believe that the detainees are Marxists. If they did, why should they attempt, according to the Government's allegations, cultivate them and encourage them to take part in the elections as independent candidates to oppose the Government? Are the Americans mad? The Member for Whampoa appeared to think so. He has suggested in this House on Friday that the Americans are out to sabotage our economy. And he is a Professor of Economics at NUS. I suppose he speaks two languages - one at NUS and one in this House. He must know that the Americans are our greatest foreign investor. They have direct investments of over US$2.3 billion and rising at the rate of about US$200 million a year, making the United States the biggest foreign investor in Singapore.”
“Please. I think I am not going to give way. You refused to answer. Now, I am not making all these allegations of their subversion. It is your Government, it is you. You are the one who is proposing in this House that they should be arrested and subjected to arbitrary imprisonment. You are the one who says that they are Marxists, they are subverting our Government, overthrow our Government by violence, all kinds of accusations. You should be brave enough to confront them.”
“All right. Yes or no? An hon. Member: No.”
“And you can answer them face to face. Why not just accept this proposition and say yes? If you are not, obviously you are not a brave man. It is within the security of these four walls of this House you act like a brave man. I still get no answwer. Mr Goh Choon Kang rose.”
“Well, he should know. But before that, before I tell him the purpose, I have got to inform him that I have not contacted any of the detainees or any of the family members, and this is not a collusion to get hon. Members who have moved the motion and seconded it to meet the members of the families. This is voluntary and it is on my own initiative. Of course, the purpose of the meeting is for the members of the family, their wives, to tell you face-to-face the exact things their husbands, their wives have or have not done. Then you will know the truth.”
“I give way only for him to answer the question. He refused to answer. Mr Goh Choon Kang: That is the point.”
“All right, but not too long. I have only 30 minutes.”
“Members will be willing to meet members of their families and their church members face to face. If they could give me their affirmative answers, I shall be willing to arrange for that meeting. Are they willing?”
“Is it possible that our elected government is capable of such blatant acts against our own people, our own Singaporeans, our own flesh and blood? I want 76 hon. Members of this House to pause and contemplate what this Government has done to eight hapless Singaporeans. What are their crimes? Have they been found with knives, guns, grenades, mortars or other implements of war, whereby they can wage a violent uprising against the Government and get law-abiding citizens killed? The answer, of course, is no. Have they been found to act prejudical to the security of Singapore, to the good order and essential services in this country? Again, the answer is no. So, what is the crime they have committed to warrant their arbitrary arrest, their imprisonment, and subjected to mental and psychological pressures? Psychologists will tell you that such pressures can in certain cases break a man or a woman irreparably. The Member for Braddell Heights and his seconder, the Member for Radin Mas, have bravely come to this House to support the Government's action to detain our fellow Singaporeans. They must. The first paragraph of their motion says so. But I would like to ask them: are they brave enough to meet the wives, husbands, members of their families and church members of the detainees, face to face, and answer their queries and perhaps their anger? We know that the Minister for Trade and Industry - I see he is not here - has decided not to make the trip to America with our Economic Development Board team to canvass for American investments in Singapore. I am sure he has good reasons. I shall be putting up a question in this House to ask for those reasons. I hope that, unlike our said Minister, the hon.”
“Much obliged to you, Mr Deputy Speaker. The way the Member for Telok Blangah referred, I believe, to the arrest of the eight and still being detained persons as a trivial concern only goes to reflect his carelessness, his unfeeling, if not for the detainees at least for members of the detainees' families who are probably at this moment worried sick for their loved ones who are still in prison. I just cannot feel shocked that there is still a Member who has got no such feelings in this House. The issue that is uppermost in the minds of Singaporeans today is, of course, the arbitrary arrest of our young Singaporeans under the Internal Security Act. They are disturbed by the incarceration and the continued incarceration of the eight detainees, in particular, at the Government's appearance of carelessness and non-caring nature in not announcing when the remaining eight detainees will be released. Even in the case of a common criminal when he is convicted and sentenced to a jail sentence, he will be specifically told exactly how long he will have to remain in jail, whether it is six months, one year, or 10 years. Whatever the period of custodial sentence, he has a release date that will keep up his spirits and something to look forward to. In the case of our current lot of detainees, none of them know exactly how long they will stay behind bars. Is it going to be just the statutory 30 days or one year, two years, or 20 years like Chia Thye Poh? The fact that no release date is made known to the detainees or to their spouses or to members of their families, or even to their church members is itself a mental torture to them. Is this the act of a civilized government?”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, I do not want to go into this whole thing. But if he gives me the permission, I will go into the whole episode of this defamatory action that I took against him, the Member for Whampoa. It will not put him in a very good light. But if he challenges me, I will reveal all the details if he wants to.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, may I have your permission?”
“Oh, please. You did not pay me interest. This is a serious point. This Professor of Economics is making a very serious allegation of foreign powers, especially the United States, that a friendly nation is trying to sabotage the economic prosperity in Singapore. I know speakers cannot come and get away so easily with this kind of unfounded allegation of our friendly power. As regards the other point he has made, he says that the success of Singapore is due to the government that cares for the people of Singapore. That is not the only contributory element to Singapore's success. He knows just as well as everybody else, there are other contributing factors. Above all, it is the hardworking, disciplined people that we have in Singapore. It is not just the Singapore Government alone. And what about the conditions in surrounding countries during that period when we were prospering? That also is a contributing factor. I wish he would clarify this point first.”
“You paid me only $6,000, not $7,000. Don't increase that amount. $5,000 for damages, $1,000 for costs.”
“Repeat that outside the House. Be a man! Don't run out of this one!”
“I have to get the Member for Whampoa to clarify a very important point of what he has said first. He alleged that one of the reasons for foreign interference was economic sabotage. Now, this is a very serious allegation of big powers, including the United States of America, because they say that their own economy is in disarray. Is he implying that Americans are trying with the acts or alleged acts of Mr Hendrickson to sabotage our Singapore's economy? Is he saying that? A friendly nation trying to sabotage our economy? What is the point of doing that? They are investing millions of dollars here. They want to bring us to ruin? I cannot fathom the Professor of Economics in this sense. Please explain.”
“So now this is an additional matter which I think, if he wants to, we can have a debate on it on another day.”
“He was the one who interfered me and I had the right to respond to him.”
“Just give me time. We have got more important matters here. In fact, what he has brought up, you should rule not an issue at the moment.”
“I would like, with your permission, Mr Deputy Speaker, to clarify one point with the Member for Whampoa. He alleged among other things foreign interference is to ---”
“That's right. The Member for Punggol just refuses ---”
“The Member for Punggol just refuses to accept what I have said in this House.”
“These two countries, they are communist countries. They got hardly any investments in Singapore. They are not friendly nations as compared to the US. I think he is comparing two completely different entities. The US is our biggest investor in Singapore and is our close ally and a friendly nation. I think there is a proper attitude between friends. If we have got the proper evidence, then we will chastise our friends. But under the circumstances, we have obtained evidence, statutory declarations when the poor chaps are in prison. The jailors - I do not know what they do with them. So it is on this basis that we do not accept. But we in the Opposition here, unfortunately only one, but the Opposition does not accept the Government's position until these people are released, on their own free will admit to the things that they have admitted in the statutory declarations. Then we will take the Government's stand. Until such date, we will reject the statutory declarations of both Mr Francis Seow and Mr Patrick Seong.”
“People's Republic of China. All right. Then you have clarified.”
“Sir, with due respect to the Member for Punggol, he is comparing the United States with Russia and Republic of China. Of course, he probably means Mainland China.”
“He said that the US government has not denied? But the statement he has just read to us today is a clear cut denial of the US government's interference in Singapore. I think the Member for Punggol is barking up the wrong tree. I have already made my position very clear yesterday. I said that we reject the Government's position because it is based on evidence obtained when the person is under detention, under duress. Evidence obtained under duress is not legal evidence. Everybody knows it. Anybody who knows anything about law knows it. That is the reason why we reject the findings of the Singapore Government in respect of the statutory declaration. That is the position. If Patrick Seong and Francis Seow come out in the open, and if the Government allows them to swear another statutory declaration that that declaration is not accepted, let us come into the open inquiry as free men, and if they admit all those things, I will accept them and, in fact, I will be the first one to condemn the Americans. So do not get me wrong. That is my position, and for heaven's sake, please do not go and make personal attacks at me again. Mr Ng Kah Ting: Mr Speaker, Sir, I am not making any personal attacks. I am merely stating the facts - what is in the Government statement. Is he denying it?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, can I just have a point of clarification from the Member for Punggol. He has got himself tied up in knots and contradicts himself. I am not defending the US in any way. An hon. Member: You are.”
“The hon. Member said that Singapore has accepted the official version of the United States government in that it was the errant diplomats who were at fault and not the US government. But the Member for Jalan Kayu does not accept the Singapore Government's stand on this matter because he says the Singapore Government accepted it because it is between friends. So is he implying that the Singapore Government does not believe in what it does? That it is just because of friendship, that the Singapore Government accepts the US position although not believing in it, not sincere about it? Is that what the Member for Jalan Kayu is implying?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I wonder whether the hon. Member would give way for a point of clarification. Are you willing? Mr Heng Chiang Meng resumed his seat.”
“There are three points I want to clarify.”
“I have clarified myself but he insists -”
“There is no secret funds mentioned please.”
“We know Singapore's conditions. We know what directions we are going. And we know how to take care of our own affairs. Mr Deputy Speaker: Order. It is 1.00 pm. I suspend the Sitting and will take the Chair again at 2 o'clock. Sitting accordingly suspended at 1.00 pm until 2.00 pm. Sitting resumed at 2.00 pm [Mr Deputy Speaker in the Chair] Debate resumed.”
“I think the Minister has completely missed the point. The point is that you should not use the ISA at the drop of a hat. In fact, the use of the ISA, the political weapon which you have, should be used as a last resort. You incarcerate people, you pull them in on all kinds of false charges - Marxist, Communist, and the lot. And these very same people are cultivated by Hendrickson who comes from a democratic country. How do you reconcile it if you are accusing these people of Marxist, and Americans who are the greatest democrats in the world are also cultivating communists? Can we believe you? And also the very basis of our legal system, you cannot use duress, force, coercion to get evidence from people. But if these people come forward on their own free will and say, "Yes. The Americans have been interfering in our domestic affairs", I will be the first one to condemn them. Until then, we have to reject your version of American interference. Why? Because your evidence is based on statutory declarations obtained when people are under great duress. That is the reason. I think you missed the point. I am against any form of outside interference in this country. Of course we are. We have our own sovereign dignity, integrity, pride, sovereignty. Non-interference must be the basis of relationship between countries. It must be. So I will be the first one to condemn the Americans and say, "Lay off your hands. Do not interfere in Singapore's politics. We Opposition can take good care of ourselves. We don't need your help. If you want to have a chit-chat, it's all right with me." But don't tell me or don't tell any of my party members or the others - I cannot speak for other Opposition - but for my party, don't tell us what to do. We know what we are doing.”
“I am sorry. BG Lee Hsien Loong: That was a speech in which I asked some questions to which the Member for Potong Pasir should in due course give substantive replies. Mr Chiam See Tong rose -”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, I hate to interrupt. But I do not know on what basis the Minister stands up to make a speech. If he wants clarification, I will give him clarification.”
“You should not have taken statutory declarations from them when they are in your lock-up. Let them go. Let them be free men. Have a public inquiry. If they give evidence as free men, then there is credibility to their evidence; not when you have got jailors and you have got professional psychologists to apply psychological pressure on them.”
“So how are they going to appear on television and say things that they want to say? And not say things which they had said when they were in captivity?”
“But learned economists know that the recession was not due to the Opposition. In fact, it was due to world conditions and also the PAP's high wage and high cost policy. In any event, it has been said that even if one Opposition comes into Parliament, Singapore's economy will be in trouble. But look, now there was not one but two Opposition Members have come in, there is still no problem. In fact, our biggest investors are the Americans. Americans have been pouring millions of dollars into Singapore and it is the Americans who want Opposition in Parliament. The Americans who are encouraging this so-called lot of people coming to stand as - Some hon. Members: Ah!”
“I have to remind you. You had already paid me $6,000 damages. Don't take any more chances!”
“I think you should give more credit to the electorate. I think they know who to vote and when to vote an Opposition in. You should give them credit and not tell them, "Look. If there is one opposition in, whatever this Opposition is a scallywag or whatever, the whole Singapore economy will be in jeopardy." That is not true. I think that is over-exaggeration.”