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 63 of 85.
“What other forums? Who are the people who can bring this matter up? You are not going to bring them to court. You are not going to bring them in front of a --- Mr Ng Kah Ting rose ---”
“It is impossible to prove because it is subjective. The danger is that, for your own political reasons, they may be detained longer than the detention order, maybe 1(r) years, maybe two years, because you say they are still not rehabilitated. So you are varying the original detention order which is only for one year. Of course, the Minister has powers to extend the detention order. But I think the present detention order, as it stands, is one year for 14 persons and two years for one person. The other arm is "unlikely to resume their subversive activities." Again, this is very subjective. How are you going to prove they are unlikely to resume their subversive activities? As far as we know now, as it stands, they can no longer go back to their subversive activities. How are they going back? Take Vincent Cheng. He goes back and he wants to start some Marxist group again. Do you think he can get recruits? He has already confessed in public. His credibility has been shattered. Again, this is subjective. The authorities can always say that they are likely to go back to their subversive activities and then you can prolong their detention order for another six months or for another year or whatever. My point is that if you agree with this amendment, you are materially altering the detention order and I do not think that is right. I have to point this out to the House. The other point is the Member for Punggol. He asked me what is my motive for bringing this matter up. You know my motive. I have got no subversive motives. You can read my mind like a book. I am an open person. I am an Opposition Member. If it were not for me, there will be no public forum for these 15 persons arrested. You tell me what other forum can be aired on the detention of these 15. You name me one.”
“Of course, they have. Are you saying that Singaporeans have got nothing sensible to say? They have. As I look at this amendment, if the House approves of it, then in fact you will be varying the detention orders. The detention orders are one year for the 14 and two years for Vincent Cheng. If you agree and approve this amendment, as it stands, then you would be varying the detention orders, as I said. The important part of this amendment says: 'supports the prompt action of the Government in arresting those involved in the Marxist conspiracy and supports the Government's intention to release them as soon as they are rehabilitated ...'. This is one arm. The other arm is: 'and are unlikely to resume their subversive activities.' These two arms are very subjective. These two can go beyond the one year and two years because how are you going to determine that they are rehabilitated? This is a very subjective matter. Some of you say they should not be allowed because they have confessed. But you forgot that the more important point is not what they say. You have already destroyed their credibility. They cannot go back to their old ways again. You have destroyed their network. You have destroyed their objectives. That is more important. It is not what they have said over TV. More important is that you have established a situation where they no longer can go back to their old ways. I think that is the criteria. Otherwise, how can you say that they are rehabilitated? How do you prove that? I cannot see how you can prove it. They can subject themselves to your questions and answers every day and they are all intelligent people. Whatever you ask them they can give you the answers that you want. And how are you going to prove that they are rehabilitated?”
“The difference between a Marxist society and our society is freedom. If you have got no freedom, there is no difference between the two societies. Over in the Communist bloc, you can go for your holidays to the Crimea, to the Black Sea, but you cannot go across the border to America for holidays. They say they have high standards of living. They have got all their culture and all the benefits. But the basic difference is freedom. If we want to have a fairer system, then we should educate our school children. It is just like when our children are young, they have to go for immunization. Diseases will always be there. But how do you prevent such diseases from attacking our children? It is to immunize them. Similarly, if we have built up a structure, a Singapore structure that is strong enough, it cannot be shaken. These people can come and you do not worry. But as it is, now the Government seems to have a monopoly of whatever is good for the country. Other people do not play a part. When the time comes, the people just vote. The media is controlled by you. The press is controlled by you. You can force any opinion on the people of Singapore. As we see now, what is the thing that is going on in our TV? You and I know. Pushing hard for BG Lee. Every now and then, we turn on the radio, it is the son of the Prime Minister. What is it all about? We know. You know and I know. You do not have to tell the people of Singapore. It is just pushing him to the forefront. Why are there no other people coming forward and be given equal time to have their say?”
“--- to so many times. But you did not know that I was going to move this motion until the last minute and I accommodated you, not you accommodate me. So it is to your benefit, not really to my benefit even if I have the two hours. Admittedly I have two hours, but proportionately the Government would have more time to give its views and yet I sportingly allowed it. I think the more important question is - the Minister has not touched on this - what sort of Singapore do we really want? This is an important question. We want, of course, the release of the 15 on humanitarian grounds. I think their families and friends do suffer. As I have already given my reasons, I do not want to repeat them. They should be released and yet I see that the Government is not complying. I hope they will change their mind soon. The Government says they have got a vision for Singapore. What kind of vision? How can people of Singapore believe the Government when you say you want to have a vision and you want to have high standards of living? Can we really achieve such a vision? I really do not think so. Every now and then there will be arrests under your system. On the average, maybe every 10 years, there will be arrests. Every 10 years, it occurs. Why? Because you are not establishing a democratic society. As you say, there will be rapists. There will be murderers. There will be this kind of people coming forward. So what do you do? You have to immunize the society so that they can come and have different opinions and yet it would not shake the fundamentals of society. You can educate them, as I have advocated, on democracy. Teach our school children what this system is all about. What are the dangers? Why do we not allow this Communist and Marxist to come forward? You teach them.”
“I cannot see the logic of the Minister when he said from 20 minutes to 10 minutes. The Government side is only given half the time. But now, as I recorded it, there are already 14 speakers. So you have multiplied your proportion --- An hon. Member: Freedom of speech.”
“Or at least very little chance to reply. Then I got a call from the Whip, and he said, "Mr Chiam, I have got something important to talk to you." I obliged. I came down to Parliament House and he said, "Well, this motion is an important topic; of national interest. How about you changing it to a Private Member's Motion where a seconder is required. You do not worry. We will arrange for it. Everything will be done." I have been a sportsman all my life and any sporting gesture will always be reciprocated. Of course, I agreed. I know that if I have a Private motion, I have to meet this kind of a situation - one voice against so many others. And yet I agreed. I think I am giving in to their benefit. In fact, there is more benefit to the Government by giving in than it benefits me.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I thought I was gentleman enough not to bring up this question of notice. Now that the Minister has brought it up, I can explain the whole situation. The Minister brought it up, not me. I did file an Adjournment Motion and, of course, an Adjournment Motion needs only two days' notice, I believe. So it was well in time. For an Adjournment Motion, of course, half an hour is allowed. If I am the sort that hogs the whole half an hour, there will be no chance for the Government side to reply. An hon. Member: You have only 20 minutes.”
“As I say, a single swallow does not make the Spring coming, or the Summer coming. So do not go over that ground again, please.”
“One swallow does not make a Summer or a Spring, please. You should know that. Take today's debate, for example. One voice against 14, 15. What sort of contest is that? It is an unequal contest. I do not think it is democratic anyway. How is the newspaper, how is the television, going to edit this programme? I wonder. So what I am saying is that I think the Government should be sensitive to this kind of international outlook of Singapore. I do not think it is a good image for Singapore. So with this detention of 15, I think it will enhance this kind of an image. As a Singaporean if I go abroad, how am I going to defend the Government's position if somebody says, "It is not a very safe place for the Opposition to live in Singapore."”
“I am much obliged to you, Mr Deputy Speaker. In the past, when I met foreigners and told them that I was from Singapore, the usual answer I get was, "Oh, Singapore? Bugis Street." They used to associate Singapore with Bugis Street. But, of course, Bugis Street is now no longer there. So this association now does not exist. But these days when I go abroad and I say, "I am from Singapore", the answer is, "Oh, Singapore. Beautiful, clean, progressive city. But repressive." This is the sort of international opinion of Singapore. Does the Government want to perpetuate this kind of an opinion? I do not think it is very good. It is true it is known in the world that Singapore has a high standard of living, nice buildings, new motor cars around, but it is also clearly known that Singapore is a place where alternative views, opposition perhaps, and other persons who have got differing views, are clamped down, and not only clamped down, but clamped down hard. Mr Chandra Das: That includes you? What about you?”
“He also said that this action of arresting and detaining them is an action by the Government to suppress different or opposing opinions.”
“Talking nonsense. What about the Muslims? Mr Tang Guan Seng( In Mandarin): I hope he will allow me to complete my speech. Therefore, this is a characteristic which is prominent. The second point is what I have just said, those who have received an English education and who are professionally trained, having received a higher education had taken part in this incident. The third point is about how Vincent Cheng has behaved. For the past 15 years he has been involved in such activities. He then repented his past doings in a very short time and this is very rare indeed. So I feel these are the three characteristics. [Interruption]. I hope he will not keep on interrupting me. Just now the Member for Potong Pasir said something which showed certain contradictions. First, he said that self-confession is already enough. They have confessed that they have been wrong. Why not release them then? Then, he said these self-professed talks were not convincing because there could have been some editing done, and it also showed that they were not natural when they made their confessions. This is a slap in his own face as he had contradicted himself. This is the first point. The second point: the Member for Potong Pasir said he knows one of the detained people. On the other hand, he said these people were known to be all clear and clean, people of integrity and other people known them. If you know only one of them, how could you say that all the others are people of upright character, clean and clear? At most, he could speak of only one of them. The other 14 detainees, he does not know. How could he then say that the other 14 people whom he does not know are also people of good character, clean and clear?”
“And he did not bring up the matters that I brought up.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I wish you would call him to order and ask him to speak on the topic. He is talking about a lot of irrelevant things about me. What has it got to do with the amendment? Let him just please tell me. 'supports the prompt action of the Government in arresting those involved in the marxist conspiracy and supports the government's intention to release them as soon as they are rehabilitated and are unlikely to resume their subversive activities.' Please, tell me. For the last two to three minutes you have been talking. What has it got to do with this?”
“All right, let him repeat outside whether it is true or false. Go outside and say that I have got a weak political consciousness. I am raising this motion because I do not understand. What proof have you got? You are just raving like a mad man in this House. An hon. Member: Personal attack. Mr Tang Guan Seng( In Mandarin): If the Member for Potong Pasir could wait until I have finished my speech before rising, it would have been better. But half-way through, he interrupted me and jumped up. He is a bit too excited. What I was trying to say is that as a popularly elected MP who professed to have political consciousness, he should be more sensitive politically than the general public. But when the ordinary people or some of them are puzzled about certain matters, as the MP of the Opposition, it should have been his duty to come out and express his views. Is it not his duty to do so? Therefore, it could either be that he is afraid to take up his responsibility, or his political sensitivity is too weak.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, are you circulating this amendment?”
“We have our games on Wednesday or whatever night and other social functions. They are not ready with arms and all the whole paraphernalia of carrying out a revolution. If the question were put to them, "Are you a member of the Communist Party of Malaysia?", I can lay a bet that each of them will say, "No".”
“It means that these people are like captains. They are all at battle-ready stations. When the signal is given, they will all marshall up and go to battle. If there is a signal given by Tan Wah Piow by telephone or telex or fax or whatever, "All right, tomorrow, 12 o'clock, ready." Do you think all of them will be ready and go? They will say, "Hey, Tan Wah Piow, go slow. Tomorrow I have got to go to work. I've got a meeting at the Catholic Welfare Centre. There is a maid there I have to take care." How are these people going to establish a Marxist state in Singapore? I cannot see it, you know. Unless they are committed Communists, "I am a member. I obey the command. I can execute it.", they cannot establish a Marxist state. These people are just like you and me. Go for Saturday night dinners.”
“You can always feel good by comparing people who are worse off than you. Well, when I say the truth, it hurts. We look at the charges. They are supposed to have used Communist united front tactics to establish a Marxist state in Singapore. I cannot see how this Government is to prove this. It is just impossible. That is the reason why you do not bring them to court. It will be thrown out in the first minute of the proceedings. All this, of course, sounds very sinister to the public at large who do not really know the true facts. They only read what is told to them in the papers, over the TV, stage, question and answer sessions. If you are so confident, why do you not put all these 15, right from the beginning, before the international press; not now maybe, but right from the beginning and let them answer as they like? As far as I know, these questions were never put to any of them in public. They were on TV. "Are you a Marxist? Are you a member of the Communist Party of Malaysia?" Were these questions put to them? Had they said, "Yes, I am a Marxist. I am member of the Communist Party of Malaysia.", maybe we can say that they are dangerous people. But they are just intellectuals, idealists, young. I am sure most of the first generation leaders were like that when they were young. They were all socialists to some extent, to some colour. What is wrong with that? When you are young, you are full of ideals. But later on in life, most change. So just because they are idealistic, you punish them for it. All right, you have already pointed out their mistakes. They have admitted. They have now regained their senses. Why do you still put them in prison? In order to establish a Marxist state in Singapore, do you really know what that means?”
“As I was saying, this Government is good at comparing Singapore with other countries. And the latest comparison, I believe, and since he is here I will quote the Second Deputy Prime Minister. He said about South Korea, "Look at them with all their riots." He said that investments had dropped in that country. So what? Those people who rioted, they were not wrong. In the end, they were proven right. Because you do not know the facts. They were rioting for more democracy, more freedom. They wanted to change the presidential system. The majority of the people felt that, with a change of the system, their country could progress even more. The present system there is impeding their progress and therefore they came out and rioted. Because there was no other way they could change the system, and they were proven right. Mr Chun, to his credit, said, "All right, I resign as party chief. I am going to step down." In fact, that once instance of rioting is good. Do not say that all these riotings are bad. So you have to look at the country. You cannot just pick one country like Sri Lanka and compare it with Singapore. Every time I hear Sri Lanka compared to Singapore, I feel very bad. Because we are not like Sri Lankans. We are more intelligent. [Laughter]. If you want to compare, please compare with people who are better than us or have a better system and not compare with people who are worse than us. It is no credit to Singapore if you always compare with people who are wishy-washy and of no importance.”
“I am only one, please. I do not know how many Members are present here. So I do not think you should impinge upon my time. An hon. Member:We heard you loud and clear!”
“Please correct me if I am wrong. There are no other matters at hand. Am I right?”
“I think we have got a lot of time. If I am not mistaken, we are all assembled here just for the purpose of this debate.”
“Please, do not compare Poland with Singapore. This Government is very good at comparing Singapore with other countries, without knowing all the background. [Laughter]. It is a fact. The Second Deputy Prime Minister was reported to have said, "Look, what's happening in South Korea? You know, all the riots are creating a lot of problems."”
“Of course, there were intellectuals who said that the system could be overthrown. But the majority of them knew that it was just a passing phase. That kind of an upheaval can never stay because the system itself. The majority of the people do not want a Communist state. I think we should take a poll in Singapore. How many people want a Communist state? The Government itself has admitted, "If you want to have a Communist state, 650,000 flats have to be confiscated for a start." The Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr S. Dhanabalan): In Poland, how is it they have a communist state?”
“Well, the arrests are very very hard to believe. It would not stick anyway. Now, these unseen hands, who are they? Who are these phantoms? Of course, the suggestion is that they are the people in the Communist Party of Malaya. There is no Communist Party of Singapore because the Communists believe that Singapore and Peninsular Malaysia are one entity. That is why it is called the Communist Party of Malaya. But the Communist Party of Malaya itself is in shambles. There is no way that it could launch a revolution in Singapore. They will be lucky if they can survive themselves. Of course, a lot of materials have been put to the public. Their underground apparatus is still intact. Their assassination squads and their army are still intact. But tell me something if I am wrong. With their assassination squads and the like, has one Singapore well-known politician been shot? I have not heard of it anyway. No one has been physically hurt. I only read once that the Prime Minister fell into the drain! That is all. Is that not a fact? Where is the security threat to Singapore? I just cannot see. I cannot be convinced. Unless they can convince me, I won't go along with the Government. Let us come to the charges. They are supposed to be guilty of a part of a clandestine Communist network and are involved in a Marxist conspiracy to subvert the existing social and political system, using communist united front tactics with a view to establishing a Marxist state in Singapore. I do not know whether or not to laugh. Can these 15 people establish a Marxist state in Singapore? I really cannot see it. But the Government thinks that they can. I cannot. Do you know that in the 60's in America, there were riots. You know, the country was almost in an upheaval.”
“Whatever it is. The Singapore Government must be the laughing stock of students at Oxford. One of their chaps with whom they had coffee with and talked together is made out to be the mastermind of a dangerous plot to overthrow the Singapore Government! I think for the reason that the Government knew that people were laughing behind their back, they quickly changed their mind and said, "No, it is not Tan Wah Piow. There are people behind him." Well, it is saving face but I do not know whether people will believe the Government. He is not somebody stationed in Moscow, Vietnam or Cuba, with all the solid backing. He is a mere student at Oxford. His address is known. His telephone number is known. You can contact him any time. And he is the mastermind! Do you think the people of Singapore are going to believe the Government? I do not.”
“So there is some doubt as to the evidence given by a person whose character has a question mark on it? He did not comply with the national service notice and he is now under arrest-on-sight, not only for dodging national service but also under the Internal Security Act. I wonder how is he coming home? As soon as he comes home, he will be arrested. So how is he to come? He has got no chance to come home to break the 10-year period of absence which would deprive him of Singapore citizenship. Now he is a second-year Law student at Oxford University. At first, he was said to be the mastermind, a second-year student at Oxford. An hon. Member: Can you certify?”
“" [Mr Deputy Speaker in the Chair] So you see, even the Government itself does not know what it is doing. And how can you say that they are a national threat? You have not got your facts right and you go around imprisoning people. You know how much anguish, how much sadness is caused to the members of the family? I suppose you have been exercising the Internal Security Act for so long that you have got no more feelings left. As the Prime Minister was quoted to have said, when he was in the Opposition, "It is like love-making." First, you arrest people. You have got a conscience. But then you have been arresting so many people that you have got no more conscience left. You do not feel it any more. I hope you have not reached that stage. I think he said that. None of you dare deny it. Now the story has changed. In fact, the Minister for Home Affairs said, and this was quoted in the newspaper: 'UK-based Tan played a pivotal role in the plot to establish a Marxist state here. If it is just Tan Wah Piow, Vincent Cheng and the 15 only, there is no serious problem. The Government has dealt with tougher men with more cunning minds.' These people are just mere pawns. They are just mere pawns. There is no serious problem as far as these 15 are concerned. The Government has dealt with people with tougher minds. So if that is the admission of the Government that these people, in fact, do not pose a serious problem to this country, there is only one thing to do, ie, to release them. Why continue to hold them? Who is this Tan Wah Piow? Well, he is a Singaporean, small-built, former local university student. Then he was charged for rioting. Unfortunately, in that case he represented himself. He had no proper counsel. And the accuser has since absconded.”
“They have already confessed, "I am no longer a Marxist. I don't want to carry out to establish a classless society." And all the other confessions, all the other things that you want them to say, they have said them. Now, how can these people now go back and carry on their work? It is impossible. Their fellow workers would say, "I don't want to believe you anymore. You have already confessed in public. Who will believe you anymore?" So what is the danger? They are completely broken, neutralized, their network is gone. So why do you want to detain them? What is the reason? To rehabilitate them? Not necessary. Rehabilitate them for what? Assuming even if they still have got some ideas of Marxism, can they have a following? Who will follow them? You have already gone on TV, in front of the whole world and said, "Look, I have given up, surrendered everything." And now can they lead a revolution? Impossible. Maybe in the European context they could, but not in the Asian context. They would have completely lost their credibility, lost their face. They can never never come back into politics after going through the mill that you have put them through. They were arrested for their clandestine network. Their objectives also have been broken. So there is nothing left for them to continue. The other point is that the Government now recognizes that these people are not really dangerous element. As I have said, it has been said in the papers by a senior Member that they are mere novices. At first it was thought that Tan Wah Piow was the mastermind. But within a month, the Government has changed its own mind and said, "No, Tan Wah Piow is not the mastermind. There are some people behind him, an invisible hand pulling the puppet strings.”
“Not shaken in the sense that you have in mind. There is no effect on the economy. In fact, there is no effect on our political and social stability. There was a recession in 1985. It is not the doing of the two Opposition Members. Certainly not! It was due to the stubbornness of this Government for not heeding the advice of the business people in Singapore. They said that costs were rising but you refused to listen. Of course, when the situation got so bad, you were forced to reduce the CPF, although it was said to be sacrosanct. Workers' salary and all the other arguments which you have to swallow now. So there is definitely a record of this Government of over-reacting, of exaggeration, and of being melodramatic. So why is all this exercise necessary? Purely, I would say political. They are certainly not - you examine your own conscience - they are not in the least bit a threat to our national security. It is just purely politics. We have a precedent, a more dangerous communist in the person of Lim Chin Siong, who was released in a more dangerous time. And yet in our present situation with all your army, with all your police, with all your intelligence, Internal Security Department people, you see fit to incarcerate these 15 people for a period of one year, and one of them two years. They should be released. Since the arrest on the 21st morning of the first lot, the Government has extracted all the political benefit they could - put them on TV, not once, twice, Chinese version, seminars, questions and answers, the whole lot. They have gone through the mill. They have already made their confessions, admitted their mistakes. You have broken up their so-called network. You have neutralized them politically. Why detain them further? What effect can they have?”
“Compared to Lim Chin Siong at that time, are they really a threat to national security? One of your senior Members said that they were just mere novices. So why punish them further? They should be released. The Government always over-reacts and it is good for exaggeration and of being melodramatic. I remember in one general election, the people of Singapore were told, "If you only vote in one Opposition Member, our economy will be shaken. Investors here will be running away. No more money will be coming into Singapore." If that is not melodramatic, I do not know what is. I am talking of facts. What happened? Two, not one, Opposition Members were elected. [Interruptions]. I am coming to that. And our economy was not shaken. An hon. Member: It was.”
“Miss Jenny Chin is, I believe, a Malaysian and has already been released. In any event, they are all young people, aged 22 to 40 years, mostly in their 20s and the majority of them, I believe, are females. Some of them are professional people, two lawyers, Harvard trained, polytechnic trained. They are also, I believe, educated under the PAP education system, have undergone the PAP national service. And I believe one of them has even been honoured with a Sword of Honour. So these are the people that we are talking of. They are not inconsequential people. And I happen to know one of them, being a lawyer, spoke to her several times at the Bar room, in the course of going to court and in the course of other social functions organized by the Law Society. So we are talking of people that we know. I would say that there is no reason, no valid reason at all, why they should be detained for another day. They should be released immediately. They are really no threat to our national security. I am saying this because out of a precedent of this Government. Unfortunately, there are no first-generation PAP or the old guards, as they say, here. In June 1959, when the PAP won the elections, their first condition of taking power was that eight of their members detained for security reasons by the British should be released. Amongst the eight were our Past President, Mr Devan Nair, and also a well-known communist, formerly at least, Lim Chin Siong. At that time, I believe, of Lim Chin Siong's release, the PAP knew that he was still a communist. And that was in 1959. Conditions have changed tremendously. We are now in the 80s, 1987. We are in a completely different era. And yet these people have to be detained for one year and one of them for two years.”
“This is an important subject of national importance and the motion before the House, as you all know, is that it calls upon the Government to release immediately the 15 persons detained under the Internal Security Act for allegedly being involved in a Marxist plot to destabilize the Government. I hope all of you will listen to what I have to say and hopefully not follow what your Whip has told you what to do. This is of national importance. On the 21st May, 16 persons were hauled up in the early hours of the morning, and 4 subsequently were released. And then there were another six arrested on the 20th June and out of that, three were released, making a balance of 15 still under detention. Who are these people detained? They are all Singapore citizens. Some hon. Members: No.”
“First of all, I have got to thank Mr Speaker for your consent and Members of this House for their assent and also the Member for Radin Mas for his support, although very unwillingly. Otherwise, all of us will have to go home. I am happy also to note that there are so many of you who are willing to give up your time and turn up this morning just for this debate.”
“Is the Minister of State willing to waive the compulsory taking of a test after they have successfully passed their traffic code? I believe that a person has to take the traffic code and there is a minimum period in which he has to take his driving test. Perhaps that is the cause of the high rate of failure.”
“Sir, one more supplementary question. We have got the compulsory inspection of cars. With the continued carrying out of this policy of compulsory inspection of cars, is there an increase in the number of breakdowns?”
“Isn't the continuation of this policy a waste on our country's resources? In fact, millions of dollars are wasted by cars being scrapped every year. Isn't that true? Dr Yeo Ning Hong: Sir, the number of cars scrapped is a function of the number of cars bought, say, 10 years ago. Cars have their own specific lifespan beyond which they have very little value. So the scrapping of old cars does not in that sense represent a loss.”
“Which is more important - an exhibition costing $18 million or a referendum on a national issue?”
“As regards the costs, I think we have covered this ground before. Which is more important? A national referendum to amend the Constitution, just like in Switzerland where at every drop of a hat, they have a referendum to show how democratic they are. An hon. Member: You want that?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I think this point is important. He says there is no fundamental change. I say there is. Can he please clarify? This is important to the people of Singapore because they will belosing their right to choose a representative. Mr Speaker: Mr Chiam. Order. Would you please ask your supplementary question?”
“I am going to ask the other supplementary question. You say it is true that you have the legal right not to hold a referendum. But do you not think the moral right is just as important? When you go for elections, I think the credibility should be tested. You have not told the electorate that you are going to amend the Constitution and half-way through the term you start amending and tinkering with the Constitution. Do you not think that is not really telling the electorate the truth of what you are going to do when you have another term of office?”
“I want him to answer the point on whether, when this provision comes into being, a voter who is in a constituency for group MPs will be deprived of his right to elect a candidate of his own choice. As far as we know, it has been told to us that when this comes into being, true, you have got a 1-man 1-vote, but all the votes will be put into a common bin, is it not correct? Therefore, you cannot elect your candidate of your own choice. You are depriving a very fundamental right of a citizen.”
“I know. But he has not answered my question.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I do not think the First Deputy Prime Minister has answered my question. I think the key point is that once this provision is ---”
“Supplementary question, Sir. I believe at the last general elections the PAP did not have this amendment to the Constitution to make provisions for the election of team MPs as one of their platforms. So they have no mandate to amend the Constitution. In fact, when this law to elect team MPs comes about, it will deprive voters in the constituencies of their constitutional right to elect a candidate of their own choice. Would you not agree with me on that?”
“I disagree with that.' Do you want me to go any further? I said a lot of things which are recorded in the verbatim report. Why do you not bother to quote all these other things that I said?”
“Sir, may I be allowed to clarify what the Member for Mountbatten has said? If we get his speech and publish outside, I think a complaint will be made against him. Because he has omitted many of the things that I said. He only quoted what I said, "They are liable. There is no doubt about that." This is at page 8 of the verbatim report. But if you go down the line, I did also say things which he failed to quote and it should be a subject of complaint. He has left out many of the things which I said and he did not quote. I think he should also be the subject of a complaint by the standards that we are setting today. [Interruption] Of course, I said: 'If you look at his defence, he has a complete defence. We haven't gone into the law. He has discussed about the law.' I said: 'But the law is that there can never be any contempt if it is an open hearing.' This is what Mr Jeyaretnam said. He said, "If it is an open hearing, there can never be a contempt." I said: 'We have to find him guilty in the terms referred to us by Parliament.' I said: 'He is not guilty. He has got a good defence, in my opinion.' I quote: '”
“I believe the Member for Braddell Heights did use the word "smear" - I have got it in my notes here - of Mr Jeyaretnam's article. That is what he is saying. But there is no such thing in the report. What we are asked to find is not a question of smear. What we are asked to find is whether or not there is gross distortion, whether or not there is false, perverted or even a biased report. That is what we are in this House for. So I hope the Member for Braddell Heights will be more exact in his words.”