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 62 of 85.
“Mr Deputy Speaker, I think it would be very sad for the Malay community if MUIS completely takes over this business of Haj prilgrimage. Because, as it is, there is already ---”
“I have another supplementary question. We are on the pricing of HDB flats and the Minister has given a guideline that there will be a premium of 2-6% in respect of certain flats which are in a good location. Will the Minister be willing to give a breakdown of how HDB prices are arrived at or are determined? Is he willing to give a breakdown as to the cost of the land, building cost, construction cost, professional cost, interest, etc?”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I believe the Minister has not really thoroughly answered the question because I think the Member who puts this question is interested in the proposed differential pricing. I am also interested to know under what guidelines these different prices will be judged by or guided by. Maybe my question is not clear. There is certainly a range of percentage to the pegged price. So perhaps the Minister could tell us this.”
“Would the Minister consider allowing private groups in housing estates to set up child care centres in their estates themselves?”
“Can the Minister please tell us how many of these female foreign workers were sent home because they attempted to go into a contract of marriage with our Singaporeans?”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, can the Minister please tell this House whether workers have been recruited from China or attempts have been made to recruit workers from China?”
“Sir, of these foreign workers, how many of them are from Malaysia and are commuting to and from Singapore daily?”
“Sir, can the Minister please tell us what is the percentage of the reserves that are invested in stock overseas?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, how much is the removal allowance which the HDB is paying now?”
“I say that Singapore should not and never be allowed to be labelled abroad as a country which is clean, green and economically advanced, but its Government represssive. I think that this kind of an international image should never be allowed to be imprinted in the international public opinion and the public press abroad. If that happens, then it will need plenty of effort on Singapore's part to erase that kind of an unflattering international image. I have spoken earlier on about the pledge whereby the pledge is for us to build a democratic society. Let us not just mouth the words of the pledge but let us put the words of the pledge into practice. Arresting our own citizens and detaining them without trial is definitely not democratic. Whichever way we look at it, it is not democratic. So I would also urge the Government, like the 55 US Congressmen, either to try or release the 15 detained.”
“It is not a case of either you try them or we will have a follow-up action. I do not think that is the situation at all. It is just the word "promptly" used to show their concern for the 15 who have been incarcerated. They are also probably so convinced that the 15 detained are not Marxists and have not broken the law. If they thought that the 15 detained had broken the law, then the Singapore Government would have put them on trial. I think we should be concerned that there is such a protest from so many US law makers who are influential people, by virtue of the office they hold. The Singapore Government has said more than once that Singapore is vulnerable and I agree that Singapore is vulnerable. But the Singapore Government should not concentrate on Singapore's vulnerability only from the point of view of internal threats. Singapore's vulnerability can equally be affected by adverse international public opinion. We all know South Africa has a bad international public image. Whenever the name of South Africa is mentioned, straightaway we think of racial exploitation and Apartheid. These connections are straightaway brought to our mind. We think of South Africa, we think of Apartheid. Of course, Singapore will never sink so low down the scale as South Africa in international public opinion. But we need not put ourselves in a position where we will attract bad international press or bad international public opinion in relation to our treatment of the human rights issue. We may not like it. But the 15 detained are treated by people abroad as a human rights issue. The detainees are viewed as mere dissenters who opposed the ruling Party because the Singapore Government's case claiming that they are Marxist subversives are not believed.”
“Thirdly, the 55 Congressmen who had protested to the Singapore Government are clearly not convinced that the 15 detained are Communists or Marxists or are out to subvert the existing social and political system of Singapore. The Government could easily brush off the 600-odd other protest letters sent from England, Australia and New Zealand, by saying that the writers of those letters were fellow Marxists having similar philosopy or aims and therefore they had good reasons to protest against the arrest and detention of the 15 alleged Marxist plotters. But such allegations cannot be made of the 55 US Congressmen. Nobody would dare say that they are Marxist sympathisers. So why do they take the trouble on their own to protest against the Singapore Government over the 15 who were detained and in custody? It is obvious that they do not believe the explanations given by the Government for the detentions and, as I said, they are not convinced that the 15 detained are Marxists. I for one am not convinced that Vincent Cheng and 14 of his friends are really Communists or Marxists who want to overthrow Singapore by violent means. The question is: why should we be bothered with this new development, that is, the protest from these 55 US legislators? Those 55 American law makers, both Democrats and Republicans, have urged the Singapore Government to either try the 15 detained promptly or release them. There is an urgency in their call. They have put a time limit to their call for the 15 detained to be tried. They have not only urged the Singapore Government to try the 15 detained but to try them promptly. I do not think that there is a threat on their part. I do not think that there is an implied either/or situation.”
“Much obliged to you, Mr Deputy Speaker. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I have a motion on New developments following the detention of the 15 alleged Marxist plotters and the vulnerability of Singapore. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, since the last time this House debated on the detention of Vincent Cheng and 14 of his friends on 29th July, I note that there are now new developments arising from those detentions. I am referring to the Straits Times, 21st August 1987 issue, reporting on the 55 US Congressmen's letter of protest sent to the Singapore Government concerning the 15 detained. I have been told that there was such a letter of protest and that the Straits Times report of that letter is accurate. I have not seen to date the reply or response made by the Singapore Government to that protest letter. But I am sure the Minister will perhaps clarify on that point whether or not the Singapore Government has already sent a reply. In my mind that newspaper report was significant. Firstly, the Chairman of the US House of Representatives, Mr Dante Fascell, Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman, saw fit to pen his name in that letter. As you all surely know, the Foreign Affairs Committee is one of the more prestigious Standing Congressional Committees of the House of Representatives and one of its subjects that it has purview is US relations with other governments. I suppose that includes relations with the Singapore Government. Secondly, that there should be more US Congressmen who would want to protest against the Singapore Government over the detention. I believe there were already six US Congressmen previously who had written to the Singapore Government on this issue.”
“With this new amendment, there is no chance of calling a division. Then these Members can become irresponsible. They can just speak any way they like but really not taking a stand on it. Again, for these reasons, I think this part of the amendment should not go through.”
“Well, let us have it on record. Good. I hope you do not go back on your word. Because if this amendment goes through, the House is almost, literally, shutting out the Opposition in Singapore. We are in a unique position. We have only one Opposition Member at the moment. If you pass this motion, then there would probably be more people coming in because they feel that one person with half an hour speaking time is certainly not enough. There must be more coming after me. The other point is on calling a division. I think you are making it difficult, impossible, for the Opposition to call a division. Again, I wonder whether the Leader of the House would assure me that if I want to call a division, four others would support me. I have been in this House for over 2(r) years. I think I have called for a division only once. So I have not been wasting Parliament's time. Why are you so worried then? Why must you get this through and say, "You are wasting 10 minutes every time you call a division." Nobody has wasted Parliament's time, at least not me. Again, I think this amendment should not go through. Because with one Opposition MP in the House, you are making it impossible for him to call a division. A division is very important. In fact, in America, every Member in the House of Representatives has a voting record. They keep a record of so-and-so Member voting on every issue. I think that should be the case over here too. I think we should have a record of every Member to see what stand he takes. With this general voting, the whole thing is taken at one go. Nobody knows who votes for what. Again, I think the credibility of a Member is not really tested. A Member may be speaking very strongly against an issue, but when it comes to voting, he votes for it.”
“The other point is that I think we should not compare ourselves with other Commonwealth Parliaments. The Minister has said that other Commonwealth Parliaments have curbed their speaking time. He mentioned Australia, New Zealand and some other countries. I think he should not compare them at all. Tell me, which one of these Commonwealth Parliaments has only one Opposition Member in their House? If you can tell me that they have only one Opposition Member in their House, I will agree with you. So if you are curbing speaking time, you are literally shutting up the Opposition in Singapore. There is only one. We must have a right to speak, as of right. When I move a motion, I have to probably buy cups of tea for the Whip to get into good terms with him before I can move a motion. We want to speak as of right and not by the grace of somebody. So I do not think it is fair to say that I can always move a motion. I do not think so, unless the Leader of the House assures me that any time I want to move a motion, he will get a seconder for me.”
“I think the Member for Whampoa has gone off in a tangent. What has this debate got to do with town councils? We are talking about freedom of speech, please.”
“I hope I have put the point across, Sir. Look at the Swiss. We have always been comparing ourselves with the Swiss. They have not curbed any freedom of speech. In fact, they have gone one step further. They have encouraged people to call for a referendum on an issue. And they always have meetings in the village square. I think the House here should not conduct its meetings as if we are in a board meeting of a company - hurrying through so that we can get on with our social activities after that. I think we should conduct ourselves more like the village council where everybody is given a chance to speak. I think that is true democracy. I think you should not laugh at this because I do not think we are more efficient than the Swiss. The Swiss are very efficient people and yet they have got regular meetings in their town square. Everybody is allowed to say something.”
“Yes. I am going to say that there is a misconception of our pledge. The essential point of our pledge is to build a democratic society. That is the key to the pledge. And unless we have got a democractic society, we cannot achieve happiness, prosperity and progress for our nation. When we are curbing our freedom of speech here and we are not allowed to say when we have something important to say, that is certainly not democractic. So we in this Parliament are setting a bad example. If we are curbing freedom of speech here and not promoting democracy, I think we, as leaders of our country, are certainly setting a bad example. I can just imagine, it goes all the way down the line to our schools. They have a meeting and there you are, the teacher or the person in charge, with authority, just shuts them off. He says, "Look, Parliament has also cut down the time for speaking. What are you blabbering away?" I think we should set an example here. If a Member has got something important to say, let him say it. Why curb his freedom of speech?”
“Sir, this is relevant. Because by curbing from one hour to half an hour, we are curbing democracy. I am coming to it.”
“It was reported in yesterday's papers that some kindergarten kids were brought there to sign the pledge. The teachers who were with them said that they had explained to the children the reason for their excursion, to pledge their loyalty to Singapore. The pledge is not really to pledge loyalty to Singapore. I think there is a misconception here. Further on, the Chief Commissioner of the Singapore Boy Scouts also brought the kids there. Now the scouts do all kind of things.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, please allow me to say a few words on the amendments to the Standing Orders. Like the previous speaker from Chong Boon, I do not agree that the speaking time for Backbenchers and other Members, other than Ministers and Parliamentary Secretaries, should be reduced by 50%, from one hour to half an hour. It has already been mentioned that before 1964, I believe, there was a record of a speaker really speaking up to 6 or 7(r) hours. But I think that is really too much to stomach. I think one hour is very reasonable and should not be reduced any further. I think the issue here is freedom of speech against, as the Minister put it, "the efficient function of Parliament and to improve the quality of debate." I do not believe in the second reason. But he says, "to improve the efficient function of Parliament". I think we have to balance the two. We should go more for freedom of speech. If you curtail somebody who has something to say, you are actually curbing his freedom of speech. Any Member who stands before this House and speaks is not speaking really on his own behalf. He is speaking on behalf of members of his constituency. He is speaking on behalf of perhaps even the public in general. Therefore, if you curb him, you are actually curbing the voices of the public. Therefore, we should not reduce this one hour time any further. Another issue is: do we or do we not want to promote democracy? In the past few days, many people were herded to sign the pledge. What does the pledge say? Essentially, the pledge says: "We the citizens of Singapore pledge ourselves to build a democratic society so as to achieve happiness, prosperity and progress for our nation." That is the essential part of the pledge. Basically, we pledge to build a democractic society.”
“What have you done about alternative activities?”
“I have made a request, not just simply for the HDB to provide more badminton courts, but I said that perhaps the people could chip in and pay for the construction of the badminton courts. But again the answer was, of course, no. I think there are many things that can be done before we come to solving it by more legislation. Perhaps the schools, the educators, can help. Has the Minister for Home Affairs got the cooperation of the Ministry of Education on this problem? Perhaps he could let us know.”
“How can the young people avoid these stressful conditions? They mix with their peers. And if they are not taught or trained to use their leisure time properly, they will probably get involved in this kind of activity. As the last speaker has said, it is a form of escapism, no more, no less. They have their problems. They cannot solve it. They find the easy way out by taking to glue sniffing. Sir, we know the problems and I think the Government should tackle it at its root source. Until such time as they find that there is no way out, then perhaps we can go on to legislation. Somebody has already said that Singapore has got too many laws. We tend to solve every problem by legislation. But on this particular problem we cannot employ this method in the first instance. I think we should give it a try. Like in Japan, they always have got a community effort. When there is a problem, the whole community will chip in and try to solve that problem. I think this particular problem is a good chance for the Government to have a campaign to get the community to come together to solve this problem. And if this can be done, it will certainly create harmony and better understanding in our new estates and other HDB estates. So here is a chance to get the people of Singapore to solve the problem. Has this been done? I do not think so. They say that idle hands are bedfellows of crime. What has the Government done or what has the Ministry of Community Development done to provide more recreational facilities, more social facilities, for the young people of Singapore to get them away from bad habits? As far as I know, in Potong Pasir Estate we have got only two badminton courts. And when I write in for more badminton courts, of course, the standard answer is no.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I do not support this Bill and you can see the reason why. I also did not support the amendment to the Constitution. This Bill is unique in the sense that it is aimed almost entirely at the young citizens of our country. This problem is almost confined to our people who are less than 19 years of age. I look at it not from the criminal point of view. I say that this is a social problem. The last Member who spoke has asked the Minister what studies he has made in regard to the socio-economic problems of those who are engaged in inhalant abuse and perhaps some kind of solution could be found. We cannot class a social problem like any other criminal problem. If we had not tried to find the root cause first and solve it but merely take the easy way out by implementing a law to take away all those young people who indulge in this kind of abuse and put them away in some kind of a home, I think this is not the best way to solve the problem. We have to ask ourselves what is the root cause of this problem? Have we attempted to solve the problem first before we go on to implementing a law to put them away and fine them? Have we done that? What studies have the Minister made before this Bill is enacted? We live in a very stressful society, an urban, commercial and industrial society. Divorce cases are on the rise. The number of broken homes is on the increase. Crime is on the rise. Our schools are under pressure. Enrolment in the classroom is higher than what is best for them. Sir, there are all kinds of problems. When there is a recession, the parents lose their jobs and they bring all their problems back to their homes. All these problems that are found in the home will be reflected on the young people. It is quite normal.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I can speak from experience. I was a teacher for about 10 years in Singapore and I hardly did any administrative work, if I could remember. I only concentrated on teaching and extra- curricular activities. How can you say that former teachers had to do greater administrative work?”
“Sir, can the Minister say whether or not this stress could be contributed by the extra administrative work that has been put on the teachers? I hear that the teachers these days have to record their lessons and they have to do all kinds of things in addition to their work load.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, it was a very lengthy answer but the Minister has not answered my point yet. To what level the Government will stop the inflow of foreign workers, 10%, 11% or 12% of our total labour force, or what? Or when the need arises, it can expand as high as it could go? Is that the policy? BG Lee Hsien Loong:Our policy is to have a controlled inflow. We do not have an absolute limit in mind. But I very much doubt that foreign workers would exceed one-quarter of our labour force. ATTENDANCE FEES AT OUTPATIENT CLINICS (Exemption for the Handicapped and Disabled) 11. Dr Koh Lam Son asked the Acting Minister for Health whether his Ministry will consider waiving or reducing the attendance fees at Government outpatient clinics for handicapped or disabled inmates of welfare homes. The Acting Minister for Health (Mr Yeo Cheow Tong): Mr Speaker, Sir, my Ministry is already granting free outpatient and inpatient medical treatment to all residents of welfare homes run by the Ministry of Community Development and approved voluntary welfare organizations. For residents in other welfare homes, my Ministry will grant free medical treatment to those who are issued with a Medical Fee Exemption Card (MFEC) by the Ministry of Community Development. I would like to assure the House that my Ministry will always accord special consideration to the indigent whether they are handicapped or not.”
“The reason we did this is because we wanted to use the levy as a control mechanism. If the numbers escalate out of control, we can tighten by raising the levy and choking back the demand. I hasten to add that we have no plans to do anything like that at the moment, but the mechanism is in place.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the Minister has mentioned that one of the ways to ease the labour shortage is to allow a controlled inflow of foreign workers. I believe that policy is being pursued at the moment. I would like to ask the Minister to what extent or to what percentage of our total labour force will foreign workers finally be limited. BG Lee Hsien Loong: I should explain that we bring in foreign workers not to swell our labour force but to provide ourselves some flexibility to expand and contract. Our labour force, as I said, is expanding at about 1% a year. Why? Because 18 years ago too few babies were born. Can we fix it? Yes, but it will take 18 years. Foreign workers cannot solve that problem. Foreign workers can help to buffer rapid expansions and rapid contractions, so that all of the tightness is not taken up either in a wage explosion during a boom year, or in high Singapore worker unemployment during a recession year. The numbers of foreign workers are going up. How far can they go? Well, they are still some considerable distance below the peak that was reached in the last boom. We are watching the situation carefully, not just in terms of numbers of workers and percentages but also the side effects which are created "socially and culturally", to use the Member's words. As long as the side effects are containable, as long as we think that this is a temporary surge, we will allow in foreign workers. But if it goes beyond that point, eg, many of them overstay or want to settle down and marry Singaporeans, then some measures must be taken to tighten it. The Member would be aware that we have changed our rules on work permits so that all work permit holders come in on a $140 per month levy rather than on CPF.”
“Can the Minister please tell this House when he thinks the new fare structures for the bus, taxis and MRT will be announced?”
“May I ask the Minister. He says that he has dealt with this problem from an educational point of view. Can he quote me instances where the failure rate in schools which have more than 30% Malay intake is fairly high? What educational methods have they used to solve this problem other than limiting the intake to 25%?”
“All right. May I ask the Minister this question. This problem is an educational problem. Does the Minister not think that they should deal with it in an educational way, ie, perhaps reduce the number of pupils in a class, or perhaps give the poorer pupils extra tuition? If this is an educational problem, then I think it should be tackled by educational methods and theories, and not to arbitrarily limit the enrolment of one minority group in a school. In other words, they would have lost the choice of their own school. I think you should tackle the problems correctly and not just arbitrarily stop the pupils from going to the school of their own choice. The other point is ---”
“The Minister for the Environment has been given a chance to speak.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, may I be allowed to reply? Just to say a few words.”
“Sir, I was thinking whether or not it would disorientate the Malay students if you put them in smaller groups; whether they will feel more insecure. There are other problems arising. So I do not know whether the Ministry should go in-depth into this before they put a limit on a minority group. The Minister for the Environment (Dr Ahmad Mattar): I hope the Member for Potong Pasir understands that the school environment has an effect on the language pupils use in school. And in schools with a high concentration of Malay pupils the tendency is for them to speak in Malay. This is a natural thing to do. But if this is allowed to persist in a school, then their English will, in the long run, suffer. Language, Mr Speaker, Sir, is the key to the acquisition of knowledge. If a pupil is unable to understand a language, which in our case here is English, then he is unable to receive information or knowledge in that language. It is therefore very important, Sir, that this problem is met as soon as possible. What I would like to emphasize here again, Sir, is that over-concentration of people of one race in a particular place works against our racial harmony and social contact which are very essential in our multi-racial society.”
“Sir, it is obvious that the Minister has not made a thorough study of this matter. Is the Minister now willing to carry out a study on whether there would be other problems when this policy is implemented?”
“Sir, it would appear that this policy is based purely on educational considerations. Has the Minister taken into account the cultural, social and other practical problems arising from this policy?”
“I know. But the thing is that you are saying that they look harmless. The point is that you say you must not allow the looks to deceive you. But these people are people whom we know. And I think it is absurd to say that people would be going with tattoo marks on their heads to tell what they are. At this point I wonder whether the Minister would be willing to say whether or not these people would be released soon. I think this is the main interest to their parents and friends. Or are they going to be detained for the full year? If the Government feels that these people are really not as what they are trying to make it out to be, I think they should be released. And as in the war, they say, "We will be back home for Christmas." I hope these people can be released in time not for Christmas, but to celebrate National Day. Dr Tan Cheng Bock: Mr Deputy Speaker, my name was mentioned by my colleague, the Member for Punggol. Yes, I did quote the passage by Santa Maria. But the Member for Potong Pasir quoted the wrong passage. If he wants to know, I am prepared to tell him which passage I quoted. But I do not think he will be listening, so I will not be bothered.”
“It is my mistake. The First Deputy Prime Minister has brought up the person of Ieng Sary. Well, I do not know how he can compare Ieng Sary with these 15 who are arrested. Ieng Sary has got a long record with his other colleagues of mass murder. Where is the record of these 15? There is no record of them --- An hon. Member: Looks.”
“You have not been listening obviously. Again and again, speaker after speaker implies that these 15 will bring disorder, bloodshed and violence to Singapore. And again many have said that, well, because they are mild looking. First Deputy Speaker has even brought up examples ---”
“Yes, if there is no security reason for doing so. There are a lot of implications that many people think that these people want to drag the Church against the State but there is really no evidence of that. This question of torture. They said that the Minister has come out and said that there is no torture. But I think he has not clarified whether there is continuous interrogation. I wish he would clarify this point because in the report that I read in which he has mentioned, I believe it is Ng Bee Leng. In fact, she had suffered 12 hours of continuous interrogation. I wish he would come out and say whether that was true or not. I do not think it is my duty to answer every point that has been brought up. There are so many points which are brought up that are completely untrue. The Member for Clementi said that Government has irrefutable proof. But he has not bothered to name any of those proofs to prove the case, whereas I have brought forward ample evidence that there is no case against these 15 at all. Some hon. Members: What evidence?”
“Well, it does not really matter to me whether there is political mileage or not. As far as the PAP is concerned, everything is politics to them. I think the detention is politics, nothing to do with the security of Singapore. And I do not think the way so many speakers have gone on - they speak in such abstract terms of the world and of historical context and the like - you tend to forget that we are talking of 15 Singaporeans. The whole motion is that these 15 Singaporeans should be released. If you cannot give a valid reason why they should be detained a day further, then they should be released at all costs.”
“And I have been placed in a position where I have the opportunity to do it and I am doing it. That is all to it. And the Member for Punggol seems to want to put and imply a sinister motive to me. I have got no sinister motive in bringing this up.”
“This is the important part which I think is of relevance - "Maybe I am making conjectures." That is all. He does not know it personally. He has got no authority himself or he himself would be involved in violence. There is no evidence whatsoever. He is thinking: Yes, maybe Tan Wah Piow would want violence. In a court of law this would be thrown out, outright. There is no evidence at all from the person whom you have detained. If you can produce evidence to say that these 15 people would be marching the streets and rioting and, like the other Bersilat chaps, with their parangs, that is a completely different matter. They have not even thrown a stone. We have all this talk of past history, that we have got riots in the past. It is very true we had all these riots in the past, but we still survive all these riots. But the more important point is that we are not living in those periods. There are very big changes in our society. I think the Government knows that. Even a period of 10 years, we find there are two worlds apart. In fact, I am noticing it myself that when I talk to youngsters, my thinking and their thinking are already different because they are of a newer generation. They want to go on ahead. They want to create things for themselves. But I am afraid this Government is still sticking to their old past. The Member for Punggol has brought up many important points. He asked me whom am I championing? Whose side I am on? When I come before the House, I do not have any ulterior motives. I am not championing for the 15. Somebody must speak up for them. In the whole of Singapore, 2.6 million people, who will speak up for these 15? Somebody has to do the job. It is a necessary job.”
“"Maybe I am making conjectures." That is all he is doing, making conjectures.”
“As I was saying, my motive is just for these 15 persons. As far as I can see, there is not one good reason why they should be detained for another day. They are no security threat to Singapore at all. As far as I can see, 14 of you have risen to speak and none of you have convinced me. You said that they are people who advocate bloodshed, chaos, violence and riots. But where is the evidence? This is the article by Santa Maria which the Member for Punggol, I believe, has quoted. If he has read carefully, I think the important part is the questions which were put to Vincent Cheng: 'Question: Do you think Tan Wah Piow would have stopped it if he'd brought it to a peaceful revolution that could not bring about an overthrow? Do you think he would have stopped at that? Answer: I think he would proceed further... maybe I am making conjectures. But I would think that he would be a person to achieve his aim to overthrow the Government. Question: Through violent means? Answer: Yes, if peaceful means don't work out.' These questions were put to Vincent Cheng. His replies are all hearsay. It is not of his own evidence. He is thinking what Tan Wah Piow would be doing, possibly he would do, possibly he would do whatever thing. It is not the answer of Vincent Cheng. And we are talking of Vincent Cheng who has been arrested.”
“Because it is to your benefit, not to my benefit.”
“The Member for Punggol, my, my! You have your think-tank and you have weighed carefully whether to allow this motion or not. Please, this is not done out of goodwill for me. I dare you to kill this motion. The repercussions will be adverse against this Government. Think of the hue and cry by the international press which will say, "Member of the Opposition tried to move a motion on the detention and his motion was not allowed because there was no seconder." Tremendous damage will be done to this Government. Some hon. Members: No! Mr Chiam See Tong: Of course, it will. I do not take the PAP to be a bunch of naive people. They know exactly what they are doing, please. I agreed with you. That is the reason why you allowed the motion. You do not want to kill it because it will be adverse to your interest, not to my interest.”