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 64 of 85.
“But I did say that there should be reasoning, the facts should be brought out and properly argued before a decision is made. We should not just vote and see who has got more votes and get the thing or whatever is required passed for the day. We are dealing with a serious matter and I think it should be dwelled on at length before we make a decision. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I would urge this House to look at it rationally and see whether or not it is a gross distortion, to see whether or not it is a false and perverted reporting of the Committee's proceedings, which again is misleading because this report is only for one day and it is not for the whole of the Committee's proceedings. I think this should be explained to all of you. So for an article which is about 500-odd words, you are saying that he has committed gross distortion. Can he really do that with a small article just like that? I think if you look at it, probably all of you should vote that he is not guilty and he should not pay any of the fine at all.”
“What can I do? Whenever I agree, they say, "Let's take a vote." And I will be outvoted, one to seven, every time, without fail. Almost it is a mechanical thing.”
“No, I do not have. I am dealing with a fact. Mr Wong Kan Seng: I do not see the analogy of a burnt car or used car with a used lawyer or a lawyer who has been used. But the same point that the Member canvassed here in this House, I believe, although I was not a member of the Committee at that time, was also the same point canvassed by the former Member for Anson. And this argument of direct pecuniary interest was already commented upon and decided upon and ruled by the Committee way back in the previous Report. And the Committee also made reference to this in this Report. But if the Member does not read this Report, there is nothing else we can do. Question put, and agreed to. Resolved, That this Parliament doth agree with the Committee of Privileges in their Fourth Report contained in Paper Parl. 7 of 1987 and resolves - (1) that Mr J.B. Jeyaretnam is guilty of breach of privilege of Parliament; and (2) that a fine of $1,000 be imposed upon him. EXEMPTED BUSINESS (Motion) Resolved, "That the proceedings on the remaining items on the Order Paper today be exempted at this day's sitting from the provisions of Standing Order No. 1." - [Mr Wong Kan Seng]. COMMITTEE OF PRIVILEGES (FIFTH REPORT) (Paper Parl. 9 of 1987)”
“The issue before the House is whether or not there is evidential proof. You must assume a man innocent until proven guilty, please. I think this is the standard of proof. And we have got no evidence to the effect that he had a pecuniary interest on the 26th March 1986. That is my point. If all you intelligent people cannot understand this, I am very sorry for Singapore.”
“I think the Member for Whampoa is going off in a tangent. He is bringing up a hypothetical case which does not exist. We are talking of a serious matter today, of an actual case. Assuming you bought a car one year ago and this car caught fire and was already burnt. One year later, can you talk of this car anymore? It has already gone up in ashes. There is no more interest in this car. Similarly, in this 1985 case, it is over and gone. There is no more. There is no evidence before us that it still subsists, that Mr Jeyaretnam could benefit from the information given by the Minister. That is my point. It is true what the Member for Whampoa has said if we are talking about a hypothetical case now. If we are talking about a hypothetical case, assuming if members of the public know that I can bring this to the highest authority on the land, naturally I would be a very popular lawyer. But that is not an issue at the moment, it must be stressed.”
“You said, "yes". But nowhere in this Report does it verify what you have said. Where is the evidence? If you can point out to the evidence that on the 26th March 1986 he had a direct pecuniary interest, then I would agree with you. Pecuniary interest in this instance would mean that there is still a subsisting matter in which he will benefit in monetary terms by asking that question. In our particular case, I repeat myself, that if he was successful in getting a favourable reply from the Minister, then he would bring this reply and put it forward to the authority at CISCO and say, "You have to reinstate this CISCO guard. Here is the authority from the Minister himself." But there is no such evidence before us. That is what I am saying. If you can show me the evidence that he still has a subsisting pecuniary interest on 26th March 1986, I will agree with you. But there is no such evidence.”
“Yes. Because the Minister has not answered my point. The point I brought up is that on 26th March 1986 when Mr Jeyaretnam brought the question up in this House, did he or did he not have a direct personal pecuniary interest on the matter? Mr Wong Kan Seng: Yes.”
“May I be allowed to just say a few words because the Minister ---”
“I think as a senior lawyer, Mr Jeyaretnam should have known better that his interpretation of our law, ie, to hold that a Member must declare his interest in debates and not in a discussion arising from a question or supplementary question, is an absurd one. Sir, we must have the highest standards in this House. We are not prohibiting Mr J.B. Jeyaretnam from raising the case. What he simply needs to do is to merely declare that he has an interest and then he can go on if the House allows him to carry on. We are not stopping him from speaking. He merely has to declare his interest. So in view of this, Sir, I support the motion and I urge the House to endorse the recommendations of the Committee of Privileges.”
“Do you agree with my arguments? Encik Othman bin Haron Eusofe: Let me continue. Do not interrupt. Sir, I am a member of the Committee of Privileges. This issue was discussed at the Committee of Privileges. Mr J.B. Jeyaretnam was given every opportunity to present his case. We have to take into account that this is not the first time. I think the Leader of the House has mentioned that Mr J.B. Jeyaretnam has on several occasions abused his privilege. On 31st August 1982 he was reprimanded in this House for dishonourable conduct and contempt of the House. He was warned against committing a similar breach of privilege in the future. However, Mr J.B. Jeyaretnam chose once again to act in contempt of the House. When he was given the opportunity to present his case, he brought up two spurious arguments. The first argument was the question of direct personal pecuniary interest and this was dealt with in the earlier case. The Committee of Privileges had in that proceeding rejected his argument. Now he was trying to confuse by saying that he has no interest in this case. But he has admitted at the Committee's hearing that he had acted for Cik Norlizah in a professional manner and that he had been paid for taking up Cik Norlizah's case. The fact of the matter is that for this particular case he had a pecuniary interest and this was dealt with and how he had an interest explained to him in the earlier proceeding. His second argument was that a Member need not disclose his pecuniary interest in a question raised in our Parliament because this is the practice in the UK House of Commons. The Leader of the House has dealt with this question and our law expressly provides that a Member must disclose his pecuniary interest when participating in a discussion in this House.”
“But nowhere in this Report has such a finding been made. So the only thing for this House to do is, if Members really want to come to the truth of the matter, they should stand this down and get Norlizah up and say, "Look, on the 26th, if there was a reply in your favour and you could be reinstated, would you want to be reinstated?" She said, "No, I am not interested anymore." Where is the pecuniary interest? Mr Jeyaretnam would not get paid anything. So I would suggest to this House that either you find Mr Jeyaretnam not guilty on this charge or the matter has to be stood down, Committee reconvened and call Norlizah up and get this information. Then we can determine whether or not he had a direct pecuniary interest.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the Member for Fengshan has made a long rambling speech but failed to come to the crux of the matter. We are here to show whether or not Mr Jeyaretnam has brought up some matter in Parliament in which he has a direct pecuniary interest. There is an admission that he was paid by this Cisco employee but this was in March 1985. The appeal in which Mr Jeyaretnam represented this Cisco guard was held on the 9th March 1985. That matter was brought up in Parliament on the 26th March 1986, slightly more than one year. So we have to convince ourselves or we must have evidence to the fact that Mr Jeyaretnam at the time of his bringing this matter, ie up after one year, had direct pecuniary interest. The word is "direct", not just "pecuniary interest". Nowhere in this Report is it shown that he had a direct pecuniary interest at that point of time, one year later. As far as he was concerned the matter of this Cisco guard had been dealt with, gone and forgotten. If we can show that, in fact, by bringing up the matter in Parliament and, having successfully got a favourable reply from the Minister, he could use that reply and get this girl reinstated, I would say that that would be direct pecuniary interest. But nowhere in the Committee's findings there was evidence from Norlizah that he was still pursuing this matter to be reinstated. So there was no direct pecuniary interest at that point of time. So how can we find him guilty? Because the point has not been proven. Somebody has dealt with something a year ago and one year later he must have forgotten about it completely. And even if there is a favourable reply he is not interested anymore unless we can prove that at that point of time on the 26th March 1986 he still had an interest in it.”
“That is not proper. Mr Deputy Speaker: All right. Mr Wong, have you finished?”
“My point is that before you pass the sentence, before you approve, he must be heard here. That is the point. An hon. Member: What is the Committee for?”
“So it is equivalent to a sentence not being passed yet at this stage, until this House approves this.”
“Parliament gives the Committee of Privileges the task of making a finding. The Committee of Privileges has made a finding with Jeyaretnam present. Now it is before the House whether or not to accept these findings. Before you make the finding, in other words before you sentence him, in other words until that finding is made, he is not liable to pay this $1,000. Until you make the finding, then he need not pay the $1,000.”
“May I ask the Minister one question? Is it proper to speak of somebody in his absence? Is it proper? An hon. Member: He was heard already.”
“It is a wise move and I think it is only proper even if there is no precedent. [Interruption.] There is a precedent. What I am saying is that even if there is no precedent, it is proper to have the person here. It is not just right talking about somebody who is not present. You may disagree with me but I think I am still right.”
“I am sorry that the Leader of the House is not a lawyer. The procedure in court is always to have the defendant present when sentence is being passed. That has been in practice for hundreds of years in England and we have adopted their court procedure here, and it is clear.”
“Whatever you want. He can speak, he can ask questions. An hon. Member: In other words before Parliament. Mr Chiam See Tong: Before Parliament. Am I wrong? Are you saying that I am wrong?”
“Of course. "... by a resolution ... to attend before Parliament ..."”
“No. Please. Have I got my section wrong?”
“I was talking of appearing in Parliament.”
“I am talking about getting him here, not to the Committee, please.”
“You are not a courageous person, are you?”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, can I clarify a certain point? Just one point of clarification. I hope the Member will give way.”
“In fact, during the course of the investigations carried out by the Committee of Privileges, he had been given the opportunity to speak. It was not so that he had gone to the Joo Chiat Police Station to make a report. As a Member for Parliament, how could he belie on his own words? This is just a simple example.”
“He said that he had lodged a report at Joo Chiat Police Station, but later denied his own words. Could an MP do this? Within five months from March to July, the former Member persisted in alleging that a Mr Lim Poh Huat had been wrongfully detained by the Police. However, Lim Poh Huat subsequently said that all that was a fabrication. The former Member was trying to blow up a balloon until the balloon burst on the 30th July last year. Today, we have seen the Member for Potong Pasir trying to blow up that burst balloon. Could he do that? He can't. On the other hand, we have seen that when the Member for Anson raised this matter, the Minister for Home Affairs said, "Well, you give us all the details." He did not give the details. And then on 27th March, the Minister of State for Home Affairs also requested him to provide all the details. However, after a delay of five months, nothing came out of it. During that time, the Government carried out an investigation to get to the truth of the matter. Here, we have two different approaches. The public can then compare these two different approaches - one on the part of the Government who was determined to get to the truth, and one other on the part of the former Member for Anson who perfunctorily made allegations in the House. As the Parliament is the highest law-making body, any allegation made in the House must be investigated. Therefore Members must be fully responsible for what they say in the House. They cannot base their speeches or allegations on rumours or hearsay. Just now the Member for Potong Pasir questioned why the former Member was not allowed the last chance to come here to speak his mind.”
“This incident of 30th July which has just been mentioned that he failed to reveal that he had a statement or he knew that Lim Poh Huat had lied to Seneviratne. But again he had given a good reason. He did not bother to tell this House because, according to him, there were already open Police investigations. If the Police had investigated the matter, the Minister would have known of it. So he would not see the necessity of informing this House. At every one step, he has got a genuinely good explanation. It is only that this House and the Committee refuse to see his point of view. It is so easy just to shut out your minds to the reasons given by other people and just look at one point of view. I think it is important in this House that Members should be given the real freedom to speak so that they could represent the interests not only of their constituents but also the public at large, especially in Singapore today. What other forum is there can a person bring up his grievances? I have known personally of many cases in which all avenues seem to be closed to them except coming to an Opposition Member. And I am the last surviving Opposition Member. Hopefully, there will be more coming after me. It is not only a question of freedom but a question of democracy and the task of building up what we want of Singapore. Thank you. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Education (Mr Tang Guan Seng)( In Mandarin): The Member for Potong Pasir pleaded for a last opportunity for the former Member for Anson to say a few words in Parliament as though it will be his last words. But the former MP had ample time and opportunity to give his reasons and arguments which were recorded clearly in the Committee's Report which shows that whatever he had said was nothing new.”
“I beg to differ. It is not over. The Committee has made its findings and it is for this House whether or not to approve the findings of the Committee, in particular, on the sentence of $1,000 fine. We come to the issues at hand. It has been said that he did not verify the bona fide of the complaint and did not bother to call this man Lim Poh Huat. But in his mind it was not his duty to do investigative work. At that particular point of time, nobody really knows what a Member of Parliament can do and cannot do or what needs to be done. I think in the present circumstances, due to the amendments to the Parliament (Privileges, Immunities and Powers) Act, it is high time that a separate committee be set up to list out what Members can do and cannot do, what they can say and they cannot say. We are supposed to have freedom of speech in this House, but do we? Do we really have freedom of speech? There are all kinds of pitfalls in Parliament. In the mind of a Member, he comes here, he gets, according to him, a credible information from a credible person. This is in his evidence. He was questioned more than once whether or not he believed in the credibility of this man called Seneviratne and he said, "Yes. I am prepared to accept his credibility." So he believed him. What more does he need to do? So he comes to Parliament and he reports to Parliament what he thought was a truthful story. And this House demands an apology from him. The point is: has he misled the House? According to him, he has not deliberately misled the House because he believed the information that was handed to him and that was the reason given by him for not seeing the necessity of apologizing. [Interruption]. Please. I think somebody must put his point of view.”
“I am much obliged to you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I am a Member of the Committee of Privileges but I would like to put my dissenting views. I would like to repeat what I said in the last Parliament sitting concerning the former Member for Anson, that is, we are talking of a person who is not present here in Parliament. It is only proper that he should be present and it has been brought to the Committee's attention that under the Parliament (Privileges, Immunities and Powers) Act, this Parliament has the power, under section 12, to order him to be present here. He might have a last-minute information which he would want to communicate to Parliament. An hon. Member: It's over.”
“POISONS (AMENDMENT) BILL "to amend the Poisons Act (Chapter 234 of the 1985 Revised Edition)", presented by the Acting Minister for Health (Mr Yeo Cheow Tong); read the First time; to be read a Second time on the next available sitting of Parliament, and to be printed. ENVIRONMENTAL PUBLIC HEALTH BILL Order for Second Reading read. 11.57 am”
“Right. BILLS INTRODUCED PUBLIC TRANSPORT COUNCIL BILL "to provide for the establishment of the Public Transport Council to license bus services and approve bus, taxi and mass rapid transit system fares and for matters connected therewith and to repeal the Bus Services Licensing Authority Act (Chapter 31 of the 1985 Revised Edition) and to make a consequential amendment to the Road Traffic Act (Chapter 276 of the 1985 Revised Edition)", recommendation of President signified; presented by the Minister for Communications and Information (Dr Yeo Ning Hong); read the First time; to be read a Second time on the next available sitting of Parliament, and to be printed. MASS RAPID TRANSIT CORPORATION (AMENDMENT) BILL "to amend the Mass Rapid Transit Corporation Act (Chapter 172 of the 1985 Revised Edition)", presented by Dr Yeo Ning Hong; read the First time; to be read a Second time on the next available sitting of Parliament, and to be printed. PUBLIC SERVICE (VARIATION OF 1984 ANNUAL WAGE INCREASES) BILL "to enable the annual wage increases for the year 1984 to be varied", presented by the Minister for Finance (Dr Richard Hu Tsu Tau); read the First time; to be read a Second time on the next available sitting of Parliament, and to be printed. RUBBER DEALERS (AMENDMENT) BILL "to amend the Rubber Dealers Act (Chapter 279 of the 1985 Revised Edition)", presented by the Minister for Trade and Industry (BG Lee Hsien Loong); read the First time; to be read a Second time on the next available sitting of Parliament, and to be printed.”
“But you have not even heard my application.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, may I have your leave to ---”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I would like to seek your leave to make a personal explanation under Standing Order 23.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, what I am asking is: what has the Government done to-date other than those two areas mentioned?”
“Sir, other than the infrastructure and the agreement which the Government has helped to get with the Indonesians, has the Government done anything else to promote deep-sea fishing?”
“May I ask the Parliamentary Secretary whether this figure of $1,771 comprise mainly in respect of recurrent teachers' salary or capital expenditure.”
“Is it strictly by merit for Malay Muslim NS boys to be selected for Officer courses? BG Lee Hsien Loong: Mr Speaker, Sir, I said so. Yes, it is. [Mr Deputy Speaker in the Chair] BUILDING AND DEVELOPMENT OF SHOPHOUSES (Privatization) The following question stood in the name of Mrs Yu-Foo Yee Shoon - 3. To ask the Minister for National Development whether his Ministry will consider privatizing the building and development of shophouses.”
“If the Minister has any figures of very serious injuries, perhaps he could let the House know, and also whether any national service boys have been put into our mental hospitals. BG Lee Hsien Loong: Mr Speaker, Sir, if the Member would like to frame his questions in writing, he would get answers to them. MALAY OFFICERS IN SINGAPORE ARMED FORCES (Particulars) 2. Mr Chiam See Tong asked the First Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Defence how many Malay officers holding the rank of Second Lieutenant and above were in the Singapore Armed Forces on 31st December, 1986. BG Lee Hsien Loong (for the First Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Defence): Mr Speaker, Sir, I am answering on behalf of the Minister. Mindef does not release such figures for different categories of servicemen in the SAF, for obvious reasons of security. However, as I have previously told the House, selection of candidates for Officer Cadet training, like promotion and advancement of individuals of all ranks throughout the SAF, is strictly by merit.”
“This is not an internal investigation, not even a Board of Inquiry, but a Committee of Inquiry comprising people from outside Mindef. The Chairman must be from another Ministry and there is always a doctor on the Committee. They will investigate not just the immediate cause of the accident, but also the training which the serviceman was involved in and whether any remedial action is called for. All these reports go to the Armed Forces Council chaired by the Minister, and we discuss them personally. So everything possible to make training safe is done. If the Member for Potong Pasir has any further ideas on how to make training even safer, we will be happy to consider them.”
“What effort is Mindef taking to reduce the number of deaths to perhaps zero defect, as they say in the industry. We want to have no deaths at all. Is the Ministry taking steps to achieve that target? BG Lee Hsien Loong: Mr Speaker, Sir, the zero defect philosophy is very much the approach of the SAF. The fact that we have had 54 deaths out of a quarter million trainees shows how effective we have been in making sure our national servicemen get effective, valuable, safe training. To make sure that nobody is exposed to unnecessary risks during his national service, we have training safety directives. We have instructions on how training should be conducted, what precautions must be taken, what preparations the soldiers must go through before they are allowed to undergo training. All the Members here who have been national servicemen would have heard of the book called "TSR", Training Safety Regulations. It is a thick blue book, specifying all the precautions which must be taken before any training can be carried out, be it watermanship training, be it helicopter drills, be it parachuting, be it live firing exercises. In every case there are comprehensive precautions laid down and stringent inspections to make sure that training is properly carried out. Despite that, from time to time accidents happen. And when they do, it is Mindef's responsibility to make sure that the accident is thoroughly investigated. If anybody is at fault, this will be uncovered and the culprit will be punished. And if there are any lessons to be learnt so that similar accidents can be in future avoided, they will be noted. Deaths of national servicemen are not treated lightly. Each time one happens, we conduct a Committee of Inquiry.”
“Does the Minister have equivalent statistics of NS trainees who have been killed in Germany and Switzerland? If so, could he please let us know the comparable figures? BG Lee Hsien Loong: Mr Speaker, Sir, I do not have the figures with me.”
“Lift the Standing Orders and let us have a debate. BG Lee Hsien Loong: We should ponder carefully before making any rash moves. Our sons' lives and the future of Singapore are at stake. Question put, and agreed to. Resolved, That Parliament do now adjourn. Adjourned accordingly at Thirty minutes past Three o'clock pm to a date to be fixed.”
“Why not? BG Lee Hsien Loong: We have answered these questions many times before. We make no enemies. We want no enemies. We have no enemies. But if you want peace, be prepared for war; because danger can come suddenly. 19 weeks? Mindef has a responsibility to the parents of the national servicemen. Today, to take a fresh recruit, put him in an infantry battalion, train him - individual skills, section skills, platoon skills - make him begin to be operationally ready to take on standby duties and enter the SAF order of battle, takes us 34 weeks. If we reduce NS to 19 weeks, as was so casually suggested by the Member for Potong Pasir, if we do this in response to irresponsible rabble rousers, then if one day half-trained SAF recruits are slaughtered on a battle field, we will have the blood of innocent servicemen on our conscience. Who will answer to the parents of those sons who have been needlessly sacrificed? Will the Member for Potong Pasir bring your son back? Does he have a son who will do national service?”
“Are you referring to the 1984 general elections? Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Chiam, please do not interrupt. Please continue, General Lee. BG Lee Hsien Loong: Ministers in Singapore must decide for all Singaporeans, whether Chinese, Malays or Indians. They make policies on behalf of all Singaporeans. What they decide on they must be prepared to defend, no matter whom they are speaking to, whether they are defending it to a Chinese audience, a Malay audience, an Indian audience or a Eurasian audience. That is what we have always done and that is what I hope all other political parties will do. Those who dabble in the politics of race can be sure that the PAP will expose them and destroy them. There is too much at stake for us not to do that. Total Defence. This is an old question. The ex-MP for Anson took this line, found it politically unprofitable, dropped it. Now, somewhat to our surprise, the same old questions come up again. Why do we need a strong defence? Who is our enemy? Why are we building up our strength in peace time? And a new one - why not reduce national service from 2� years to 19 weeks?”
“It is to make one national identity out of a disparate, a diverse, multi-racial, multi-religious society. It is to create a generation of Singaporeans who feel, first and foremost, that we are Singaporeans and then, only secondarily, that our ancestors came from China, from India or the Malay Archipelago. That is nation building. And what Singapore politicians say and do - particularly prominent Singapore politicians who may be the only Opposition Member in the whole Parliament, the only person upholding democracy in the whole of Singapore - what they say and do have a decisive effect on whether nation building is fostered or hindered. For a generation, these fundamental assumptions have not been questioned because the PAP has dominated the political process and the PAP's responsible policies have prevailed. So much so that people have come to take these two aspects for granted. Sometimes I think we are in danger of forgetting the disastrous consequences of playing racial politics in Singapore. It would have been easy for the PAP itself to take a Chinese chauvinistic line, collect Chinese votes, win a majority. It would have been disastrous for Singapore. But I think Members are aware that in the last elections, there were signs that some Opposition parties, particularly where they were campaigning against non-Chinese PAP candidates, were using chauvinistic lines in order to collect Chinese votes.”
“Of course. BG Lee Hsien Loong: Not the other way round. If we are being attacked, let us see what is the matter not with us but with them. That is one. Secondly, the reminder of a point made in answer to a question as to what the Opposition Member would do were he a Minister. That his answer was, well, it depends, doesn't it, on whether you are a Chinese or non-Chinese; that would decide the policy. Any Government Minister who takes that line, any government which allows a Minister to take that line, will soon be ruined, but before that will have ruined Singapore. And, of course, third reminder that not so long ago, the same MP who had volunteered should the need arise to sacrifice himself, even his life for the defence of the nation, should now, barely two years later, raise a question of why we are doing national service so seriously and whether 19 weeks might not be enough. I do not want to enter into the discussion in detail because I think there will be time for further elaborate debate. I want to state some basic principles. The Government's policies may change from time to time. As the situations change, policies change. Tax rates go up, go down. Population policies, two children, three children. But certain cardinal principles never change. And two of these cardinal principles are a responsible approach to multi-racial politics and, secondly, a strong Total Defence of Singapore. These are axioms of faith. We believe them fundamentally but we must never take them for granted. And maybe it is useful from time to time that doubting Thomases should appear to challenge these fundamental assumptions so that in the process of defending them and rejustifying them, we can sharpen our awareness of them and strengthen our faith in them. What is nation building?”
“I am doing more national service for Singapore than any of our national serviceman. They only have to do 2 1/2 years. I have already done 10 years of service to this country to get into this House. And I intend to show the people of Singapore that democracy can survive. There will be more to come after me.”