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 55 of 85.
“We have got 15 minutes more. I do not know how much time I have.”
“Just for the sake of the record, I will withdraw it and I will substantiate it the next time. Just for the record. As you say, probably we will have to get a statutory declaration from these people. Damage has obviously been done to the US-Singapore relationship. This Government has more than once come forward to tell Singaporeans that Singapore is a small place. Our margin of error is very small. We are very vulnerable. Now what has happened? Who has caused damage to Singapore? Has the Opposition done anything wrong? Have any of the members of the public or business people done damage to Singapore? No. It is the Government, in handling this whole affair - by your own admission - has hurt the relationship between Singapore and America. Now you have to go and make repairs. So it shows that, in fact, Singapore is quite resilient. You can make a mistake, you can still repair it and we can go on. I think all this talk about Singapore's vulnerability is just for political purposes. I do not think American investment will stop coming to Singapore. It will continue to come. I think this whole Hendrickson affair will just blow over, like most events in Singapore. So if you harp too much on this so-called vulnerability of Singapore, I do not think people will believe you. Not long ago, in one of the general elections, in fact, the First Deputy Prime Minister has in one instance - or I think even more than once, I cannot remember - said that even if one Opposition gets elected our economy will be in jeopardy. We will have instability - with one opposition. We have got one, we have got two Opposition Members and investments are still coming in. So there is no problem.”
“The witness is not here yet. I will have to go and confront him. And if he tells a lie, I will come and withdraw the statement. Sure, of course, I have to. I think you are very fair. I think that is the position. Now, let me continue, please. I think that is the position.”
“Thank you, Minister. I think that is the correct position. I have to substantiate it or withdraw it. I think that is perfectly fair.”
“I have to confirm with this chap. The Minister for Home Affairs (Prof. S. Jayakumar): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, this raises a very serious point about privilege and breach of privilege. All hon. Members here enjoy immunity from legal proceedings and we have freedom of speech here. But that does not mean we can come here and repeat hearsay uttered to us by persons outside. A Member cannot come here and say that Mr A said so-and-so in this House is corrupt, for example. That will be a breach and abuse of our privilege. So the Second Deputy Prime Minister is perfectly right in asking the Member for Potong Pasir to either substantiate his allegation or to withdraw it.”
“I think it is very fair, Second Deputy Prime Minister. If you say so - that money has not been paid, that is fair enough. I will take your word for it. There is no money paid and I will confront this chap and say -”
“I am not making a false statement unless you are saying that there is no such person, I have invented this story, then I will withdraw it.”
“How much am I paid to say that? That is slanderous. That is an allegation that I am here not as a representative of Potong Pasir but as a proxy who is paid to come and say these things. May I be allowed to continue?”
“I am not telling a lie. I have heard it and I have come to say it in this House unless you are saying that there is no such person. Are you saying that?”
“I have got to look him up and bring him along.”
“I am repeating in this House what I have been told.”
“And he was supposed to be given $5 but since he went on his own he was given $3. That is my information.”
“I was told. This particular person was from the airline staff union or whatever ---”
“Somebody told me. I said somebody told me. I was told.”
“I thought I saw him in the Gallery just now but he has gone home. An hon. Member: You withdraw!”
“If you want to, I could bring the person who told me this. An hon. Member: Bring him!”
“I was told. The Second Deputy Prime Minister (Mr Ong Teng Cheong): Hearsay. It is too bad the Member for Potong Pasir depends on hearsay. Some hon. Members: Withdraw!”
“" Well, I do not see what hope there is if for the next four, five days, we are going to hit out at America. So is this the style of the second generation leaders? We are going to have four, five days of so-called debate but, in fact, it is just hitting out at the Americans. Of course, we already had one demonstration by NTUC, anti-American demonstration. Finally the Straits Times on the 11th May could predict that there were 4,000 participants. I wonder how they know. I was told that each of the participants was paid $3 to $5 to attend. An hon. Member: Prove it.”
“The ultimate objective of the Americans, he said, was to look after their own political, military and strategic interests.' You are referring to a friend, using these harsh words. And we have got a teacher who wants to bring his literature lesson into Parliament. He compares America to Brutus - stabbing Singapore's back. Is that how you refer to a friend? I think the Member for Kampong Ubi has really gone too far. America has not stabbed Singapore in the back. I cannot imagine the Member for Kampong Ubi saying this kind of things about a friend. Then, of course, others have come in less muted tones but, nevertheless, the message is the same. Everything is bad about America - uncovering of foreign powers in Singapore politics, super power interference. We can go on and on for the next four or five days. Are we really leaving matters behind us? We are not. Where is the credibility of the Singapore Government? We accept the position and now we are going on as if they are stabbing us in the back. We have already assured them. We agreed with them. We said, "Look, yes. It was only a few of your diplomats who have erred. We have kicked them out. All right, we will leave the matter behind." But it does not appear to be so. In fact, damage has been done to the relationship between Singapore and the US. On 24th May, the Straits Times reported the First Deputy Prime Minister to have said, "Ties with the US can be repaired." So at the press conference earlier on, 23rd May, it was reported that "American ties with Singapore and the second generation of government leaders have been hurt by the Hendrickson affair." The First Deputy Prime Minister also held out, "There is hope for repairing the relationship.”
“The Government has accepted that assurance. Yes, so I think there is already a tacit agreement. You have accepted that position. And now here we are, prolonging this whole debate instead of finishing it off on the second day, like the Member for Ayer Rajah has said, "Let this matter rest." I agree with him - let this matter rest. We call it off today. Why should we drag it on for the next three, four, five days? What is the purpose? You will only make the situation worse. After all, America is our friend, not our foe. True, it has hurt the PAP. I do not think America has hurt Singapore in any way. So let it rest. In fact, it was also reported and it has been repeated in this House that both the Singapore Government and the US government would like to leave this whole unpleasant episode behind them. So why do we want to go on, and treat America like a whipping boy? Let us just read what has been going on, and I hope it would not go on for the next few days. Yesterday I tried to object, but Mr Speaker said I have my turn. So I am not missing this opportunity. The Member for Braddell Heights said this [Straits Times, 26th May 1988]: 'The Americans had tried to manipulate Singapore politics, he said, and their tactics included using the foreign press and human rights organizations to smear the Government and make it out to be dictatorial. By doing so, they were trying to create doubts in people's minds about the Government and attempting to drive a "divisive wedge" between Singaporeans and the Government, he said. If these subversive activities were not discovered in time, there might be in Parliament "a group of puppets subservient to and controlled by foreigners", he said.”
“" I cannot more than support this stand. As far as I can see, Singapore has a tacit agreement with the US. The agreement is this. The US has said, "Look. We have got no official plan to interfere with your country and that there is a distinction between the US government and its errant diplomats." In other words, what Hendrickson and his other diplomats did was their own affair. They were not asked to do by the government. A Member from the Government side has asked, "Do I believe it?" That is not an issue.”
“Well, so far the Government of Singapore has accepted the US Government's position. The Singapore Government nevertheless has asked the US Government to withdraw Hendrickson from his post in Singapore and the US Government has not just stood idly by. It has retaliated by requesting Singapore to recall its First Secretary (Political), an equivalent position, Mr Robert Chua Hian Kong, from Washington. This is what was reported on the 11th May of the Straits Times. 'The US Assistant Secretary for East Asian and Pacific Affairs, Mr Gaston Sigur, told Singapore's ambassador, Mr Tommy Koh, that it was with deep regret that the US government had to request the withdrawal of Mr Robert Chua Hian Kong, First Secretary (Political) in the Singapore embassy here. He said in view of Singapore's request that the US withdraw Mr E. Mason "Hank" Hendrickson, First Secretary (Political) in the US embassy in Singapore, the Reagan administration was left with no option but to respond. In reply to a question, Mr Koh said the US was not accusing Mr Chua of any improper conduct, but simply was retaliating against Singapore's move.' Poor Mr Chua. He was enjoying his stay in Washington, just beginning to feel all the nice things in America and out of the blue the lightning struck, and he and members of his family have to be bundled home. In fact, it was reported that this was believed to be the first public known instance of a Singapore diplomat being asked to leave this posting. So that is the luck of Mr Chua. I support the Member for Ayer Rajah. His speech was short but I thought that was to the point and I think we should take note of what the Member has said. "More rhetoric can only lead to deterioration of US-Singapore relationship. Let this matter rest.”
“What other better affirmation you can get than from the highest authority? Then again, the US Government stressed the difference between errant diplomats and the US Government. In other words, the position is that the Reagan Government has got nothing to do with what has happened in Singapore as regards the activities of Mr Hendrickson. Because our Government has accepted that position. We accept the assurance given by the US Government. So this is the official position and again, the US Government has denied that any US funds had been provided to Opposition elements in Singapore. Again, the Singapore Government says, "No, we are not alleging anything about US Government giving funds to the Opposition here." That is the position. That is the Government's position. It is also on record that the US Government has said that Hendrickson had not acted improperly in carrying out his duties in Singapore.”
“The Singapore Government accepts this explanation and expects the US Government to ensure that its officials and diplomats adhere to this hands-off policy.' As regards Seow's finances, I quote again: 'The Government yesterday said that the US government had denied that any US government funds had been provided "to opposition elements" here.' And the statement added: 'The Singapore Government does not allege that Seow had received funds from the US government.' Again, the article continued: 'The Government has not completed investigating Seow's financial affairs. The results of these investigations will be made known in due course.' Then at a press conference held on 23rd May, the Minister for Trade and Industry revealed that it was the American Secretary of State, Mr George Shultz, himself who had written to assure the Government that there was no plan to interfere in Singapore's affairs. The Minister said: 'We accept that this could be the action of one diplomat and some over-zealous officials to see an important role for themselves.' Sir, the US is a friendly country and it is an important economic ally to us. I believe they are our largest foreign investor. It is true they have got no military pact or treaty with us. But I am sure the US does not want to see Singapore turn into a communist state, and if Singapore were to be attacked by a large communist country I am certain the US will not stand idly by. They know that Singapore is in a strategic position. What is the US position from the statements that I have just read? (1) The US Government has no plans whatsoever to interfere in our internal affairs. That is quite clear. In fact, the letter is from none other than the Secretary of State himself, Mr George Schultz.”
“I am much obliged to you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I am have an amendment to the main motion, and I beg to move, As an amendment "to leave out from "House -" in line one to the end and there to insert - "(a) rejects the recent action of the government against alleged subversive activities of Marxists, the United States government and foreign interest groups, and (b) calls upon the government to be more open and tolerant and declare that under our democratic system, legitimate pressure groups do have a say in our domestic affairs."." Sir, I would like to clarify that by "domestic groups", of course I mean domestic groups in Singapore, and not foreign domestic groups. Sir, may I just quote from the main article in the Straits Times of 21st May, 1988: 'Yesterday, the Government protested against the improper behaviour of Mr Hendrickson and his State Department supervisor, described only as "Mr Y", towards Seow.' This is how the Government statement put it: 'The cultivation of Francis Seow was not a free-lance effort by Hendrickson or Mr Y alone. The operation was continued through several changes of State Department personnel. In a written communication the US Government has assured Singapore that there was no plan whatsoever to interfere in the internal affairs of our country. The Singapore Government does not allege that the cultivation and instigation of Francis Seow and Patrick Seong represented official US government policy, or that the improper behaviour of Hendrickson and the others was sanctioned by the US government.' I quote again: 'In a meeting with the Minister for Foreign Minister on May 18, the US Ambassador to Singapore stressed the difference between the behaviour of errant diplomats and the US government position.”
“Because of our open economy, our stability and future prosperity can be easily influenced by other super-powers. Although America has been one of our closest friends and allies, Singaporeans realize that the Government's firm action in asking for the recall of one of their errant officers, Hendrickson, will help to discourage other super-powers like Russia and China from interfering in our domestic affairs. Since our independence in 1965, our Government, the PAP government, has demonstrated time and again that it is with such firm action that Singapore finally won the respect and confidence not only of Singaporeans but also of foreign investors. Singapore's success today has been due to a large extent to this confidence that has been built up through these years. Singaporeans will therefore continue to support and have confidence in the Government's firm and decisive action against foreign interference in our domestic affairs. Sir, I support the motion.”
“From historical experiences, we know that foreign interference would not bring about any good ends to a country. For the sake of our security and peace, we should eradicate all the internal subversive element and to strenghten our effort. I support the motion, Sir. Dr Wong Kwei Cheong (Cairnhill): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the Government has once again won the confidence of the people of Singapore by its firm action to prevent our country from being subverted whether by Marxists, communists, Western powers or other foreign interest groups. This can be seen from the reaction of Singaporeans over the American interference in Singapore's domestic politics involving Hendrickson and Francis Seow. A telephone survey carried out by the Research Department of the Straits Times on 19th May found that 79% of those surveyed were aware that the Government has asked Hendrickson to leave after revealing he has been instigating the opposition against the Government. Of this, 77% thinks that the government was right in asking him to leave. Grassroots leaders from 12 constituencies at a get-together at the Cairnhill Community Centre on 21st May expressed their anger and frustration over the American interference in Singapore's domestic affairs. They fully supported the Government's action and called upon the Government to be vigilant of all foreign interference. And on 22nd May 1988, during the ministerial walkabout at two constituencies, Rochore and Teck Ghee, hundreds of residents signed petitions protesting against American interference. All these show that Singaporeans fully support the Government's action in protecting our national security. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, Singapore is but a small island with no natural resources and surrounded by much bigger neighbours.”
“On behalf of the Jurong electorate, I fully support the actions taken by the Government. Singapore is a small country. But under the leadership of a judicious government, we have been marching on the road to prosperity. We have never borrowed from another country. We do not owe any country any debt or beholden to any other country. Therefore, when our Prime Minister and national leaders go abroad to visit bigger countries, they have been accorded respect and courtesy. This cannot be compared with leaders of small countries visiting bigger countries to seek aid. When we go abroad, we are respected by other people. Even when our people travel abroad, they are well treated when they produce the red Singapore passport at custom checkpoints. So I do not understand why there could be foreign diplomats and other elements who want to interfere with our internal affairs. We should stress and seriously tell these people that we will not allow them to interfere in our internal affairs, be they from great powers or from any other sources. We must repel and expose such intrigue. Singapore does not have natural resources. We have been able to live in this corner of Southeast Asia with prosperity. It is not an easy matter. We have built up an independent Singapore through our toil and effort and are prosperous and progressive. These results should be valued by every Singaporean. I cannot imagine how there can be some Singaporeans who should have links with foreign forces to build up an opposition camp against our Government. I agree that the people have the right and freedom to form their organizations and to take part in politics. But we should not do so under the instigation of foreign forces and subversive element. We should not be the agents for foreign forces.”
“They will be the ones to suffer, as can be seen by what is happening in those countries which are victims of foreign intervention, some unwittingly and some even by chance. Therefore, Sir, in essence, the stake is Singapore. The people of Singapore cannot, in my view, play a passive role. They must decide what they want and play their part because only they can decide who should govern Singapore. In short, the future of Singapore lies with Singaporeans and Singaporeans alone. For myself, I choose to stand behind this present Government and the PAP. I fully support the actions taken by the Government to protect the security of Singapore and I would expect the Government to continue its vigilance against subversion by locals as well as foreigners. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, in conclusion, once again I fully support the motion moved by the Members for Braddell Heights and Radin Mas. The Senior Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Communications and Information (Mr Ho Kah Leong)( In Mandarin): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I support the motion moved by the Member for Braddell Heights and the Member for Radin Mas. Sir, Singapore is an independent sovereign country. We have our sovereignty and our dignity which are sacrosanct and cannot be intruded upon. Anybody who wants to damage our integrity or to make inroads into our sovereignty, Singaporeans with flesh and blood will give them such a heavy blow. We have to defend our territorial integrity and independent sovereignty which is the bounden duty of every citizen. As an elected government, before anything should happen, we should take speedy action to arrest those subversive elements and bring them to book and to crush their intrigues. That is a most reasonable action that a responsible government should do.”
“They are only interested in becoming a "voice of opposition" in Parliament. But this reason is not good enough. What good would mere words be and what good would mere words do also? What would the need of people be? What the people need are actions and deeds. Actions for the people and deeds for the nation. That is why we have the People's Action Party. For whom will those independent candidates speak for? Will they be the voice of the constituents? Or will they be the voice, in this case, of the American mentors and benefactors? Sir, I may not have years of political experience behind me and I may not have seen everything. But I know that I am not wrong in saying this. Singapore needs political leaders who are committed and dedicated Singaporeans - people who have the tenacity and courage to carry out the task of improving the lot of her people, however unpleasant the task may be at times. This is their job. Singapore will not survive simply by a group of people staging some acts in Parliament. Acts with a small "a". Sir, this is not to belittle Parliament but to reinforce my earlier point that working in the interest of the people is the paramount duty of an elected representative. Let me say this. If the Government of Singapore comprised people who decided to enter politics at the instigation and encouragement of foreigners, this surely will be the death-knell for Singapore. We will then have a puppet government because these people will not serve the interests of Singapore nor Singaporeans but their own personal interests and the interests of their foreign supporters. What happens to the people then?”
“Therefore, Singapore as a nation and her people ought to ask themselves, "Do we want to be left alone as a people and as an independent, sovereign nation, to chart our own destiny and future, or do we want foreigners, be they friendly or otherwise, to have a say in our way of life?" Let us look at this matter in its proper perspective. Singapore and the USA have a more than cordial relationship. We even regard them as our friends and yet beneath diplomatic smiles and handshakes, there lurks some senior American officials who connive to deal us a blow below the belt. Obviously, they do not believe in fair play. So what is their motive? I think it has something to do with their own interests. It seem that we are up against people who have no compunction in playing foul. These American officials, despite US Government's denial, mounted a black operation against Singapore. They resorted to underhanded, yet blatant, operations to influence and manipulate our domestic politics. They know they are unable to influence or manipulate the PAP Government or its MPs. There have been illustrations on this and I have no wish to go over the same ground. Apparently, Sir, the objective of those Americans is to provide a 'credible' opposition to the PAP through independent candidates. Therefore, the people of Singapore ought to be very cautious of independent candidates who stand for elections at the instigation and encouragement of foreigners. I would urge the people of Singapore to ruminate the consequences that will follow if they elect these independent candidates. These people are not interested in improving the standard of living for Singaporeans, or for that matter, in building a better future for Singaporeans.”
“We are happy if they come as tourists. We are pleased if they come as businessmen. We welcome them to trade, to invest, to report what is happening in Singapore, or to learn about Singapore. Singaporeans go overseas to do the same. But no foreigner, never mind whether he is a diplomat, a foreign correspondent, or a human rights activist, should meddle in our domestic politics. If he does, he will be stopped. If he is a diplomat, he will be expelled. If he is not, he will be arrested. Politics in Singapore is strictly for Singaporeans. If we let others join in, we will soon be destroyed. Thank you, Mr Speaker. [Applause.] [Mr Deputy Speaker in the Chair] 12.40 pm Mr Ng Kah Ting (Punggol): Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to speak in support of the motion moved by my colleagues, the Members for Braddell Heights and Radin Mas. Sir, people from all walks of life have expressed anger and outrage at the impertinence of American diplomat, E.M. Hendrickson and the three US State Department officials in interfering in our domestic politics. I am also angered and outraged by their actions. However, I am aware that some people, especially some young professionals, feel that such interference was not wrong, or at the most, was a "political wrong" to which the Government has over-reacted. But, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I submit that a political wrong is still a wrong and I feel that the Government has reacted in the interests of Singapore by tackling this matter with more restraint than I would have thought it deserved. For this group of young professionals to feel this way is quite understandable. They may not be able to see in greater depth the danger and the irreparable harm such actions by outsiders can do to Singapore and her people.”
“And the whole of Southeast Asia can see what American diplomats have been doing and can observe American State Department officials clearing their names honourably. Let us do it. We must keep foreigners out of domestic politics. For us, this is not just a question of abstract moral principle but an issue of life and death. Some people doubt that the Americans meant us harm. Well, they may or may not mean us harm. Let us assume they intended to do us well. But how can Hendrickson or any official like Hendrickson, total experience in Southeast Asia - Udorn, Bangkok, Manila -yiow can he possibly have an inkling of how Singapore works? What makes this place stick together and tick? Or what Singaporeans need and want? Even for us, 77 MPs, loyal to Singapore, it is already a heavy and difficult responsibility to decide and to debate and resolve what is the right thing to do for Singapore. How can a foreigner, operating covertly behind the scenes, do better for us, even assuming he means well? But how can you assume that he means well? How can you be sure that he is doing this for Singapore? Why should an American career official, whose promotion and advancement depends on the United States of America, risk his career, his future, much less his life, for Singapore? Suppose some of Hendrickson's proteges are elected as MPs in the next general election. When they swear in as MPs, will they swear to bear true faith and allegiance to the Republic of Singapore? Or will they swear to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States of America? We will need another copy here, not just this Constitution and not just the American one, but whose else? We are a very open society. Few other countries welcome foreigners so warmly or in such large numbers as we do.”
“All this is a figment of ISD's fevered imagination? Or is he saying the meetings took place, but when they met they discussed Superbowl football and never talked about Singapore politics? Or is he saying they talked about Singapore politics, but Patrick Seong and Francis Seow totally misunderstood Hendrickson and Snyder, and he was not giving any encouragement? Because they speak American English, which is different from Singapore English? Or is he saying Hendrickson and Snyder did everything which is alleged, everything which has been reported, but they were fully entitled to do so and they will continue to do so in future? Which? How does Richard Gong know what Hendrickson and Snyder said to Patrick Seong and Francis Seow? He was not there. Only Hendrickson, Snyder and Lambertson know that, and they have said nothing. They have not denied anything in the statutory declarations or in the Government press statements, even though if what had been said had been untrue they would all have been gravely defamed. Why are they not challenging this? Our position is, if they challenge this, we will invite them to offer themselves for cross-examination. Let us get to the bottom of this. Let us match their account with Francis Seow's and Patrick Seong's. Let us put them together, and see who is lying. We can do it face-to-face. Or if they are reluctant to come back to Singapore, we can do it by long-distance satellite television. USIS organizes these functions frequently enough. Lambertson may have even appeared on some of these Telenet functions. Produce them again. We will have Francis Seow and Patrick Seong on this end. They can have Lambertson, Snyder and Hendrickson on the other end.”
“Do you think it would be a legitimate activity for a Russian diplomat in Singapore to cultivate the Opposition and tell them to form an Opposition party? Let us get closer to home. Supposing it was our diplomat in Malaysia. A First Secretary in Kuala Lumpur cultivating the DAP Secretary-General, telling DAP, that Dr Mahathir and his government are wrong, immoral, doing bad things; telling DAP to get together, Malay professionals, contest, become credible. Do you think that he will not be expelled by the Malaysian government, or when he came back to Singapore we would not hang, draw and quarter him? Imagine a fourth example. A Malaysian diplomat in Singapore cultivating PKMS, advising them to oppose GRCs, telling them to become a force and how to become a force and offering them: if anything happens, they can have asylum in Malaysia. Would that be proper? It is unthinkable. It is unthinkable for us to do it in KL. It is unthinkable for them to do it in Singapore. And therefore, we do not do it, they do not do it. But what Hendrickson, Snyder and Lambertson did was exactly the same. Just change the names. The Americans now have egg on their face. The US State Department has denied that their diplomats did anything wrong. Their spokesman, Richard Gong of USIS in Singapore, said: 'Mr Hendrickson's activities in Singapore were entirely in keeping with normal diplomatic practice and his responsibilities as an officer of the foreign service of the United States.' This is a fig leaf, is it not? Americans are strange. When they have egg on their face they look for a fig leaf to cover themselves. But what does this blanket and vague denial mean? What is it which he is claiming? Is he saying that the meetings reported by Patrick Seong and Francis Seow never took place?”
“Seow met one of the Loh brothers in Taiwan. He paid Seow $50,000 in cash. Why? Why should Mei Seah, or one of the Loh brothers from the Kah Wah Bank - they take money, you know; they do not give money - why should they suddenly make generous donations to Francis Seow, or lend him large sums of money, unsecured, knowing his record as a creditor, and his credit-unworthiness? Why? ISD is now asking Francis Seow. But whatever ISD turns up, whatever the sources of these funds, and whether or not any of these sums can be traced back to their ultimate donors, who gave whom the money to give to Seow? Where did it come from? Whatever the answers, Seow's finances clearly raise many questions. Some people have said what Hendrickson did was nothing wrong. He talked to Seow, he kept in touch with Seow, he maintained contact. Even his words "money is not a problem", so what? But Hendrickson's behaviour was grossly improper and unbecoming of a diplomat. I think many Singaporeans have difficulty imagining how improper and flagrant a violation this is because the United States is, a friendly country and you cannot imagine a friend doing this to you. But let me present it in a different way and consider some similar situations. The first example the 1 DPM has used. You invite a guest into your home to have dinner. Instead of sitting in a sitting room and having dinner in the dining room, he goes into your bedroom, messes up your master bedroom toilet and lies on your master bed. Is that what a friend is supposed to do? Consider another analogy. Supposing it was not Mr Hendrickson of the US Embassy, but a Russian from the Russian Embassy, say Mr Bezrukavnikov. I do not know if there is one, but somebody like that.”
“They were in love. BG Lee Hsien Loong: Mr Speaker, I hate to pursue this line, but I do not know whether the Member for Potong Pasir also makes it a habit to borrow money from his girl friends! Seow has also been withdrawing large sums of money from his company's account, far more than the firm was earning. From 1975 to 1987 his firm earned $705,000. Seow's net drawing amounted to more than $11 million. He put some in, then he took more out, but always more out than in. So the firm's capital is now in deficit. by about $300,000. He has been borrowing from the firm. Every year from 1974 onwards till 1986 he has taken out more money from the firm than he has paid back. Drawings, this is money owed. When he has paid back, which sometimes he has, some of the deposits have been in cash, others by cheque, which is only to be expected. Some cash transactions, some cheque transactions, until 1986. In 1987, the pattern abruptly changed. He paid in $203,000 in 21 instalments. He had never done this before. This was more than twice as much as he had ever paid to the firm in any one year. For the first time deposits exceeded withdrawals. For the first time all the deposits were in cash. $203,000 in cash! You need suitcases to carry the money. Several of these cash deposits were very large. One was $100,000; another four added up to $55,000. What happened? There are other suggestions. Seow claims that this year he received another $50,000 in cash. From whom? One of the Loh brothers of Ka Wah Bank. You remember Ka Wah Bank? It is a bank which collapsed in Hong Kong, and the Hong Kong government was forced to step in and bail them out. The Loh brothers had caused this collapse. They were charged with fraud in Hong Kong. They jumped bail. They went to Taiwan.”
“Because although the discussions had gone on for a year - the Select Committee hearings were in October 1986 and this was already November 1987 - and Seow had talked and made speeches, he had not yet gone to recruit people or to prepare seriously. Only after the November 1987 meeting did Seow start to prepare seriously for elections. He would not tell you that he did it because he was told, but he admits that it took place only after the meeting. I read Seow: 'In fact, it was only from the start of this year [that means 1988] or the end of 1987, that I began to seriously set about making concrete plans. I worked out a list of professionals to approach to join me to take part in the election. These were persons whom I assessed were likely to be interested in standing for elections.' So that is the meaning. Asylum offered. Person hooked, made beholden. First instruction: get an Opposition together. Seow complied. Will it be the last instruc- tion which he would have given Seow? Or would there have been more? What about the money? One of the major reasons for the Government getting suspicious about Seow was his money affairs. We are still investigating his financial affairs, but already some suspicious patterns have come to light which Francis Seow is having difficulty explaining. Even today Seow still owes various people more than $1.2 million. This includes $350,000 which his girl friend, Mei Seah, who is in Kuala Lumpur, lent him to help him to repay an overdraft from the UMBC in August 1986. Why a girl friend should lend a boy friend $350,000, I do not know.”
“For Hendrickson to enlist Seow as an Opposition candidate, even if Seow had had a perfectly clean disciplinary record and completely unblemished, was in itself highly improper behaviour for a diplomat. But Hendrickson went further. He urged Seow, in explicit and direct terms, to get a group of young professionals to contest in the next general elections, to become a more effective Opposition. I quote, from Seow: 'He [Hendrickson] said that I should play a more positive role to lead the opposition. He remarked that after Ben Jeyaretnam's disqualification, there was no credible opposition and he thought that I could fulfil the role left vacant by Ben. [He forgot about the Member for Potong Pasir.] Hank also said that from the pick of available opposition candidates, I was probably the best person to lead them because I was able to reason and argue with the PM at the Select Committee hearings, had the facility of language and the ability to think on my feet. Hank emphasised the need to recruit more young professionals into the opposition. He said that this would pave the way for the establishment of a more effective opposition in Parliament.' In other words, he is telling Seow, "There is a gap in Singapore politics. Jeyaratnam fulfilled the role. He is out. There is nobody standing there to take on the Government. You move in. And not just you move in, but you get others with you so that you will have an effective Opposition to take on the Government and get young professionals to join the Opposition." It was serious advice, advice which Seow took.”
“And if, as some have pretended, there was nothing wrong with offering Francis Seow asylum, it is just a humanitarian gesture, why did Sir Hamilton Whyte tell Francis Seow, "I am terribly sorry. It is a no-go situation"? It is not so innocent. One year later, the value of this assurance became clear. The Americans collected their rain check. On the 13th November 1987, Hendrickson met Seow at the Hotel Taipan for lunch. This is analogous to the Marina Mandarin meeting with Patrick Seong. Hendrickson did with Francis Seow what he later did with Patrick Seong: he instructed Seow what to do. He had a modus operandi, a standard operating procedure. First, he criticized the Government. I quote from Francis Seow's statement: 'Hank said that the PM and the government were intolerant of criticism. This was not conducive to political development and democracy in Singapore and Singapore was an over-regulated society where rules and regulations governed every facet of Singapore life.' In saying this, Hendrickson was already wrong. He was a diplomat accredited to the Singapore government. He was supposed to report what is happening in this country, not to meddle with what is happening in this country. Yet here he is, attacking the Singapore Government, prodding Seow to oppose his own Government. He knew who Francis Seow was. Hendrickson knew that Francis Seow had had to step down as President of the Law Society because of his record. The Government had openly and publicly passed legislation in Parliament to amend the Legal Profession Act. And Seow was disqualified as President of the Law Society because he had been disciplined three times for professional misconduct; not once, but three times.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I have been invited to answer the question whether I got guarantees from the Americans. Well, I had many lunches with Mr Hendrickson. We spoke about Singapore's politics and I can assure this House that not once did he ask me to be his proxy or to fight for the Americans. It was nothing of that sort. And no guarantee of asylum, or anything of that sort. We just spoke about politics generally, and he never encouraged me to get more members. None of that sort. This is my personal experience. But I think the more important thing now is that we are talking about asylum. I think this House should make it a point not only foreigners giving us asylum but whether or not we have any interest outside Singapore. Whether we can run away in time of trouble. I have got no houses abroad. I have got no bank accounts abroad. I have got nothing abroad. All my assets are here in Singapore. Can other Members and Ministers say the same? BG Lee Hsien Loong: I am happy to hear the assurance given by the Member for Potong Pasir. It confirms our own assessment. Hendrickson must have agreed with us that the Member for Potong Pasir is upright, incorruptible and insubornable. And therefore he never tried to do with Mr Chiam what he tried with Francis Seow. But if the Member for Potong Pasir did not have an offer for asylum nor is he seeking one, as he has reassured this House, why did Francis Seow need one? Mr Chiam See Tong: Ask him. BG Lee Hsien Loong: We have to ask him. So what is Francis Seow up to? What are the Americans up to? Would the US officials have given Seow the impression that asylum was forthcoming, unless they wanted him to do something that would get him into trouble?”
“Then they should amend it. There is no point debating on something which we cannot do.”
“Sir, before Mr Chng carries on, I note that we are debating on something which the Government can really never do. The motion says here, in paragraph (c), "calls upon the Government to be vigilant to all such groups". All these "such groups" refer to groups mentioned in para (a), ie, "other foreign interest groups", and para. (c) calls the Government to stop them from interfering in our domestic affairs. If they were operating in Singapore, you can stop them. But if these foreign interest groups are operating from abroad, how is the Government going to stop them? It is an impossible task to do - calling on the House to do something which is not possible.”
“But he cannot go on uttering untruths in Parliament. The Americans have already said that their government officially is not interfering in Singapore's politics. Now he comes out and says ---”
“I am not defending the Americans. But there is already an official announcement to that.”
“There is already an American announcement that they do not officially manipulate Singapore's politics. Now he is touching on this point.”
“Mr Speaker, I think the Member is treading on very dangerous grounds. To say that the Americans are attempting not really to set up an Opposition presence in Singapore but to destabilize Singapore and cause damage and political instability, I think there is no evidence to that. The Americans are a friendly nation.”
“As far as I know, there is no affirmative action for Chinese.”
“Is PKMS bold enough to declare this and turn into a new PKMS, subscribing to a philosophy that is in tune with the political rhythm of Singapore? Keep PKMS in step with the politics of the whole community of Singapore. And in the final analysis, dissolve the old PKMS and register a new PKMS with a new philosophy.”
“But the real reason behind the PKMS formula is simply to find an opportunity to bring to a height their brand of communal politics. This is what I call the politics of a wolf in sheep's clothing. On the surface, this proposal appears to be a sound one. Ostensibly, it seems rather safe. But in this formula in fact there lies hidden a smouldering, sinister threat. We do not wonder why PKMS has been taking this line ever since its formation. Because PKMS, besides being the abbreviation of its party name, to my mind, can also stand for the slogan "Politik Kaum Melayu Sahaja" or Malays-Only Politics. Or we can interpret PKMS as "Politik Ketinggalan Masa Sekarang" or Outdated Politics. Singapore political history has proven that the PKMS political philosophy, this Malays-Only politics, is a failure. Ever since we achieved independence, this philosophy has been rejected by the multi-racial community of Singapore. Ever since our independence, the politics of PKMS has been one of dancing to a discordant political tune; they have been dancing to one and the same tune, a communalistic tune. May I propose that PKMS change its slogan, from the Malays-Only Politics to a new kind of politics, a new slogan, a new PKMS in new clothing, "Politik Keseluruhan Masyarakat Singapura", Politics of the Whole Community of Singapore, not politics of the Malay community alone. And I would also propose that PKMS change its old political philosophy, so that they would be able to dance to a multiple of tunes, instead of to a single tune, that of communal politics. Does PKMS dare to declare that in its existing form, PKMS is outdated and that its political philosophy cannot be validated by the plural society of Singapore?”