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 58 of 85.
“If the Government envisages that Singapore could absorb up to 25% of foreign workers in our workforce, the present level of 10-12% could not be said to be high by the Government's own standards. Why then is there a necessity to up the foreign workers' levy? In the long-term the Government must find a solution to cut down the heavy dependence on foreign workers. The experience of countries in Europe, like Germany and Sweden, has shown that massive intakes of foreign workers have upset their social framework. If this Government purports to be far-sighted, then it must take more meaningful steps to cut down on our dependence on foreign workers. The steady increase in foreign workers' levy should not be the only solution. If the Government insists on pursuing the policy of increasing the foreign workers' levy as a mechanism to make our local workforce more competitive with foreign workers, then the union should explore the possibility of having two wage structures, one for local workers and the other for foreign workers whereby, instead of imposing a levy on foreign workers, the local workers could be paid a higher wage. As it is now, the Government is creaming off the wage costs of manufacturers. Some of these foreign workers' levy should be channelled into the wage packets of local workers and make it more attractive for Singaporeans to work in factories. Many of our Singaporeans have refused to work in factories simply because it is not worth their while to do so, especially our housewives. I do not for a moment think that Singaporeans are lazy. You pay them enough, you will find the labour market filled with Singaporeans. The MNCs will not object.”
“No, I am not giving way. He can have his say afterwards.”
“Let me finish, please. BG Lee Hsien Loong: Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, he has quoted me ---”
“It would appear that we would always be dependent on foreign workers. At the moment the pool of foreign workers in Singapore comprise about 10-12% of our total workforce. The Minister for Trade and Industry once said in this House that Singapore's intake of foreign workers would be allowed up to a level of 25%. Both the total workforce --- The Minister for Trade and Industry (BG Lee Hsien Loong): Mr Deputy Speaker, may I clarify?”
“The Minister, I would say, must also appreciate that there is fine tuning too to a certain extent in the manufacturing sector. No factory in Singapore can work in complete independence. One accountant has commented that the $30 increase per worker per month is not a small increase. When taken to apply to the total workforce in the factory, assuming he said that there are 1,000 foreign workers in a factory. The extra payroll will amount to $30,000 more per month. Taken over a year the increased cost of that factory will be over $300,000, and that is no small amount. This increase of foreign workers' levy will hit the local manufacturers even greater. They work under very stiff competition and on small margins of profit. They also do not have assured markets, like the MNCs. So they will surely feel it when they are made to pay that increased costs. The question is, is the increase in levy on foreign workers justified at this particular point of time when the economy has just recovered from the deep recession of 1985? It must be remembered that our economy is heavily dependent on foreign investments and any upsets in regard to costs could well trigger off another bad patch in our economy. The rationale for the increased levy on foreign workers is that too many of them are coming. At one time the thinking of the Government was to stop the intake of foreign workers by 1990. Now there appears to be a change of policy. The policy now is to have "a controlled revolving pool of foreign workers on short-term work permits to remain beyond 1992 in the manufacturing, hotel and construction sectors and as domestic servants." There appears to be a definite shift of position in regard to the Government's policy towards foreign workers.”
“I am not so sure whether other factors will affect the man-in-the-street after the elections. As regards the increase in duty on tobacco and cigarettes, the man-in-the-street expects that I think in view of the Government's strong campaign against cigarette smoking. I am glad to note that the Government has not introduced the consumption tax this year. I urge the Government not to implement the consumption tax. I would like to place on record that the Opposition in this House is against consumption tax and I regret to note that the Minister has not come out categorically or affirmatively and say that this tax will not be introduced. This kind of a tax, of course, is onerous and it hurts only the working man. The rich man really is not bothered by this consumption tax. It was commented that the only fire in the dragon's breath was the increase in the foreign workers' levy in relation to foreign workers who are employed in the manufacturing sector. One reaction to this increase from a local personnel manager in an electronics company was rather furious. He said, "The more I think about it, the madder I get." The Government is advised to take heed of the reactions from the manufacturing sector. The Government's view is that only 3% of the total workforce is involved. This kind of argument is rather flimsy because if one factory folds up that will probably leave many of its sub-contractors and suppliers out of business. And if those sub-contractors and suppliers cannot get the business they want, they may even close down. Therefore a chain reaction will occur. So do not take it as if there is only a small number involved and therefore the Government can go ahead and increase the levy. It has been said that there is a fine tuning in this Budget.”
“And mindful of that, the elections are just around the corner, the Minister has left the man-in-the-street untouched, except on the increase in the duty of cigarettes. We note that the dreaded consumption tax is not implemented. There is no increase in road tax. There is no increase on the tax on gambling. There is no increase in petrol tax, and there is no increase on the tax on liquor. 11.50 am [Mr Deputy Speaker in the Chair]”
“This was before 1987, you know that. The Straits Times has labelled this budget "a stay-on -course budget for Singapore" and the Business Times has called it "Budget for Business". What do the Opposition call it? I think we should view it as "An election budget". The Government has held an election every four years since 1968. By this precedent we should be having an election this year.”
“The Government is very good at this. They have conducted all kinds of campaigns. I think we should have a campaign to improve the image of the nurses.”
“I am glad that the Acting Minister is taking steps to improve the salaries and also the fringe benefits of the nurses. I think another important factor is the image of the nurses. Is the Acting Minister considering improving the image of the nurses in the eyes of the public?”
“But I backed it up with my reasons. You want me to repeat?”
“I have not made any smear. I have made a point and I backed it up with reasons. So I do not think it is fair. Please justify what you say. Where did I smear the Government or say anything which I have not backed up with reasons?”
“Human nature has the potential for seeking truth, perfection and beauty. These potentials are capable of being developed given proper initiation and guidance. By then, our people will not be ignorant any more, not even knowing who Picasso or Beethoven or Shakespeare was. An excellent or graceful society is one in which the people will have a balance of material life and spiritual life. Sheer pursuit of material enjoyment will make the people mercenary and uncaring for the others and the society devoid of human compassion. Spiritual life will enable the people to realize what is meaningful living. Indeed, full spiritual living is an internal force that will drive our people forward and upward towards excellence. And this spiritual force will enable our country to be on an invincible position forever. Sir, I fully support the motion by the First Deputy Prime Minister on the Agenda for Action. 4.46 pm”
“Therefore, a long time the National Museum Art Gallery has to depend on donations from local and foreign artists to enrich its collections. All those who have gone abroad would know that almost in all big cities there are Art Galleries. In some cities or even provincal towns there is more than one art gallery. Now is the time for Singapore to have a proper Art Gallery at the present stage of its development. When it is completed, It will become the focal point of our visual arts and will also serve as a centre for spiritual nourishment. It should have wide storage space and adequate exhibition halls so that it can also exhibit on permanent basis artworks, not just short-term ad hoc exihibitions. Students may turn up there to appreciate or learn the art works of famous masters. This Art Gallery will be able to greatly raise our standing on world cultural map. Some of my friends have told me that if in Singapore there is a proper National Art Gallery, then they will be willing to donate some of their treasured pieces to it. Such a National Art Gallery will likely be a centre for storage of art treasures that can be admired by all. An excellent society should be one in which everybody is cultured and it must be a society that exudes abundant cultural atmosphere. In order to reach this stage, other than the Government providing the necessary foundation and basic infrastructure and the necessary encouragement, all the people must be mobilized to engage in cultural promotion. Of course, not everybody can become an author, an artist, a painter, a dancer or a musician. But with a little training, everybody can become an appreciator of arts or take up a kind of artistic pursuit as a form of recreation for them to spend their leisure time.”
“Although we may more or less make use of a few places like the Victoria Concert Hall and Kallang Theatre for performing arts, but compared with those big opera houses in other parts of the world, ours appear to be sub-standard. We pale by comparison. The Government may consider building a more spacious and presentable opera house. In the field of visual arts, the situation is even worse. For exhibition purposes, the only somewhat presentable place is the Arts Gallery in the National Museum. Sometime ago there was also the Victoria Memorial Hall having some space for exhibiting some art work. Now it is being leased out as a branch bank to generate income. Increditable, indeed! Talking about the National Museum Art Galllery, it consists of only some rooms in the left wing of the National Museum. The renovation of this part of the building had cost around a million dollar funded by the Singapore Arts Council. Now this part of the building is dilapidated, being a hundred years old. Often it is infested with termites, the roof is leaking and the ceiling is dropping down. It is understood that from October this year this art gallery will be closed for major renovations for one year. There will be a greater shortage of sites for larger scale art exhibition. As a national art gallery, in addition to an exhibition hall there should be some storehouse for the systematic collecting and storing of art works. At the moment, the National museum Art Gallery storage is not ideal. Every year, there is only some $30,000-$40,000 allotted for purchasing art pieces. Not only world famous artistic pieces are beyond our reach, even for acquiring local pieces this meagre sum is not sufficient.”
“Of course we hope to see the emergence of a unique Singapore culture, the identity with which by all people will help their emotional unity. We cannot forcefully merge all the cultures of different communities together and produce a kind of rojak culture as Singapore culture. The evolution of a unique Singapore culture will take time. We must allow free development and interchange of different cultures a certain period of time. In the meantime, we can only seek identity from diversities and allow the cultures of all communities to develop freely while encouraging the understanding of mutual cultures and traditions. Culture and arts will enable our people to develop similar feelings and will enrich our social life. A Society of Excellence cannot be realized without culture and arts which reflect its standing. To the world in the field of economy Singapore may be a giant, but in culture Singapore is still a dwarf. If we want to achieve our Vision in the coming decade, we should strive harder. We cannot deny that in recent years the Government has exerted some effort in the promotion of culture and arts, while civic organizations and clan associations have also taken part in promoting culture and arts within their provinces. But to change our cultural desert into an oasis, we have to redouble our efforts. The Green Paper in paragraph 31 urges the Government plan to provide more resources for cultural and artistic development. This is something we welcome very much. In the realm of providing cultural and artistic infrastructure, the Government's effort is still not enough. In the field of performing arts and visual arts, there is a lack of site for exhibition or activities.”
“The objectives and idealism contained in the document although lofty are not something that cannot be reached; provided we all work hard together, we shall be able to make Singapore in 1999, a City of Excellence and a Society of Distinction. As pointed out in paragraph 21 of the Green Paper, economic development is the foundation for political, social and other supra-structure development. Our economy under the PAP Government has achieved remarkable results every year. In spite of the 1985 economic recession, with a series of tough policies and stringent measures of the Government and with some necessary sacrifice of our people, we have rapidly revived our economic progress. Given the continuance of all the conditions for economic growth such as judicious leadership and rational society, we should be able to achieve a 6-8% yearly economic growth and there is greater possibility for us to realize the Vision 1999. Sir, in my view, it is easier to achieve the target of a City of Excellence but it is not so easy to realize a Society of Distinction. One is a material and tangible achievement while the other is more metaphysical involving psychological development of individuals. Everybody has his own different background, and upbringing and resultant idiosyncracy and way of behaviour. It is not easy to merge all the 2.6 million individuals together and inculcate in them the same thought and consciousness and produce the same reaction and behaviour within a brief period. Our forefathers were all immigrants who came from different countries. We all have our different traditions, cultures and customs. Although we are all citizens of independent Singapore and we have a common political identity, but as regards cultural identification we still have great differences.”
“Of course, he is. The Senior Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Communications and Information (Mr Ho Kah Leong)( In Mandarin): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the Agenda for Action by the First Deputy Prime Minister actually contains in the majority the resolutions adopted by the PAP Convention held on the 23rd last month. This is the first time that the ruling party's policies have become a motion to be discussed by Parliament, when passed, to serve as guidelines for government actions. This is also the first time that we see an obvious Merger of the Party with the Government as far as policy making is concerned. This is the inevitable result of the growing strength of the PAP. We can simply say, without PAP there would not be Singapore of today. PAP has in the past apppeared in the society in low profile. However, the policy of PAP has always determined the fate of Singapore. Our party branches in all the constituencies have gone deep into the communities, conducting various kinds of useful activities, serving the people, such as the weekly meet-the-people sessions by the MPs, kindergarten classes and the BEST and WISE courses. All these have been very popular. Although the Agenda for Action is a document adopted by the PAP Convention, it has been derived at through one whole year's consultation with the people of all walks of life throughout the length and breadth of the country. Therefore, this document can be said to be an unprecedented document of importance as it contains the consensus of the people. It contains goals which are the aspiring ideals of the people of Singapore.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, I am happy to be given the privilege of coming up to speak so often. I can tell you that he is very disturbed by all this newspaper adverse ---”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I think not only myself but everybody else who has been reading the papers as well as the Petir is getting a bit tired of this subject. I would like to tell the House that, in fact, the constitution of the SDP, although it does not specifically say that we are a multi-racial party but under the section on membership our party is open to all who are above 17 years of age except that they must not be members of another party. So in that respect, we are multi-racial because our party is open to all except for certain criteria that they must not be involved with other parties. So it is multi-racial. We do not have to go on that subject again. As far as the Chairman of the SDP is concerned, I think myself and all the other party members have great confidence in him. He is certainly a multi-racialist or he is multi-racial to the core of his bone. [Laughter]. I do not like to end with the word "racialist". It sounds very bad. He believes in multi-racialism. That is as far as our Chairman is concerned. We have every confidence in him. He is a true Singaporean and we have no doubts about him.”
“Sir, this is a point of order. I object to him saying that I am less than honest.”
“It is because he invited me, that is why I responded.”
“I have already said that I am not quarrelling against the contents. I have said it in my speech. But whether or not it will be accepted by the people is another matter. The other point I made is the credibility of the PAP. It is no point having a beautiful attractive written out piece of document but your actions do not match what you said. I have brought out several points. No. 1, population. It was your Government's fault. No. 2 ---”
“I think everybody has a right to contribute on national issues, especially when we are Members of Parliament. So I made some of the points, and this was made in January 1987. In fact, without referring to some of these points, I repeated these points in this House again today. But I do not see it included in your Agenda for Action at all. It really makes no difference whether I contribute or not.”
“I would be happy to answer the Member for Fengshan. We had a dinner, I believe, that day. And either that morning or the morning before, there was a headline in the papers about the National Agenda. So I thought it would be good just to comment on that. But, as far as I know, no formal letter or nobody came and give me a telephone call or say, "Look. Would you like to give your views on the National Agenda?" So it was in my speech I said, "All right. I will contribute to the National Agenda." And that is part of my speech. Mr S. Chandra Das (Chong Boon): Without invitation, you want to contribute.”
“What are you talking about? Are we going to another issue now?”
“Where is the racial issue? BG Lee Hsien Loong: --- of original source material published in Jawi. We can produce it if we wished. They are on microfilm in the National Archives. Read it, and tell us if what was said had nothing to do with race, that political and social rights were at issue, and a better livelihood was why they cited "The Trinity" in judgment.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, what has been read out to me does not indicate that it was a racial riot, more so, a religious issue. This is if you were trying to put a point across. As I gather, it is more a Muslim issue, Muslim against Christian issue. There is no mention of race at all. But the point, when I spoke at one of our forums, was that I was trying to analyse indepth, saying that the essence of the riots was not racial but that there was already a wave of anti-colonial feelings. People were already wanting a better life. They wanted political, economic and other advances. That is my analysis of the situation. Of course, whoever the writer is, he can look at it from any point of view he wants and he writes a book 30 years later. Hearsay after hearsay, he can piece them together and make out a hypothesis, a theory of what happened. He has his right to do it. So if you are saying now that what you have read out is on race, I do not see it. BG Lee Hsien Loong: Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I was reading a translation provided by Mr Eames Huges ---”
“The letter to the police indicated a possibility of rioting on that day. That was the day the riots broke out." You can have this copy. [Copy of document handed to Mr Chiam See Tong.]”
“No, I did not say that. Dr Arthur Beng Kian Lam: I am telling you that, that it led to racial riots. BG Lee Hsien Loong: Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, so as not to waste everybody's time, may I justify and provide chapter and verse for my statements. I showed the picture from the Singapore Standard, 5th December 1950. I said it led to further articles in the vernacular Malay press, referring even to Jihad. I quote here from a book, "Tangled worlds" - the story of Maria Hertogh. It was written by a Tom Eames Hughes, British official who was in charge of the Social Welfare Home which kept Maria Hertogh before she was sent to the convent. He came back 30 years later to do the research and wrote the book. That was the 5th December 1950. "From the 4th to the 11th December, articles appeared in the Melayu Raya, a Jawi Malay newspaper, presenting the case as a religious issue between Islam and Christianity. On the 9th December, Karim Ghani, he was the agitator, an Indian Muslim - issued free copies of his newspaper, Dawn. Its main feature was a report of a meeting, said to be packed to overflowing at the Sultan Mosque the previous day, at which Karim Ghani had spoken of a Holy War, Jihad, but only as a very last resort. He was reported also as saying "the feeling today is not confined to Muslim civilians but also to members of the Police", a dark prognosis of what was to come. There was another issue of Dawn on the morning of the day of the outbreak of the riots. It contained two open letters, one to the police, the other to the court, called provocatively "The Trinity who will sit in judgment today." The court was to hear the application of the stay of execution of Mr Justice Brown's order of the 2nd December.”
“No. Just point out the relevant parts. Don't echo your master so soon. Better look it up yourself first.”
“No, let us stick on to this first. Point out to me where it says there was racial riot and there was a call for a Jihad War.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I have been given this newspaper cutting in regard to Maria Hertogh. I see nothing in there at all. It is just two human-interest stories. Nothing said about racial riots or Jihad. Where is it, can you please point out to me?”
“Yes. Mr Deputy Speaker, the Member for Fengshan gave me something to read. I have only completed the second paragraph and he wants me to answer him on something else. At least to be fair to me, give me time to read this first. Let me digest it, I comment on this and then we go on to something else.”
“In the coming decades, the issue of education among the Malays will not be free from negative social problems and, therefore, I hope Mendaki would in future be expanded in its role to cover other aspects that might hinder the progress of Malay children in education. So it is important that the Mendaki machinery be strengthened and expanded so that it would be in the position to address and fulfil the increasingly pressing needs in the education of the Malays in future. I am expressing this hope to the First Deputy Prime Minister as the prime mover of the Agenda for Action. Whatever he has stated in this Agenda, I believe he and his colleagues would put them into action, as we say in Malay: Kerbau di-pegang talinya. Manusia di-pegang janjinya. (The buffalo is held by its reins, but Man is held by his promises.) That is all, Mr Deputy Speaker, and I hope the Agenda would achieve excellent results.”
“This was emphasized in an interview given by the Prime Minister with Raj Vasil: (In English) 'What we can do is to create a situation in which on the fundamental issues, those vital for the survival of the community, of the nation, there are no differences or divergence of interest or opinion. Whether you are of Chinese, Indian, Malay, Eurasian or Ceylonese descent, when it comes to the survival of Singapore, we must all be one, that is, Singapore must be defended and her interests upheld for everyone's benefit. On that, there can be no disagreement' (In Malay) I said earlier that this Agenda is the Government's promise to the people of Singapore. It is aimed, of course, at all levels of society in Singapore. I am very happy to hear the First Deputy Prime Minister saying in this Agenda that while Singapore progresses, different communities may not progress at the same rate. He added with a call to the people of Singapore to try their best to help the rather slower communities to progress so as to enable every community to fully participate in the mainstream of our national life, whether in the economy, politics or social aspects. We know that one community which is rather slow in its progress is the Malay community. The key to accelerating the progress of this community lies in upgrading its educational status. About six years ago, in May 1982, the Government gave its blessings to the formation of Mendaki. Its blessings was given because the function and task of Mendaki is to upgrade the educational level of Muslim children. Considering that one of the goals under this Agenda, Human Resources and Education, is a challenging one, it is my hope that the Government will reinforce its support and assistance to Mendaki.”
“The Government firmly believes in this principle of political stability. One leader of the second generation leadership was reported to have said: (In English) 'We have placed a lid on politics. We do not allow political freedoms to the fullest extent in two areas. One, where you can cause a communal threat, incite communalism and tear apart the society. We will never allow anybody to incite communalism. The fear of communalism will always remain in Singapore and, therefore, we can never relax on this. Second, we will not allow the communists the freedom to destroy what we have created.' (In Malay) Mr Deputy Speaker, with regard to the threat of communalism prevailing today, which is still under control, it has a lot to do with racial harmony. The prerequisite of racial harmony is mutual respect and tolerance between the multi-racial communities of Singapore. Mutual respect and tolerance requires that we do not raise anything that may offend the feelings of the other races. More importantly, we need to be careful and cautious so as not to ridicule the cultural traditions and religious practices of any race. If we are unable to appreciate the traditions or religious practices of the other races, we should avoid giving descriptions or interpretations that may give rise to misunderstanding or may be misconstrued by others. Such an attitude would ensure and preserve racial harmony. Racial harmony as it exists today in Singapore does not mean each community being concerned only with its own interests, with no regard for national interests. Apart from emphasizing the beauty of our cultural mosaic, we must also foster loyalty together towards the country. Where the survival of Singapore is concerned every community must be united and not divided.”
“The drumbeat struck by the young people of today is the rhythm to which the new generation leaders would have to dance. We realize that the Singapore of the 50's and 60's is not the same as the Singapore of the 80's or 90's. But every era presents not only new problems of its age but also creates its own challenges. In this regard, Mr Deputy Speaker, allow me to touch on one or two challenges mentioned in the Agenda. Ever since Singapore gained independence, we have been able to maintain our political stability. Our political patterns and rhythms have been coloured and modified by the socio-political climate of Singapore. A political scientist, in his book Governing Singapore, recently described Singapore's political stability as follows. (In English) 'Singapore, thanks to the achievements of the PAP, has progressed far beyond that Third World environment of politics. Politics in Singapore is operated at a more rational level. In the general atmosphere of vitality, dynamism and prosperity, people are not attracted to destructive Third World politics. Race relationships remain manageable and an atmosphere of live-and-let-live prevails.' (In Malay) How has political stability remained in Singapore all these time? It is because we practise constructive politics and not destructive politics. Politics is only a social weapon or tool. The user must be capable of using the tool and not allow as in the Malay proverb, "Senjata makan tuan", i.e. the tool turning against its master. The secret is in the wielder not using the sharpness of the political weapon to carve the body of the society to cause fatal blood-letting. What this means is that political freedom must not be misused to undermine public peace to such an extent that it results in bloodshed.”
“That was the PAP National Agenda at that time. That was the PAP's promise to the people of Singapore of that era. What is the PAP Government's promise to the people of Singapore today? The promise is contained in the Agenda for Action that we are debating today. This promise far exceeds the nine-point promise of the PAP Five-Year Plan. It is more comprehensive. It is more serious and intense. It is more solid. It is not intended for only five years. It is for 20 or 30 years ahead. It is not intended for one community or race, but for all races. It does not just fulfil domestic needs, but also responds to the possibility of having to face external challenges as well. Compared with the previous PAP Five-Year Plan, this Agenda for Action has one special characteristic. The Five-Year Plan was presented in a somewhat raw state to the people. The people gave no reactions, opinions or made any modifications to it. On the other hand, this Agenda for Action has been tooled and tempered, sculpted and smelted, discussed and digested, refined and distilled, and fathomed and grasped by the people. It represents the climax of the aims aspirations and goals of the Government and the people together. It is a tower of vision supported by two grand pillars and reinforced by 10 joints of development. The grand pillars are the Goals and Challenges while the joints of development are the ten headings, from Nation Building to Limits of Growth as contained in the Agenda. This Agenda for Action clearly is a reflection of the culture of the modern society of Singapore. It is in harmony and in accordance with the political,economic and social characteristics of modern Singapore.”
“Well, that is a start. Thank you. Encik Wan Hussin bin Haji Zoohri (Kampong Ubi)( In Malay): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, speaking on the Agenda for Action, I am reminded of the Singapore situation towards the end of 1950's and the early 1960's. At that time there was a kind of an Agenda for Action entitled "The Tasks Ahead -PAP's Five-Year Plan 1959-1964". That document constituted a national development policy, well-formulated, and opening a new era and a new phase for the people of Singapore at that time. Considering that the population of Singapore at that time was rather backward, the PAP Five-Year Plan could be considered to be far ahead of its time. It was more detailed and very realistic. No other political party at that time could present a manifesto to match the PAP Five-Year Plan. The characteristics of society in the 50's and the 60's were much more different from that prevailing today. Many of the people were poor and backward. Population was about 1.5 million people, the Birth rate was high, about 65,000 per year and the economy was still based on entrepot trade. Its political situation was unstable. In short, Singapore at that time was an under-developed country that had inherited a large population, facing low employment rates, a very small percentage of home-owner, a multifarious system of education, and sluggish economic growth. To overcome all these problems, the PAP Five-Year Plan presented a nine-point policy. This covered problems facing women, education, labour, trade unions and social security, economic policy, housing, rural development, health, the restructuring of government administration and national development which at that time was termed towards a Malayan nation. Mr Deputy Speaker, that was the PAP vision at that time.”
“Was it 100? Anyway, it was tremendous value-added. The lesson is that if our Singaporeans were given a chance to run a Singapore concern instead of Nixdorf, a German concern, but a wholly-owned Singapore concern, think of the amount of money that we will be earning. [Laughter.] I do not think we should laugh. I think Singaporeans are capable of attaining this standard. We have got brilliant people in Singapore. Why not?”
“I remember $1,300). But the productivity, she could produce goods 10 times that amount. An hon. Member: 100 times.”
“All right. I will take that. The question that is uppermost in our minds is: why do we need a democratic environment in Singapore? The reason is that without this prerequisite condition, Singapore can never attain the present Swiss standard of living in 1999, in particular, now that Singapore has been graduated out of the GSP in America, effective next year. We are going to be classed a developed country. So we have to compete equally with Japan, America, Germany and the other European countries. They have got a democratic system in which their citizens are able to exercise their talent to the fullest under such an environment. It may be of interest to this House that since the Swiss standard of living was taken as a standard, the Swiss were already practising democracy in the mid-1800s. I think in 1846 there was already one canton practising the system of referendum. If there is an important Government decision, they could ask for a referendum. So they have democracy more than 100 years ago. I thought that maybe they had democracy only 15 years prior to 1984 but, in fact, they had a democratic way of life many, many decades ago. In fact, referendum is part of their system. So they have the prerequisite for conditions to really grow and attain the heights they want. I am sure the people of Singapore like to see Singapore attain the present Swiss standand of living in 1999. Why not? It is a good target. The Government should give them an opportunity to do so by practising true democracy in Singapore and not only pay lip service to it. This morning I was reading the papers about an interview given by the Prime Minister to a German journalist. One thing struck me. A Singapore worker is very efficient. She was paid $1,000 a month (about $1,300 was given there.”
“I cannot even move a motion. The Government says in the Agenda it wants "representative democracy". This is not matched by the Government's action. The Government has refused to hold two by-elections at Anson and Geylang West. In those two constituencies which became vacant more than a year ago, the residents have been deprived of their representation in Parliament. Where is your representative democracy? They were not allowed to choose a representative of their choice. Further, with the proposed group representation constituencies, voters in the GRCs will be deprived the right to elect a representative of their own choice.”
“If the Government is sincere, it has to assure the people of Singapore that it will not tamper with the Constitution just to make sure that it stays in power. It has to assure the people of Singapore that it believes in the western style of parliamentary democracy. The best way it can do this is to incorporate in the Agenda that the Government believes that there is a place for genuine opposition in Parliament and not the NCMPs and that it will institutionalize opposition in the Singapore Parliament. When the Government does that, the people will then surely believe in the PAP. How can there be democracy in Singapore if there were no real effective Opposition in Parliament?”
“Otherwise I would not be here, would I? Associate Professor Yu said "apathy is seen in the general membership of some professional bodies." I would say that apathy has set in on all professional bodies after some of the Council members of the Law Society of Singapore were grilled in front of the television cameras by Members of the Select Committee who were looking into the amendments to the Legal Profession Act. The public proceedings of that Select Committee were broadcast nationwide by SBC. That was the sort of treatment meted out to members of a prestigious professional body which dared to criticize laws made by the Government. After that kind of treatment, who dares to speak up? What about the professionals who were last year hauled in by the Government, detained under the Internal Security Act and made to confess publicly, again in front of television cameras, on their alleged Marxist conspiracy? These types of draconian action on the part of the Government against professionals are aimed at terrifying the professionals in particular and the public in general. Then we have this Minister again visiting the University as if nothing had happened and enthusiastically calling on academics to come forward and take part in politics. I say that this Agenda for Action will not be accepted by the public, not because of its contents but because of the fact that the people of Singapore in general no longer believe in the Government. The credibility of the Government is very much in question. The Government has packaged the Agenda for Action very nicely, very attractively and, of course, the PAP will launch it as its programme in the next General Elections. But the question is: will the people be won over to it?”
“Almost the whole of our population has been depoliticized. School children, university students are told, "Don't take part in politics. Just study and pass your exams." So you come out with very narrow views. Mr Chandra Das: Except you?”
“People, especially the older folk, always tell us that it is better not to say too much to the Government. [This is Asian value for you. Old people said you better do not get involved in Government affairs.] The Government's approach seems to be that if you say something, you are out to persuade the public to your point of view. So it has a tendency to over-react and have the last say. People generally tend to think that if the Government says you're a fool, then you're a fool. To encourage more people to come out, there should be more such calls backed by action, or rather, lack of reaction by the Government.' There you are! It is not the Opposition who is speaking. This is a finance director in a public company. [Mr S. Chandra Das interrupted.] I do not know. His name is not given. Then we have a top level banker, in his early 40s, also preferred not to be named. 'I don't think the Government blacklists people, but Singaporeans still remember the turbulent past when the Government came down hard on communists and racialists. I think people are afraid to speak out because in Singapore, if you suffer a public embarrassment, you have got no place to ... hide yourself.' So there is some apprehension there. Then we have got an Associate Professor Yu Wei Shin, 39, of NTI's School of Mechanical and Production Engineering. She says: 'Show that people who hold different views are treated kindly and this would encourage others to speak up. Differences of thought and speech must be allowed. Getting involved in politics? The apathy that is seen in the general membership of some professional bodies hold a direct parallel to participation in politics.' So there is apathy, fear. Political participation amongst the public in general has been smothered by the PAP.”
“Before I was interrupted, I was saying that the people of Singapore are more knowing, more knowledgeable, with high expectations and the people of Singapore are responsible. I do not think that Singaporeans today will go down to the streets and riot. They will not overturn cars, break windows, kill people, unless of course you are saying that they are mad. But Singaporeans are not mad. Singaporeans today want to get on. They want to get on to build the nation, to build the economy, to create, to innovate. They want to write freely. They want to speak out without fear. But they cannot do all these things without some apprehension. Many feel that the Government is in their way. We have a strict paternalistic Government. The Government takes the attitude that it only knows best. Many people perceive that anyone who speaks out against the Government policies will be victimized, will be punished. They fear that they will lose their jobs or they cannot get the licences they want or carry on the business they are doing or want to do. Many in this House will think that because I am in the Opposition I am speaking all these unfavourable things of the Government. What I am saying are not my perceptions. They are the responses to the Minister for Communications and Information when he called on academics to come out into the open to take part in politics. Their responses were published in the Straits Times of 14th February 1988. I shall read some of them. A finance director in a public company, in his mid-30s, who did not want to be named, had this to say: 'I doubt that Dr Yeo's call will have much effect. By and large, we are afraid to break our rice bowls and afraid of the immediate reaction of our superiors if we speak up.”
“Let me have my say. You have got plenty of time. You will be given full opportunity to speak. I did not know that the Opposition were invited to participate in the so-called National Agenda. As far as I know, I was unaware of it. But in any event, to us it was not a National Agenda. It was a PAP Agenda, the purpose of which is nothing more nothing less, just electioneering. The Agenda for Action makes nice reading. But it is not effective. It is hollow in respect of nation building. It appears to be giving a lot but it gives nothing. Its main purpose is to keep the PAP in power indefinitely. The main priority at this stage of Singapore's development is to open up our society, just like Gorbachev in Russia. He realised the need to open up Russian society. So too we in Singapore must open up our society. We cannot be forever an authoritarian state. We cannot remain a colony forever. Our people are hardworking, our people are intelligent, we are capable of attaining greater heights in our social, political, economic development. We are no longer in the 60's, 70's. We are in the 80's. Two-thirds of our voters at the last General Elections are the ones who have not voted the PAP into power in 1959. Singapore today is not the Singapore of the old guard of the PAP. This fact must be driven home to the PAP old guard leaders. I am not just talking about the change of the physical face of Singapore. I am referring to the present population of Singapore. Singaporeans today are definitely better educated, better travelled, more efficient, property owning, more knowing, more knowledgeable.”