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 60 of 85.
“Can I be allowed to clarify a point he made?”
“Col. 46 (all this is on 4th March 1987): 'The Member will have full access to this data either in a commission of inquiry or in a proper trial.' Then I made a comment to this effect. He said that "anything I want I could have access to. I will take his word for it." This statement of mine was never rebutted by the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister further said at the same column: 'I can assure him that he will have access to the file, if he wants.' At col. 47: 'There is nothing which we want to conceal. I cannot go further.' Again in the same column: 'Nothing will be denied him. I cannot go further.' You see the adjective used, all "nothing." What he really meant was every file that I asked for would be made available to me. Then we go to col. 51 at the bottom: 'I assume that he [meaning myself] is going to lead the evidence and all the files will be made available to him. Nothing will be denied him.' Then we have at col. 54: 'I want to make quite sure that the Member has got what he wants investigated, down in his own words.' In all these statements made by the Prime Minister, I have no doubt in my mind that he has made a categorical promise to me that if I lead in evidence all the files that I asked for, I will get them. So I want the Prime Minister to keep that promise.”
“My last point I brought up was that the system was not as good as the Prime Minister has made it out to be. I will go on to the next point. In the light of this finding, I would call upon the Prime Minister to give serious consideration whether or not to permit regular public scrutiny of Ministers' assets. I for one would like to see Ministers declare their assets before taking office and thereafter to have regular public checks on their assets on an annual basis. This is the surest way to prevent corruption, although I do not dispute the assurance given by the Prime Minister that there is a good law to punish those who are caught with corrupt practices. We have got a good organ, the CPIB, fearless in their investigations, and also we do have a vigilant public who will report on any acts of wrongdoing. But, Sir, I would still contend that there is no better check than the general public at large. I am surprised that the Commissioners have taken the trouble to defend the Prime Minister in the Report in relation to what he had said in Parliament on 4th March 1987. It is a pity the Prime Minister is not here. I suppose he will turn up later. The Prime Minister has on record made it clear that he does not need anyone to defend him. He is very capable of defending himself. In any event, the Commissioners, in my view, have done a poor job of it. I will require the Prime Minister to tell this House whether or not he has promised that he will make all files available to me. In my view, he has made that promise. I should like to refer to the relevant parts of the Hansard. I will take it right from the start at col. 45 [Vol. 49, 4 Mar 87]. The Prime Minister said "I chose my words carefully." So he meant every word he said. He intended the full meaning of every word he said.”
“Sir, with your leave, I will continue. I notice that the Government has brought in extra artillery. Some hon. Members: Where?”
“I am much obliged, Mr Deputy Speaker. EXEMPTED BUSINESS (Motion)”
“Let me finish, please. So what happened was that he exercised at that stage beyond his Ministerial powers of discretion. He was able to take into consideration which he should not have taken. In other words, friendship, goodwill and a moral duty, as he said. So if a Minister in exercising such a position is unable to be checked from exercising that discretion, then there is a flaw in the system. That is what I am saying. Mr Wong Kan Seng rose ---”
“Sir, the flaw in the Government system is that the Minister was able to be left in such a position where he not only could exercise his discretion according to law but, in fact, he could exercise his discretion exceeding, within even his powers. Let us take the case of the land at Chua Chu Kang. I think it is Chua Chu Kang. What happened was that the developers had made a search and the reply was that this land was not going to be acquired. They had already spent $10 million and they had plans to develop the land. But subsequent to that, unknown to the MND the Ministry of Defence required the land. According to the Report, Mr Teh Cheang Wan felt that he was obligated to these developers because apparently the Government had already given them an assurance that this land would not be acquired. Therefore, when he said that he felt obligated ---”
“Sir, we have to confine ourselves to Mr Teh Cheang Wan. We do not want to talk about Ministerial powers at large.”
“This is the finding of the Commissioners, Sir. I am just quoting from the Report. I am not saying anything else.”
“The flaw is that the system allows for a Minister to be in a position where he could abuse his powers. That is the flaw.”
“Anyway, I said that even if moneys have not been found stashed away in some other banks, that is not an issue. The issue is that it could not have done a thorough job. That is the point I am trying to make. So assuming there had been money stashed away, because of the Inquiry it would have been found. Sir, as regards Term 2(a), the finding was that Teh Cheang Wan was able to accept bribes by abusing his position as the Minister for National Development. This is an important finding. Why? Mr Teh Cheang Wan was able to accept bribes and he was able to abuse his position so that he could accept bribes. What can be more damning on the Government system than that finding? Again, I say the Government should be thankful to me for calling for this Inquiry. At least now we know that there is a flaw. It has revealed a flaw in the Government system. The system is not as good as the Prime Minister made it out to be.”
“Of course. Again - I think the Member has interrupted me. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, you chided me yesterday, but you keep quiet with regard to the Member -”
“The point I am making is that the Government was not thorough.You may turn around and say, "Well, later on we checked, nothing came out of it." But that is not the point. The point is that the Government was not thorough in its investigations and it just happened to be lucky that no amounts could be found. But assuming -”
“So I think the Commissioners really were unjustified in using the strict rules of evidence in trying to shut me out. That is their words. Although they disclaim it, I still maintain that they have shut me out. Now we come to the findings. The findings are very important although much I have said are against them. (1) It proved that contrary to what the Government has said, it has not done a thorough job in investigating on the wrong-doings of the late Minister. The Director of the CPIB himself - he is a very honest man - admitted that he did not realize that he had powers to enquire from all banks in Singapore whether the late Mr Teh and members of the family have accounts with them. Only upon being told that he had in fact, such powers did he speedily make the necessary enquiries from all the banks in Singapore, and he received of course only negative results. But that was not really important. There were no other amounts or credit balance in other banks than those already found in the name of Mr Teh Cheang Wan or his family. But as I said, that is not important in our debate. The important point is that due to ignorance or oversight of the law, one Government official could not do thorough investigations on the matter, or thorough investigations could not be carried out on the matter because there was a gap in his knowledge as regards his powers of investigation. The Government was just lucky the last time they could not find any other amounts stashed away. What would have happened if there was no public inquiry and the Teh family actually happened to have large sums of money put away in some other banks and that the CPIB had not investigated those banks due to their ignorance of the law? Then corrupt money would not have been traced. That is the point I am making.”
“Since I had no access to the CPIB files which were vital to my work in the Inquiry, I could not do a proper job of it. As such, I had every right not to proceed with the Inquiry. My fifth and last objection, Sir, to the Commissioners is that they blocked me every inch of the way by imposing on me the strict rules of relevance. Sir, as far as I am concerned, any matter which has the slightest or remotest connection with the terms of reference has relevance. And I have a right of access to those matters. As a result of the misapplication of the rules of relevance, I was blocked out. That was the position if one views the whole proceedings objectively. Perhaps I could just briefly enlighten hon. Members here as regards the obstacles that could be put up if one insists on observing the strict rules of relevance. Say, I ask for the CPIB files. They will say, "All right. What particular aspect do you want to look into it?" Then if I say, "All right, I want to look into the Teh Cheang Wan". They will ask me, "Which part of the Teh Cheang Wan aspect you want?" And if I narrow it down, they will again ask me, "Which are the ones?" There is no end to it. So how can I proceed? In any event, the Inquiry is not in an adversarial position where there is a plaintiff and a defendant, or a prosecutor and an accused person. Of course, each party is trying to win the case and they will use these rules to block evidence on the other side. But in the case of an Inquiry we are not in an adversarial position. The duty of all those present is to assist the Commissioners. We should not be in an antagonistic position. We are in the same camp. We should produce evidence and let the public know the truth or at least come down right to the bottom of the matter.”
“Sad to say, one of the Commissioners not only showed prejudice but he was also ignorant on a very vital aspect of the Inquiry. My duty, as spelt out in one of the terms of reference, was to lead in evidence. The words "in evidence", according to Black's Law Dictionary, which I have just pointed out, is an authority on legal terms, and "in evidence" means evidence already adduced. So, as I pointed out, "facts in evidence" are facts that are already proved in the cause. Similarly, "to lead in evidence" means to lead in such evidence that has already been adduced. Therefore, according to the terms of reference, I was never to be a witness but to present the evidence that has already been adduced. So my duty was exactly the same as that of the Senior State Counsel, Mr Lawrence Ang, who had full access to all CPIB files. Mr Ang just produced the evidence which had been laid before him. As a result of the wrong determination of my status or position in the Inquiry, the Commissioners had refused me the necessary facilities and also a secretarial staff and access to the relevant files. In my view the most relevant files are the CPIB files. Sir, I am a Member of Parliament, an elected representative of the people. I am not a party in a litigation as far as the Inquiry is concerned. This important point distinguishes me from the parties in the legal cases quoted by the Commissioners at page 51 of the Report. My position is to lead in evidence. I am not a witness. My position, as I have stated, is exactly the same as that of the Senior State Counsel, Mr Lawrence Ang, to assist the Commissioners in doing their work. So if Mr Ang had a right of access to all the CPIB files, so would I.”
“Sir, I anticipated that the Prime Minister would be here and I have looked up the meaning of the words "in evidence" in Black's Law Dictionary. Yes, there is a recognized phrase "in evidence" - "included the evidence already adduced." The example given under that meaning is, "The facts in evidence are such as have already been proved in the cause." So facts in evidence are such that have already been proved in the cause. So "lead in evidence" means to lead that evidence which has already been adduced. It is as simple as that. There is a very major difference. I am sure the Prime Minister can understand me. I do not need a QC's opinion on that. I am quite certain of what I am saying. There is a distinct difference between "lead evidence" and "lead in evidence". So the DPP who went before the Commission of Inquiry, what he was doing was not leading evidence, he was leading in evidence. In other words, he has already got all the evidence. He has looked into the CPIB files. He has got the evidence there and he is just leading the Director of CPIB. He could even refer to the page in his file at one stage. You can replay the videotape. That is called "leading in evidence". The Commissioner has forgotten that it is not my duty - I am so sorry about this - but the Commissioner has forgotten that once the phrase gets into the Instrument of Appointment, it is the President who is deemed to have used those words; and no longer me. I am sure the Hon. Minister, a Professor of Law, understands that. Once the word is incorporated in the Instrument of Appointment under the signature of the President, it is no longer mine, it is his. That is how we lawyers operate.”
“The word "dig" implied an investigation which is far from being a witness. The next complaint against the Commissioners is that they were unable to understand the meaning of the term "to lead in evidence" which is different entirely in meaning from the term "to lead evidence." They are world's apart. The preposition "in" appearing in the former term made all the difference to the two terms. At one stage, the Chairman of the Commission even said that my English was bad and that I had made a mistake in putting the word "in" between the words "lead" and "evidence". Believe it or not, he did say that. I am surprised that a leading Judicial Commissioner could say that. He thinks that if we use "to lead evidence" is good English and to use "to lead in evidence" is bad English.”
“We have done a thorough investigation and we are satisfied that there were no other instances of corruption involving the late Mr Teh Cheang Wan or any Minister, Permanent Secretary or Government official. Therefore, there was no necessity to hold a public inquiry." I think this principle adopted by the Government is wrong in relation to matters that have public interest. This is in a way akin to the stand taken by the Far Eastern Economic Review (FEER) which the Government rejects. The FEER's position in regard to its recent encounter with the Singapore Government was this. They claim, "We have checked our source of news and we are satisfied that the news in fact came from that source and we are not obligated to check the veracity of the news itself." In the case of the Teh Cheang Wan affair, the Government said that its investigations were thorough and were satisfied that there were no other wrongdoings and therefore it was unecessary for other probes on the matter. I say that this principle must be wrong. If it were not wrong, then the Government which is elected by the people forever need not account to the public on any matters of public interest. The principle of accountability is paramount in our Western-type style of parliamentary system. If the Government need not give public accountability, sooner or later corruption will creep into the system, as it has done. Sir, let me emphasize again that nowhere in the debate of 4th March 1987 did I say that I would be a witness at the inquiry. The Report has quoted what I said, namely: 'It should be recalled that Mr Chiam had said in Parliament that "if we dig deep enough, then we will find the evidence."' What I wanted to was investigations on the Teh Cheang Wan affair.”
“As regards the second reason, I say that I had no duty to give evidence of my own. Throughout the proceedings, the Commissioners insisted that I give my evidence. They were wrong in imposing this duty on me when I had no such duty. I was not a witness. If I were a witness, then I had to give evidence before the Commissioners. If the Commissioners had studied the terms of the instrument of appointment closely, they would know that my duty was to lead in evidence which cannot be interpreted in any way to mean that I was to be a witness. In fact, throughout the inquiry proceedings, the Commissioners were labouring on this wrong premise. Therein lay their major fault. The Commissioners were aware that the inquiry had its genesis or beginnings in the debate between myself and the Prime Minister in Parliament on 4th March last year. There is nowhere in the report of that debate to show that I had evidence to adduce. I gave no such undertaking. At that time, I was only doing my duty as the sole Opposition Member in Parliament. Since there was evidence that the late Minister had taken massive amounts of bribes and that he had committed suicide and the criminal proceedings against him cannot be proceeded with, the next logical thing the Government should do was to hold a public inquiry because there was public interest on the matter. It would appear that the Government did not intend to hold a public inquiry. It was therefore incumbent upon me to call on the Government to hold one. I was right in doing so. I think the Government should thank me for it. The Government's position was clear. It did not want to hold an inquiry. The Government said, "We have done all that can be done.”
“Of course, there were strange goings-on. That was what I meant. Sir, what false allegations have I made? Please let me know. Sir, I am not accepting the Report for the following reasons. I believe the Commissioners erred in at least five aspects. (1) They were biased. (2) They were wrong in imposing a duty on me to produce evidence which I had no such duty. (3) They misinterpreted the term "to lead in evidence". (4) The Commissioners denied me the necessary facilities and the relevant files. (5) They interpreted the rules of relevance wrongly. Sir, I say the Commissioners were biased because first they branded me "an accuser". Then they changed their minds and said, "No, you are not an accuser. You are an alleger." Whether it makes any difference, I really do not know. What is the difference between "accuser" and "alleger"? It is all the same. By calling me an accuser or alleger showed that they did not have an open mind. They were not neutral. They had taken a position which they should not. If they had taken a position, they cannot be objective. If they cannot be objective in their findings, their report too would be slanted. The Commissioners like a judge in a court of law must be absolutely neutral or unbiased. As soon as it can be shown that any Commissioner in a public inquiry or a court of law is prejudiced and cannot carry out his duties objectively, he must default himself. In my case, Sir, I had every justification not to proceed with the inquiry. I knew that I would not be able to do my job properly, in the knowledge that all the Commissioners were already biased when all of them agreed that I was an accuser or alleger. So how could they be objective? They had already made up their minds.”
“I am much obliged to you, Sir. Sir, I rise to urge the House not to accept this report. But before I give my reasons, I would like to ask the Minister: what is the result of the CPIB's investigations as regards to three complaints which were still outstanding at the end of the inquiry? Perhaps the Minister could give us his when I have finished my address here. Sir, I take great objection to the Minister when he said that I did not tell Parliament the truth that I had no evidence. I do not lie and I say so openly. Was it my duty to come forward and say, "Mr Prime Minister, I got no evidence whatsoever. But nevertheless I would like to have an inquiry." Is that what I should have done? I do not think I have that duty to say that I have no evidence. I do not think it is fair to attack me and to cast aspersions on my integrity. Sir, I want the Minister to point out the relevant columns of Hansard where I made unfounded allegations. Let me know where I made the unfounded allegations in Hansard of 4th March 1987. The Deputy Public Prosecutor has made great pains on one particular statement that I made. This is to be found in Hansard, Vol. 49, col. 52: '... we have already in fact, evidence that strange goings-on have taken place.' Sir, he has quoted me out of context. Of course, there were strange goings-on. But you must read this sentence in the context of what I said. The strange goings-on were in relation to the acquisition of land at Chua Chu Kang. I believe I have already told this House that I have knowledge that in the case of land acquisition, it is never the practice of the Commissioner of Lands to return land after it has been acquired. In this particular case, one-third of the land acquired had been returned to the developer.”
“There is no mention of Muslims in the Bill. Why are you bringing this up?”
“As regards the Presidential Council for Minority Rights, since he has brought up this point, I shall be pointing out later in the debate on the amendment to the Constitution that there are provisions to exclude this GRC concept from the provisions in the Constitution which relate to the Presidential Council. I do not think Article 152 of the Constitution is pernicious in any way. In fact, the Prime Minister himself has guaranteed the Malays of their special privileges. So is the Member for Punggol saying that the Prime Minister was wrong? As regards mixed marriages, I do not see why Mr Ng is against it. I am all for it. Member for Punggol, what is wrong with mixed marriages? Is he against it? Let me know, please.”
“I am saying that he is an old member of the PAP. He will recall that, in fact, the first constitution of the PAP did not include this clause on multi-racialism in Singapore. It was an afterthought. The SDP has no apologies to make in regard to its constitution. We subscribe to democratic socialism. And Mr Ng who, I believe, is also a socialist will understand that the term "socialist" also includes the belief that there must be multi-racialism. That is the reason. Mr Chandra Das: This is a new one!”
“Perhaps Mr Ng, a very old member of the PAP, will recall that - An hon. Member: Member for Punggol.”
“May I, Mr Speaker, Sir, be allowed to make the clarification?”
“Yes, on what he has said. Just to clarify one point. He has said that for the time being he accepts the solution of the GRC. I want to clarify with him whether or not he is conceding that in future elections, he will not get elected on his own steam.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, on a point of clarification.”
“I am sorry. Encik Othman bin Haron Eusofe: No. He can speak later.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, can I get a clarification from the Member?”
“Can I clarify, Sir? Encik Zulkifli bin Mohammed( In Malay): I am not giving way, Sir.”
“No. I would like to ask the Malay Members here, do they feel that they are just passengers ---”
“It is therefore my hope that both the Presidential Council for Minority Rights and the Malay Committee be properly advised by competent authorities on this matter. I am glad that interested parties will now be able to submit their submissions to the Select Committee on these two items. The other observation is regarding the mode of decision made by the Committee as specified in the Bill. The Bill states that a decision of the Committee is by a simple majority. I take it that this would facilitate the practical aspect of the Committee's deliberations. However, in spirit and in essence, such a decision would appear a little strange. If the Malay Committee, which is supposed to be the constitutional macrocosm of the feelings and aspirations of the Malay community, reflects a division in its decision, this can signal an anticipated division in the degree of acceptability of the prospective candidate by the Malay community at large. It is therefore in my opinion essential that decisions of the Committee should be unanimous or on a consensus rather than by a simple majority. It is important that the Malay community should have no qualms or reservations on the decision of the Committee in determining whether a prospective candidate belongs to the Malay community or otherwise. Mr Chiam See Tong: Mr Deputy Speaker, I think there is one very important issue to be clarified. Since time is coming up ---”
“(4) Also in 1970, the Central Council of Malay Cultural Organizations or Majlis Pusat organized a multi-racial seminar entitled "Malay Participation in the National Development of Singapore". Its submission of the seminar findings received no official response. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, from the above choronological accounts, I have shown that my thesis stands, ie, the interest of the Malays in Singapore is better served with the existence of a political linkage. As the aim of this Bill is to institutionalize Malay representation in Parliament, it also leads to the institutionalization of this political linkage. In that sense, this Bill is worthy of support as it will contribute to the maintenance of this judicious balance of minority and majority interests so essential in multi-racial politics of Singapore. Sir, I would now like to make some observations on the Bill regarding the Malay Committee. This Committee consisting of a chairman and four members shuld rightly be persons belionging to the Malay Commity. My observation is that just as this Committee would have its own guidelines and criteria as spelt out by the Member for Tanah Merah in determining the status of a prospective candidate to be a person belonging to the Malay Community, the Presidential Council for Minority Rights which would be given the task of nominating members of this Committee must logically be guided by certain criteria which would then be the basis for the guiding principles for the Malay Committee. In other words, the criteria to be used by the Malay Committee must be in consonance with those of the Presidential Council in determining the status of a person belonging to the Malay community.”
“(6) Hopefully, by the end of 1988, the Malay Members of Parliament's idea of a new concept of a Malay kampung in Geylang Serai will be a reality when its construction is completed by the HDB. (7) Going back a little into history, in the colonial days of 1920s and 1930s, the Malay settlement or kampung Melayu, through the effort of Encik Mohamed Eunos, President of the Singapore Malay Union or Kesatuan Melayu Singapura who was then a member of the Straits Settlement Legislative Council. He was also instrumental during his tenure as Legislative Councillor in securing English education through the special Malay class and the establishment of a trade school for Malay children. These assisted programmes seen from the proper national perspective are directed towards multi-racial ends and not as special privileges to the Malays. The point to note is that it is the general community that benefits from these programmes and not individuals. Let me now show the antithesis that efforts which had no political linkage and initiated outside Government or quasi-government machinery were not followed through and did not achieve their desired results. (1) In 1964, when Singapore was in Malaysia, the then UMNO Singapura which was at its high point in terms of Malay support held a Malay Convention to press for special Malay privileges for the Malays. This was rejected. (2) In 1968, the Singapore Malay Teachers' Union organized a seminar on Malay education and called on the Government to establish an elite Malay medium school that would help boost the standard of Malay education. This remained unresolved. (3) In 1970, the Singapore Malay Teachers' Union again proposed to the authorities its version of the national system of education. This was unacceptable.”
“I quote: 'There shall be no reservation for Malays in accordance with Article 153 [of the Malaysian Constitution] of positions in the public service to be filled by recruitment in Singapore.' (Source: The Battle for Malaysian Malaysia, Lee Kuan Yew, Vol. 1, pp. 29.) In a multi-racial context such as Singapore, it is necessary to fully appreciate and understand the political undercurrents that are operating in the society. This is of re-emphasize the point that there are certain constraints and necessary restraints existing within the practical sphere of multi-racial politics in Singapore. Sir, with this political reality as our backdrop, let me now return to substantiate the thesis of the need for some form of political linkage in the advancement of Malay interests in Singapore. (1) Since 1965, when Singapore became independent, free education from primary to tertiary level was accorded by the Government to Singapore Malays. (2) In 1966, the Administration of Muslim Law Act (AMLA) was enacted which resulted in the establishment of the Muslim Religious Council, better know as MUIS, in 1968. (3) The establishment of MUIS made it possible for Muslims to subscribe to the Mosque Building Fund by the check-off system through the Government CPF machinery starting in 1975. (4) In 1982, the Muslim Members of Parliament together with the Muslim community leaders created the Council on Education for Muslim Children or better known as Mendaki. This was well received by the Government. (5) In 1984, the Government expanded the Mosque Building Fund into Mosque Building and Mendaki Fund to provide financial strength to Mendaki through voluntary contributions by Muslims in Singapore, again through the CPF machinery.”
“What are they? We want to know. Encik Wan Hussin bin Hj Zoohri: I have just stated the educational, religious, socio-economic, cultural and the well-being of the community as a whole constitute the Malay interests. I thought it is so simple. I am not sure why it has been so perplexing to the Member. Sir, it must be pointed out that this constitutional status of the special position of the Malays in singapore is not similar in intent, interpretation and in its implementation with Article 153 of the Malaysian Constitution regarding Malays or bumiputras in Malaysia. This distinction is important to note because it is this apparent misconception of the constitional weightage of this Article amongst the general Malay public that made them want to equate the special position of the Malays with that of the bumiputras in Malaysia. As I see it, the translation of this Article into practical terms must, whilst taking cognizance of the special position of the Malays, take into account the interests of the majority of the non-Malays. In other words, there must be a blend or a judicious balance of minority and majority interests in a manner that is seen to be fair and just to the electorate. Thus, decisions that are to be taken by the Government will have to be based on a balance of all interests, ie, the special position of the Malays and also the legitimate interests of the non-Malays in Singapore. This approach of advancing the interests of the Malays in Singapore repudiates the model or approach of giving special privileges to the Malays. This stand, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, was clearly enunciated by the Prime Minister when Singapore was in Malaysia then.”
“I think this is an important issue. We are talking about Malay interests. Perhaps the Member could tell us what exactly are Malay interests in Singapore.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I wonder whether the Member would allow me to ask him to clarify what exactly are Malay interests.”
“We are seeing in this demand the same desire among the better educated, more politically conscious, young Singaporeans who wish to have a say in policy-making and not just to exercise a vote during election time.”
“Sir, she is asking me a question. Dr Aline Wong: May I ask the Member of Potong Pasir, rhetorically, a question that, if it is not clear that open but sensitive and responsible discussion of ethnic differences and different perspectives is for the long term good of the nation, which government would want to make this move? I welcome the 1DPM's intention and resolution to commit this Bill to a Select Committee. I think it is very important to let the public speak up its mind and to really come to grasp with the issues at hand. Still, I believe the reasons for not conducting a referendum must be explained very clearly to the people. By the way, I do not understand or I do not really know why the Member for Potong Pasir has come down so much from his past demands for a referendum to accepting a Select Committee now. But I think his point about referendum must be addressed, and must be addressed adequately. It is no good, it is not sufficient, to say that because we are all duly elected representatives and since Constitutional amendments only require a two-thirds majority in this House, therefore a referendum is not necessary. Because many people believe that the changes proposed are major changes and that they involve changes in the ground rules. So I believe the need to explain to the population why a referendum is not instructive, is not useful, and in fact can be confusing in this case, must be clearly explained. The need to explain this issue, Sir, does not lie in the number of people who call for a referendum. Petitions and the number of signatures are never accurate indications in such kinds of campaigns. What is important is to understand why there is a demand for a referendum at all, and I think we must read this population sentiment right.”
“Please. I said that the PAP think that we will lose.”
“I have to interrupt here, Mr Deputy Speaker. When did I say that?”
“Of course. Mr Chandra Das: Secondly, if it is yes, how do we go about doing it?”
“Sir, I am a single Opposition Member here with only half an hour, and other hon. Members have more chance to speak. I think you should ---”
“Now there will be polarization of the races because in the implementing of the GRCs, say, you have got a Malay MP there and every one of the Malays born to speak Malay and they all gravitate to the Malay MP, and all the Chinese ones will gravitate to the Chinese. So you have this polariza- tion in the working of the GRCs. So again it is bad. Now, a more important one. I suppose we will be debating the Amendment to the Constitution. We note that you have an amendment there to keep out Article 12 and Article 78 in regard to equality before the law, and if there is a provision in this Amendment that is inconsistent with Article 78, then it will not be invalidated. So this is an admission of the fact of the Government that the law that we are going to pass is not equal before the law. How can it be?”
“I think this is a contradiction which, in the present state of the law, cannot be resolved at all. Of course, the other contradiction we can see is with regard to the Independent candidates. In fact, the First Deputy Prime Minister has said that by virtue of the fact that they are independent, they do not want to be affiliated to any party, they do not want o be disciplined or to have the values or policies of that single party. If three Independents do get elected and they want to manage a town council, what then? Assuming that the three Independents, one is an ultra-conservative, one is an ultra-leftist and one takes the centre line, you will have a carriage pulled by three horses in three directions. So how are they going to manage the town council? You have to resolve this problem of independents. Again, as regards by-elections. You say that unless the whole lot of them, three of them, resigned or something happened to them, then they can have a by-election. What happens if two of them through some events are kicked out of the GRC and only leaving one of them? The poor fellow, the single MP, will have to carry the burden of three MPs. This is another problem area. You say that this system does not hurt the one-man one-vote system. I say it does, because the one-man one-vote system implies that one vote you elect for one person. Even in the proportional representation, one vote you can have multiple choices. You are putting the first choice for one man, second choice for another. But in this case one vote is voting for three. In other words, the value of that one vote is only one-third. So it is not a whole one vote. In fact, somebody has said that PAP has offered a cheap sale. With one vote you can vote in three candidates.”
“I am not hurting their honour. I am against this Bill. It is said that the Government is unwilling to hold a National Referendum to determine whether or not the majority of the people of Singapore want minority representation in Parliament under the proposed law. It is not true to say that since the majority of Singaporeans are Chinese, therefore, they do not want minority representation in Parliament. This law will affect all Singaporeans, both the Minority as well as the majority communities in Singapore. Therefore, it is only fair that the majority have a say also in it, since this will have such far-reaching effects on Singaporeans. The Government says that they shall probably have 10 - 13, GRCs. If that is the case, the number of Malays and other minority representation in Parliament will even be less than today. On the other hand, the Government says, "Well, the minority can stand in the single MP constituency." If that is the case, then their assumption is wrong. Because on the one hand, you say that they have got no chance of getting elected when they stand in single seat Members of Parliament. Therefore, we musthave GRCs to ensure that we get representation. Then in the same breath, you say they can also stand in the single Member constituency. This is a contradiction. So your assumption on the one hand says that Malays cannot get into Parliament by their own effort and on the other hand you say they can get elected if they stand in single Member constituencies. This is a contradiction which you have to answer. So if the PAP does not believe that in future voters will be voting along racial lines, if Singaporean Chinese are not going to vote for the Chinese, then they should not have this Bill or options.”
“300 over Malays just supported the GRC. But my feedback is just to the contrary. The major Malay parties have, in fact, urged me to ask this House to put it before a Select Committee because they say that the Malay community generally are against this Bill and not for this Bill. Malay will feel insulted to be made a second-class Member of Parliament. Yes, they will have to be a passenger to two other Chinese candidates to get into Parliament. Of course, hon. Members who are from the Malay community here will have to reject his Bill on this score, just as the Opposition MPs have rejected the Non-Constituency Members of Parliament. Why? Because they have honour, they have pride and dignity in themselves, they do not want to come into Parliament by the back door. They want to walk in proudly through the front door. So in future, all of you, hon. Members from the Malay community, when you sit here, you are not walking into Parliament by your own steam. You are walking into Parliament by the grace of two other candidates. Do you have that honour? Do you have that pride to reject the GRCs? I hope Malay MPs here will speak up on this very point. I think we know from the Malay culture, they are a very proud people. When you hurt their honour, they will go to the full extent to deal with you. Some hon. Members: They will deal with you.”