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 59 of 85.
“Why should you limit the intake to your needs of manpower? I think that is a bad policy. I think anyone who wants to train his mind, to cultivate his mind, whatever he is going to do afterwards, should be given a chance. Because we never know. It does not mean that if you go in and do an Engineering course, you must come out to be an engineer. He may want to do something else. So the process of going into the university is just the training of the mind. In fact, that was the British tradition. Teach people to think, teach people to create, leadership. These are the qualities that we want to go into the university for. We come to this Maria Hertogh issue. This is a judgment value. Of course the Malays were incensed because they felt that one of their members of the community had been taken by another community. It was a Malay affair. But that was in 1950, a time after the Second World War when people were against the colonial power, when feelings were definitely wanting to have freedom, to better their lives. So any little incident could spark it off. But the true reason is that the people wanted to overthrow the colonial power. It is political and they want to have a better economic life. They want to get along. That is my analysis of the Maria Hertogh case. But if you want to say that it was based entirely, 100%, on race, it is up to you to say so. You can have your opinion on that. BG Lee Hsien Loong: Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, may I offer the Member for Potong Pasir a point of information?”
“I do not think this is a good start to debate on the Agenda for Action with such vagueness from the side of the Government. Anything could happen. So although the Prime Minister says that he will be stepping down but he will still be holding the reins of power. Is that not true? Or will there be an election of a President after or before the next General Elections? This is the problem with the PAP. They say that they want to be open and frank but in actual fact they are really not. So the PAP's credibility is always in question. We have got one of the topics as population problem. I think the PAP should come out openly and admit their mistake that this population problem is created by them. They are the ones who come out strongly, "Stop at two", with all kinds of draconian administrative punishments for those who dare to have more than two children. Now they say we have a problem. I think the whole of Singapore can see that. As regards excellence in education, the PAP have got full control, absolute control, of the education system in Singapore. It has got a central control. If there is any problems, the finger squarely points at them also. We have got 600,000 of our workers who cannot have an elementary numeracy and literacy. In fact, all the other NICs are ahead of us as far as workers' education is concerned. I read recently that 50% of our applicants to the University each year cannot get a place in our University. Do you call that excellence in education? In most of the developed countries like Australia and New Zealand, I think the university ratio to the population is about one to every 500,000. So if we go by their standard, we should have four or five universities in Singapore, and every one who wants to get into the university should have a place.”
“I am much obliged to you, Mr Deputy Speaker. As I sat there and listened to the First Deputy Prime Minister, I am still not very clear in regard to the Member for Kampong Glam, Minister for Law, and the Prime Minister himself. What is their position? Will they or will they not be standing in the next General Elections? You said as regards Mr Barker, he is "easy either way". What does that mean? He can either stand; he cannot stand. But then you said, there will be no old guards in a couple of years in the Cabinet. We are about to discuss a very important document and it says here, "We have to be open and frank about it". But you are speaking in such vague tones. You left me with a doubt as to exactly what their positions will be in the next elections. Can you please clarify before I make my speech?”
“That is what I have experienced, a foreigner getting married in Singapore. Some hon. Members: No. Mr Chiam See Tong: But that is my experience. I have not got proof here. But before a foreigner can marry a Singapore citizen, he must get the clearance of the Controller of Immigration, be he a Malaysian or any foreigner, a Filipino girl or a girl from the Riau Islands. Normally clearance is given. So he gets married, and now you want to separate them.”
“As I understand it, all foreigners who want to marry Singaporeans must get the clearance of the Controller of Immigration. Some hon. Members: No.”
“Mr Speaker, the Minister has not answered my question. I asked what is the rationale? On the one hand, the Immigration authorities cleared and allowed the Registrar of Marriages to register --- Some hon. Members: No.”
“What is the rationale of the Government in allowing a couple to marry and then to separate them?”
“Prince Sihanouk's meetings with Hun Sen in France on 2nd to 4th December 1987 and the 20th and 21st January 1988 opened a new diplomatic front and Singapre supports the Prince's initiatives. The Prince has indicated that he wants to meet with the Vietnamese, or with the rmetnamese together with Hun Sen, to discuss a peaceful settlement in Cambodia. The Prince has also indicated that he is still willing to meet Hun Sen in France at the end of this year for a third round of talks if Hun Sen is willing to take a more constructive approach. The Prince is the only person who can unite the Cambodian people and bring about national reconciliation. All parties agree that he must play a pivotal role in any Cambodian settlement. Vietnam no longer maintains that the situation in Cambodia is irreversible but agrees that there should be a negotiated solution. If it is sincere in wanting a genuine political compromise, Vietnam must talk to Prince Sihanouk and not let the opportunity slip by. HDB REBUILDING PROGRAMMES (Particulars) 3. Dr S. Vasoo asked the Minister for National Development (a) if he will give an idea as to the types of housing that are likely to be built in housing estates affected by relocation; and (b) when the rebuilding programmes will be implemented.”
“Sir, will the First Deputy Prime Minister indicate whether general elections will be held this year? Mr Goh Chok Tong: Mr Speaker, Sir, I suspected that that was the interest behind the question. I would not so indicate. PRINCE NORODOM SIHANOUK'S RESIGNATION FROM COALITION GOVERNMENT OF DEMOCRATIC KAMPUCHEA 2. Encik Wan Hussin bin Hj Zoohri asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs what is the effect of Prince Norodom Sihanouk's resignation on (i) Asean's support for the Coalition Government of Democratic Kampuchea and (ii) the future of a peaceful settlement in Kampuchea. The Acting Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Wong Kan Seng): Sir, Singapore like other ASEAN countries, continues to support the Coalition Government Democratic Kampuchea (CGDK). The CGDK remains intact as the National United Front for an Independent, Neutral, Peaceful and Co-operative Cambodia, (FUNCINPEC), Prince Sihanouk's party is still in CGDK and the National Sihanoukist Army (ANS), its military arm, fights on against the Vietnamese. Prince Sihanouk has announced recently that he has decided to return to the Presidency of the CGDK because Vietnam has not taken up his offer to negotiate with him. However, the Prince will still remain on leave from the Presidency and hold himself open for negotiations to resolve the Cambodian problem. Singapore respects Prince Sihanouk's decision to step out of the CGDK. The Prince is an experienced statesman and nationalist. He is committed to the restoration of independence to his country. The Cambodian problem is a complex one requiring a multi-pronged approach. The situation is constantly evolving and seems to be entering a more fluid phase.”
“We want an independent committee. Do you agree to that?”
“Why not? I am not a defendant of the FEER.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, I have to clarify one point with the Minister because he has just made a most astounding statement. He says that that piece of legislation is normal, always done that way. Are you saying that does not mean what it says, but it is just done in that way and it is always done that way? Surely a legislation must mean exactly what it means. It is not for flexibility or for convenience or whatever reasons you may give.”
“Yes. But in any event, I have come to the end of my speech. What I am going to say is that Singapore, if it is going to really progress, let us have, as the Prime Minister said, the peaceful methods of persuasion. And if we really want it, let us have it.”
“No. If we are just adopting Standing Orders and taking the norms of debate, then I think the Prime Minister, in the first place, should ask Deputy Speaker whether or not I am giving way. I think this is normal. I do not think he did ask your permission.”
“- he can stand up any time and just interject another speaker. I think nobody else has this privilege.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, we have in this House, whenever the Prime Minister is here -”
“Is the Prime Minister saying that they are purely participating in local domestic affairs and not, in fact, putting up certain views by peaceful methods? Unless, of course, the Prime Minister is saying that these publications are, in fact, subversive.”
“Mr Prime Minister, I do not know whether the Government intends to bring any of these matters to the court to decide.”
“This is the view of the Government that these foreign publications have participated in the -”
“Sir, unless of course the Government is saying that the foreign press indulges in subversive activities, and if it can be proven that they are subversive to Singapore, I will support the Government. Surely I will support it. But as I can see, their only sin is that now the Government says they are trying to purvey Western liberal type of ideas in Singapore and we must have Asian ideas. But even this stand of the Government is contradictory. On the one hand, you want to accept a lot of their technology, methods of organization, their creativity, their innovativeness and also, in fact, we have got their political system, ie, the democratic system, here. So on the one hand, we want all these things to come to Singapore, to make Singapore a better place and to go on to the next big step of our development. But on the other hand, the Government says that we must encourage only Asian ideas. Unless the Government can convince me that they can reconcile these two aspects, I will certainly not support this kind of a Bill. I say that unless you can prove to me that the Western press is, in fact, not practising peaceful persuasion, the words of the Prime Minister, -”
“Unless he is denying it. No man, I think not even in the English Parliament, can put it as beautifully as you can, Mr Prime Minister, and I really believe it. I think there is no more beautiful way of putting a parliamentary democrat's position than this. Nobody else could have crafted this as well as the Prime Minister of Singapore. But if we are really to believe that by peaceful methods of persuasion we are going to be allowed to shape our society, then why are we in this House today trying to curb the circulation of (we have curbed the circulation of four, but now remaining three) foreign newspapers? An hon. Member: Make more copies available.”
“I will continue, Mr Deputy Speaker: '"... But if we say we believe in democracy, if we say that the fabric of a democratic society is one which allows the free play of ideas, which avoids revolution by violence because revolution by peaceful methods of persuasion is allowed, then in the name of all the gods we have in this country, give that free play a chance to work within the constitutional framework."' Mr Prime Minister, I support every word you said here. I am with you. An hon. Member: He didn't say it. It is George.”
“This is a follow-up from a point which the Prime Minister brought up. I did not intend to read this first half but since he has brought it up I read it. I intend only to go to the second part which is relevant to our debate. Mr Deputy Speaker: I can see you are straying very far away from the contents of the Bill. Could you be relevant, please?”
“Since you have touched on the Internal Security Act, I will quote him on this point unless, of course, you deny it: 'Examining how governments could fall all too easily into the habit of suppressing the liberty of the individual, Lee said: "First the conscience is attacked by a sense of guilt. You attack only those whom your Special Branch can definitely say are communists. They have no proof except that X told Z who told Alpha who told Beta who told the Special Branch. Then you attack those whom your Special Branch say are actively sympathising with and helping the communists, although they are not communists themselves. Then you attack those whom your Special Branch say, although they are not communists or fellow travellers, yet, by their intransigent opposition to any collaboration with colonialism, they encourage the spirit of revolt and weaken constituted authority and thereby, according to the Special Branch, they are aiding the communists. Then finally, since you have gone that far, you attack all those who oppose you. "... All you have to do is to dissolve organisations and societies and banish or detain the key political workers in these societies. Then miraculously everything is tranquil and quiet on the surface. Then an intimidated press - and some sections of the press here do not need intimidation because they have friendly owners - the press and the government-controlled radio together can regularly sing your praises and slowly and steadily the people are made to forget the evil things that have already been done. Or if these things are referred to again, they are conveniently distorted, and distorted with impunity, because there will be no opposition to contradict."'”
“I will quote Mr George from page 111: 'Almost any speech he made in the Assembly [Mr Prime Minister, that is referring to you] between 1955 and 1959 could go straight into the liberal democrat's bedside bookshelf.' You remember reading that, of course.”
“If my source is wrong, then the Prime Minister should have banned this book long ago. It is called "Lee Kuan Yew's Singapore" by T.J.S. George. [Laughter]. There is nothing to laugh. If the Prime Minister feels that Mr George has been writing a lot of untruths about him then -”
“From what I have read, the Prime Minister, towards 1958, in fact, as he has said, supported the Emergency Regulations. Those days they were called the Emergency Regulations. But before 1958, say, 1957 down, from 1955-57, what was your position in regard to the Emergency Regulations?”
“One of the complaints of the Government is that when western journalists tend to spread western liberal ideas in Singapore, according to the Government, these ideas are not suited to Singapore's conditions. Perhaps the younger PAP Members have to be reminded that it was the old guards of the PAP, prior to 1959, who were the greatest advocates of liberal ideas. And now there is a complete turnaround of the situation. I am glad the Prime Minister is here and I would like to quote him.”
“This particular section also involves another important issue, ie, the credibility of this Government. Can the people of Singapore believe the Government any more? If the Government is sincere in wanting really to facilitate the free flow of information, why is it that it dare not give reasons when it refuses permission to make reproductions of gazetted newspapers? The best way the Government can make the public believe its action is by giving explanations. When the Government refuses to explain its action, people will surely be tempted to say the Government has something to hide. On the other hand, if the Government has nothing to hide, why is there the fear to explain? If the Government is really genuine about its intentions, I would suggest that we amend this new section 17(2). I propose that we appoint an independent committee comprising professional people, to give it powers to have a final say in whether or not approval may be refused or such approval, having been given, should be revoked. It is not enough for the Minister to tell this House that the intention of the Bill is to facilitate free flow of information. That intention must manifestly be seen, and there is no better manifestation of that intention than to take the powers away from the Minister and vest them in an independent committee to decide whether approval should or should not be refused or an approval be revoked. Under the new section 17(2) the Minister may grant his approval subject to certain conditions. May I perhaps ask the Minister to give us an idea of some of the conditions he has in mind. I would imagine one of the conditions would probably be to limit the number of copies since those copies will be exempted from the provisions of the Copyright Act.”
“I am only one amongst you. Please have some fairness. If you are interrupted, somebody else can always back you up. I have no back-up. Once the Minister has not given reason, who is to say that he has not abused his powers?”
“Please, you can speak after I have finished.”
“This new section gives the Minister the right not to approve or revoke such approval without assigning any reason. This infringes the basic democratic principle of accountability. The Minister need not account to anyone when he makes a decision under that section. He is not required to give reasons. He just says, "No. That's it. You cannot have the approval." Where is the fairness? Where is the justice?”
“Knowing the record of this Government, the Opposition will naturally be skeptical and will question the necessity of the inclusion of this new section 17(2). People will, of course, be unhappy if a decision has been made against them and no reason is forthcoming. We know, of course, when a decision is made by the Minister in regard to news, if they come from other countries than Singapore, like Indonesia, Malaysia, Taiwan, South Korea, then reproduction of those news will most likely be forthcoming. But what about news which are hurtful and damaging to this Government? Will they be forthcoming? I do not think so. The three foreign magazines and one newspaper have been gazetted because they published news that were alleged to have been involved in local politics. The Government has restricted their sale drastically by cutting down their circulation because they were said to be involved in local domestic affairs. The Government, having done that, now attempts to say, "We are not restricting free flow of information." By this act of cutting down the sales from over 9,000 copies in the case of the Far Eastern Economic Review to 500 copies is, of course, an attempt to restrict free flow of information. If restricting drastically the circulation of a magazine is not an act to curb free flow of information, I do not know what is. The less number of persons who have access to news is self-evident that information flows less freely. How can information flow freely if certain news are not readily available? I say that news can never be readily available as long as the Minister has the last say in whether or not to approve the reproduction of copies of gazetted newspapers. Section 17(2) is bad law.”
“Unfortunately, I am not going to defend the FEER or Mr Derek Davies. But it is unfortunate in the sense that this seems to be the practice of the House in the four walls of this Chamber - we attack this or that person and that poor fellow has got no chance of reply. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the Minister has said that some foreign publications, I believe, - I have got the notes here - are subversives of a lesser breed. Maybe I think we should get an explanation from him. Of course, understandably, if they are Communist publications, then they are subversive. But I do not know how the Asian Wall Street Journal, or the Time, or the Newsweek, or the Far Eastern Economic Review could in any way be said to be subversive. Perhaps the Minister could explain to us. Sir, the issue in this debate, like the earlier amendment to the Newspaper and Printing Presses Act, is really the freedom of the Press, the free flow of information. According to the Minister, the amendments would facilitate information flow, but I do not agree. If the Government is really sincere in wanting to facilitate the free flow of information by this amendment, then why is there the necessity to include this new section 17(2)? This relevant section reads: 'The Minister ... may refuse to grant or revoke such approval without assigning any reason.' This is my main quarrel with the amendment. The Opposition has enough experience to know in Singapore that the matters that really count, the news that are politically hurtful to the PAP which by themselves do not contravene any defamatory or criminal laws, will be kept away as much as possible from the eyes of the public.”
“I am much obliged to you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for giving me this chance to join in the debate. As I sit there and listen to the Minister and to the Chairman of the GPC, I am sure such similar speeches will follow. I do not know whether we are debating on the Amendment to the Newspaper and Printing Press Act or this session is going to be a continuous attack on the FEER and Mr Derek Davies. An hon. Member: You are going to defend him?”
“I do not think it is as easy as all that to have another inquiry. Please, it is a massive exercise. Sir, I have made my points but I would be very happy if Members here would rebut me on the points that I have brought up rather than going about and making all kinds of allegations against me. Now, the Prime Minister comes up and says, "All right, let's have another Commission of Inquiry." I am not prepared for that unless, of course, all that I have asked for are given to me. I can tell you now that I am not prepared, or even in future, to go on any public inquiry unless I can get certain guarantees. Because it is a massive exercise. Each file is about two inches thick. It took me one afternoon just to go through one file. The points that are brought up by hon. Members here do not confine themselves to the terms of the Inquiry. They just have a free go at me, making all kinds of allegations without backing them up. We are here to debate on the Report. If we accept it, well and good. I have no objection to all Members accepting it. If I do not accept it, why should Members be so disturbed?”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, this is the first time I am hearing whether or not to accept a Report in toto or parts of it. I have not come prepared to accept parts of it. I only come either to reject it as a whole or accept it as a whole. Now you are telling me that I am allowed to accept paragraphs 1 to ..., and then the rest I can reject. This is the first time I have heard of this. Unless you want to adjourn this sitting, I will go back and have a careful look at every paragraph and then I can come back and tell you which are the ones I reject and which are the ones I would like to have them retained. On the spot now it is impossible for me to say, "All right, we will reject what line, what paragraph, make amendments." Really I can tell you I come unprepared for that and I am not going to be drawn into this situation. If the Prime Minister really is serious about whether or not I can reject parts of it, I will certainly accept his offer and go back and have a good look at it again and then, like in court documents, I will underline in red the parts that I want to have them rejected. Sir, the Prime Minister has brought up a very important point this afternoon. Is the Opposition allowed to criticize very strongly Government policies or Government action? I do not think we need to go back and justify it in a practical way about our criticisms. I have given an example of the building of four blocks of flats, and now today if I am not happy with it, "all right, let us have another inquiry." I do not think this is the kind of situation which we should accept. An hon. Member: So you don't want another inquiry.”
“The Prime Minister brought up this point. Am I not allowed to reply?”
“There are many points which the Prime Minister has brought up. Of course, whatever is reported in the Hansard does not give justice to what takes place in this House. I think this is very true of what the Prime Minister has said. But again, then, whatever our arguments in future we will have to fall back on what is recorded in the Hansard. There are no other avenues in which we can go along unless the Prime Minister is setting a new precedent that in future we will have a video-tape here and if there is any argument we have to play it not only ---”
“How much time do we have? An hon. Member: As long as you want.”
“I have got no answer in regard to my first query from the Prime Minister. I will go to my second and third points. Does this Government accept that whenever the Opposition (at least there is one Opposition) criticizes the Government very strongly, he must justify his criticisms? I have given an example. I talk from facts and figures which we have come out with and it has never been disputed that there was a profit in regard to building of the flats. He said, "All right. Since we made so much profit, why don't you go and build four blocks of flats." What kind of argument is this? Over here, we have before us a motion moved by the Hon. Minister. We are here to debate on it and to say yes or no to it. We have been doing this all the time. I am not making any aspersions. I am putting my reasons forward why I reject the Report. What is wrong with that? Does it mean that if I give my reasons and reject the Report, all right, you go and have another inquiry?”
“Well, it would appear that this Government has got a standard method of dealing with the Opposition. Whenever we make a criticism of the Government, we are expected either to build four new blocks of flats or now to have another whole inquiry. Does the Government ---”
“The Prime Minister was not here when I spoke after lunch. I had asked him whether or not he had made me a promise that I would be given all files and nothing be denied me. Perhaps we could get an answer, preferably a yes or no answer, from Mr Prime Minister. If his answer is no, then it would appear that what he said at col. 45 (Hansard, Vol. 49, 4th March 1987.) is not true because you said "I chose my words carefully." If you do not mean what you say, then you did not choose your words carefully. I do not know which is which now.”
“I am much obliged to you, Mr Deputy Speaker.”
“Where is it? In page 54? Is that what you mean?”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, please allow me to make an observation. I do not think I can sit there and hear speaker after speaker making all kinds of wild allegations against me. Please ask them, if they want to make an allegation against me, to back it up. The last speaker has said that my conduct was deplorable. Can he justify what he has said? There is nothing in the Report which says that my conduct was deplorable.”
“You said that in the terms of reference I need to give evidence to the Commission.”
“Thank you for this opportunity. Sir, I want the Member for Moulmein to clarify three points. He said that I have no case. Can he please tell me what is my case? I do not even know myself. He said that I have got no case with reference to the terms of reference of the Commission. Then he said that I have to proceed with my evidence. Tell me, please clarify, where in the Instrument of Appointment does it say that I need to give evidence? Please let me know. Thirdly, he says I have to support my own claims. What is my claim? Just tell me where is it mentioned anywhere in the Instrument of Appointment that I have a claim to make? Please let me have your clarifications. Mr Sia Khoon Seong: Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, on 4th March 1987 in this House, he created the impression that he had evidence to show that there was something more to be revealed. Mr Chiam See Tong rose -”
“No. Yes or no? I want to clarify. Don't avoid the clarification I asked for. Come on, be a man.”
“Does the hon. Member accept the principle that if a Government investigates on a matter and it has satisfied itself that it has done a thorough job, nobody else can ask for a public inquiry? Does he accept this principle?”