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 71 of 85.
“Or is he somebody that has to be punished severely because of some very serious danger to the Parliamentary system in Singapore? What is it actually? They say, "Of course, it is contempt or a breach of privilege of Parliament." A breach of privilege of Parliament can rank from just calling a fellow Member a dog perhaps. We can call that a breach of privilege of Parliament. But in his case they say there is distortion, there is misrepresentation of what he wrote. But again we have to look at the surrounding circumstances. He was not reporting word for word. He had an impression and he reported on it. And for that he is being punished $5,000 for each newsletter written. I think we have to be objective. Let us not lose sight of the offence and what consequences it would bring. So I would urge Members here to give it close scrutiny and to know exactly what they are voting for. If they feel that the punishment is too excessive, then I would say, "Do not be afraid to speak up."”
“Parliament is a court, the highest court in the land. It is regrettable that we are straying away from this practice because it is only fair for the defendant to have a say. I would say that if the sentence is passed or agreed to by Parliament, it is manifestly excessive, $5,000 for one newsletter written in the heat and the pressure and stress of the five-day hearings of the Committee of Privileges under the glare of the spotlight and it was an open public hearing. He had to rush home, gather his thoughts, put it down in writing, get it printed and distributed. I do not know how many copies were really distributed and what damage could have resulted. I think this was left out. Normally, when a sentence or punishment is meted out, it is just either punishment for the offence or sometimes it is as a form of deterrence so that the person will not repeat the offence and to make sure that others do not commit the same offence. But in this case, if Parliament imposes a $25,000 fine on him, it would appear to be a form of deterrence rather than just punishment for the offence. Now, Mr Jeyaretnam is already out of Parliament. I cannot imagine him wanting to report on any of the sittings of Parliament and even on Parliament itself and distribute it to the public. I just cannot imagine that. I do not think he will ever do that. So there is no question of repeating the offence of writing newsletters for as long as he is not a Member. As regards deterrence, I think that is definitely out. For punishment, there must be gravity. What is the gravity? Has he really undermined the system? Has he really created such a national problem? Or is he a security threat to the country?”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, again, I am a Member of the Committee of Privileges. I would like to say that I was against the recommendation for the punishment of a fine $5,000 per letter written by Mr Jeyaretnam. In all, if this punishment is agreed to by the House, Mr Jeyaretnam would suffer a fine of $25,000. What I recommend to the House is just to admonish him. There is such a provision in the law where the Committee could mete out this punishment. So it is not outside the powers of the Committee of Privileges or of Parliament. Again, I would like to make a comment that normally in court where a defendant or an accused person is convicted and sentenced, he must be present. No court will convict a person if he is absent from the court. As far as I know, it is never done. An hon. Member: This is not a court.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, as I understand it, we are not debating now on the Report itself. We have come here to approve or not to approve the amount as being recommended at the Committee level. This debate ---”
“As far as I was aware, I was absent from one of the meetings, and in a subsequent meeting I was shown that there was a recommendation in respect of item No. 5. But as regards item No. 1, I could not remember when it was recommended. Perhaps we should have a look at the records.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I have to interrupt on a point of clarification. Is it correct for the Member to refer to Mr Jeyaretnam as a dog?”
“On a point of clarification. Does the Member realize that the $1,000 is the maximum allowed under the law?”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I am a member of the Committee of Privileges. When it was recommended that the punishment imposed upon him be approved by Parliament, I thought that we would be here only to discuss the punishment itself. As I said there, I note the Leader of the House is going through the whole case all over again on its merits. We are discussing matters in relation to Mr J.B. Jeyaretnam. And as I said there, it would appear to me that it does not look right. We are talking a lot of things about a man who is not present. It just does not look right to me because he has got no chance to answer. The Leader of the House, in fact, said that it is a pity that Mr Jeyaretnam has not apologized. I do not know. If he were here now, I do not know whether he will apologize. He may have just apologized. So we are saying a lot of things in his absence which is just not right. I had the impression that this matter would be brought to this House just to discuss the punishment, ie, whether to accept the recommendation of the Committee or whether to set it aside, or whether to increase it or substitute it for some other form of sentence. Perhaps I could be guided on this point whether we are going on the right order of things.”
“And in view of this copyright law that is just about to be passed in Singapore, I would urge the Singapore Government to have institutions to carry out this activity known as reverse engineering. In fact, we must make it part of our economic activity. Because, as you have seen in South Korea, they have done it and they are very successful. I believe Taiwan has also embarked on this. In the case of Hong Kong, of course, they have China. They can depend on China's hinterland and their trade. But in Singapore, how are we going to survive with this copyright law? I hope the Government would not only have such institutions to have what is known as reverse engineering but also to have a more liberal society and perhaps make an environment where creative works can be more easily carried out.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the Government in going ahead to amend this Copyright Bill has taken a very brave step. In fact, I would say that this is a watershed legislation which has, I would say, turned our daily living upside down. All these people who are involved in audio visual, photocopying, and whose shops we see all over the country will be affected, and I can see the concern of the Member for Queenstown. We know that Singapore is under pressure from the Americans, especially business people in America, to have our laws amended. They feel that once Singapore has amended the laws, because they say we are the cultural, social and economic leader of this part of the world, perhaps they could get other countries to do likewise. Singapore has complied. I hope the Americans will take note of the big sacrifice that Singapore has made and accordingly reciprocate the favour we have done them. This Bill also has strong repercussions in Singapore. This will make us aware that in fact creative works are expensive and intellectual properties are something which we have to pay. Up to now, I think our students are brought up in an atmosphere where they think all these can just be plucked from the tree, so to say. Now they know that all these creative works are costly things. This I am sure will create a different kind of attitude in our students. The Member for Queenstown has mentioned about copying. He mentioned about the Japanese buying motorcars, cameras, what have you, and stripped them and tried to copy and make similar products. And since then they have improved and they even make better and cheaper motorcars. This reverse engineering by the way has to be highlighted. It is not illegal. Reverse engineering is a bona fide business activity which can be done.”
“Bill considered in Committee. [Mr Deputy Speaker in the Chair] Clause 1 -”
“" He went back to Switzerland, completed his in-camp training, flew back to Singapore and settled the loan. I would suggest that Singaporeans should follow the banker rather than the farmer. There are very few chicken farms in Singapore! Let me come to the question of the self-employed blue collar worker, eg, a welder or an independent contractor who, alas, did not keep records of his earnings, neither has he paid CPF, and therefore is unable to earn his make-up pay. The question is whether should he make a statutory declaration that he earns $700 per month, Mindef will pay him the make-up pay corresponding to this sum. I would go one better than that. We do not need a statutory declaration, because a statutory declaration may get you into trouble with the Comptroller of Income Tax. If a person is earning $700 per month and has declared that income, we will accept his income tax returns as conclusive proof that he has earned the money, and we will pay him the make-up pay. Of course, if he did not pay the income tax but is about to make a statutory declaration that he did earn the money, then I am sure Mr Hsu Tse-Kwang would like to have a word with him. Perhaps the Member can let me know his name, rank and identity card number right now. I suspect, however, that he is fictitious, because the Member also mentioned that he earns only $90 per month as a reservist. As far as I know, not a single reservist in Singapore earns $90 per month. We revised national service allowances, I think, three years ago, before the last General Elections when the Member was elected. Question put, and agreed to. Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House. The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. - [BG Lee Hsien Loong].”
“And I think all the reservists do know that it is not a holiday. Word has got around that before you come in for BCTC, better get fit. There is no time to start getting fit once you have reported, drawn your rifle and are at the starting line for this training course. I come to the Member for Potong Pasir. He mentioned minimizing disruption in jobs. I have already replied to this. Perhaps I should say in addition that it is important also for the reservists to minimize disruption in the reservist unit training which he is bound to do. In other words, it is not just a matter of convenience to the single reservist whether or not he comes back at a time which fits him but also a matter of whether, by being absent, a reservist actually hinders the training and the entire series of activities which his team, his platoon or his battalion needs to go through. If the reservist is a battalion commander and absents himself, it is not just in-camp training which is disrupted. All 800 or 900 soldiers in his battalion will have their training affected and their entire in-camp period wasted if the battalion commander is not there to take them through their paces. Therefore, we need to balance the two. The Member produced a picturesque story about the Swiss farmer by choice who preferred the quiet of a farm, - presumably not MacDonald's farm - who was called up only when the cows did not need to be milked. I have no doubt that this was true. But let me respond with another Swiss story. This was a banker, risen high in his civilian career, similarly successful as a reservist, who was in Singapore negotiating a loan. And midway through the negotiations, he said, "Excuse me, can we break off the business? I have to go back to Switzerland to do my in-camp training.”
“What they need is not additional cash incentive to serve the SAF but the social support and encouragement which will allow them to spend many hours, many evenings, weekends and long periods away from their job, knowing that others appreciate this as doing their duty and not shirking their responsibility in civilian life. The Government can do this to some extent, but a lot more, of course, must be done by the civilian employers. The Member for Kaki Bukit asked whether we could minimize inconvenience to reservists when they come back for in-camp training. Yes, we try to do that. We try to make sure that every minute of a reservist's time in in-camp training is well spent. In fact, I think we have gone to the point that many reservists will tell you, although perhaps not in public, that they wish there was a bit more spare time and free time when they are on in-camp training, because they are rushed from point to point without a pause, from the moment they report to the moment they are de-kitted and sent marching back out of the camp. So we do make sure that when a person is back with us, we use him to the fullest. To us time is money and time is training time and operational readiness. The Member for Chong Boon asked us to impress upon reservists that SAF reservist training is not a holiday camp. I am not sure what is the best way to do this. Perhaps the best way would be if any employers are under that misapprehension, for me to extend an open invita- tion to them to come and participate in some of the reservist training, particularly on the basic combat training course (BCTC) which is conducted in SAFTI. It is only two days. We can run it over a weekend, if necessary. And if you have been through the experience, you will know that this is not a holiday.”
“This is illegal, forbidden under the Act." Why should we draft the Act that way? Of course, neither would Mindef unreasonably impose on a reservist to serve six months each year, year after year. That simply cannot be done. So the upper limit is not statutory. The upper limit is set by what the reservist is able to contribute, and how his reservist duties fit in with his civil responsibility. Secondly, the question of going from a voluntary extension of service to a compulsory extension of service. The Member asked if I will come back to this House to get permission to amend the Bill should we need to do that. The Member for Kaki Bukit also mentioned this. I should say that we have no intention of doing that. But should it become necessary, I will of course come back to this House because the Bill does not presently give Mindef discretion in calling people up more than 40 days a year compulsorily. Thirdly, the question of enhanced compensation for key appointment holders. It is linked to the point made by the Member for Chong Boon, who suggested looking for different incentives, different generous tokens of appreciation for key appointment holders so that they will know that they are important key digits in society. Mindef has done what we can to give them recognition, to make sure that when it comes to National Day Awards, key appointment holders are also not forgotten, to make sure that when we have a club, like the Temasek Society, for senior officers of the SAF, we treat senior reservists on par with active serving officers. I am not sure that the solution here is further allowances or grants from the Government because the reservists you are talking about are already senior civilians, receiving substantial remuneration from their civilian jobs.”
“They do not like to take on a steady job but they prefer to be sub-contractors and are employed as independent contractors; in other words they are working for themselves and therefore they do not pay CPF. Sometimes the people who employ them for jobs do not keep records. Sometimes these young people go from person to person to get jobs. In fact, one of these type of workers had come to see me, saying he had a problem claiming his pay for one month's in-camp training. He could not get from his employer, or the person for whom he had probably done a job two months ago, to say how much he was paid. Meanwhile he had no work and that the person who employed him could not be found. In these kind of circumstances, I would urge Mindef just to accept a statutory declaration of a national serviceman because, as in this particular case, he really suffered hardship. He was earning $600-$700 a month when he was working and when he was called he could not substantiate his rate of pay. So he was only paid $90. Now, how can $90 be enough to pay for his HDB instalment and to maintain a wife and two kids? $90 certainly is not enough. So perhaps the SAF could do something for this type of national servicemen. BG Lee Hsien Loong: Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, let me respond to the points raised by the MPs. First, the Member for Thomson. He asked why there is no upper limit on voluntary service which is allowed by the Bill. The original Act specifies 40 days, the amendment does not specify a limit on voluntary service. The answer is that the service is voluntary. There is no compulsion. Mindef cannot force a person to serve in the SAF beyond 40 days. And if a person wishes to serve in the SAF more than 50, 60 days, or even six months, there is no reason for Mindef to say, "No.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, may I be allowed to join in this debate? I believe the majority of young men in Singapore today have come to recognize the necessity for defence, and I believe they cooperate with Mindef in doing their in-camp national service training. On the part of Mindef, I would urge them to do everything possible to minimize the disruption caused to these young men in their jobs. For this, I would like to recall what I read of an incident in Switzerland, a country which takes its defence very seriously and where most young people go for almost a lifetime of national service training. This shows the extent to which the authorities will go to accommodate just one of these young people in Switzerland. There was a bachelor and he was a farmer by choice. He preferred to stay in a place where there is quiet. He purchased for himself a few cows. He had to milk his own cows. The authorities, when calling him up for national service, took into account his type of work. They made sure that they would call him up at a season where there is minimal involvement with his livestock, milking and other jobs. So this is the extent that they would go to accommodate only one young man in getting him to do his national service. Well, I hope in Singapore we have this kind of concern, this kind of attitude, this kind of spirit for our young people. As regards compensation of payment to these young people doing in-camp training. There is a group - I believe quite a sizeable group of young people - who prefer to work for themselves, who are blue collar workers skilled in some jobs, like welding.”
“An announcement that there was an investigation by the CPIB. Perhaps the Prime Minister would know that the news had been circulating two, three, four times around Singapore. Does the Prime Minister not think that it would be better if there was a proper announcement? It would perhaps save more anguish for members of Mr Teh's family.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, there was mention of cover-up. Why did the Government not make a public announcement that the former Minister for National Development was under CPIB investigations for the period from 28th November to 19th January?”
“The late Mr Teh Cheang Wan's son has been away all this while. Is the CPIB making attempts to get him back to Singapore to help them in their investigations?”
“One more supplementary question, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, much has been said of the new house of the late Minister at Bukit Tunggal Road. Was this declared by the late Minister?”
“Mr Prime Minister, Sir, it was you in this House who said that you knew how much each of your PAP MP was worth. Do you not think that if the assets of each MP were made public, for the scrutiny of the whole Singapore population, it would be better than the scrutiny of one man?”
“Mr Prime Minister, you have just spoken of the system. We have heard that the system that you have is for Ministers to declare their assets and their wives' and children's assets to you. In the light of one of your senior Ministers having taken bribes, do you feel that you need to review this system of yours and perhaps get Ministers and PAP Members, including myself, to make a declaration of their assets and their families' assets at the beginning of each year?”
“Sir, does the Minister realize that, in fact, what I am saying is the complaint of the shopkeepers there when I go on my rounds? They are asking me: Why are the flats above them not occupied? So every little bit of business does help them and they are paying high rentals at the moment.”
“Sir, does the Minister realize that as a result of this long delay in the occupation of these flats above the shops, the shops have suffered by way of business? And I believe the normal concessionary rates have not been given to them. Mr Dhanabalan: Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I have said that these blocks are at the Neighbourhood Centre. Obviously the shops in the Neighbourhood Centre do not just depend upon the flats above the shops. There are only 89 flats and if these shops are going to depend upon 89 flats to generate business to keep them going, they will become bankrupt very soon. They depend upon the whole neighbourhood which is already occupied. I do not think the fact that because 89 flats above the shops are empty, there should be grounds for some concession.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, as I know it, I have travelled in many of the constituencies and I see big PAP logos drawn on the walls of units where they have got these education centres there. So certainly it was given to a political party. There is no doubt about that. So if concession is given to one political party, will the HDB consider giving the same concession to other political parties? Mr Dhanabalan: Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I have said that the concession is not given to a political party. It is to an education service provided to the constituents. If an established bona fide organization applies to the HDB to provide a service to the constituents, HDB will certainly consider it. WARNING SIGNS ALONG EXPRESSWAYS (Adequacy of) 15. Dr Koh Lam Son asked the Minister for National Development whether warning signs put up by road contractors along expressways are adequate for the safety of motorists.”
“Is the HDB willing to give this concession to other political parties who wish to have education centres?”
“Are the concessions similar to those given to MPs, only $5 a unit or thereabouts?”
“Sir, under what basis does the HDB rent out to the PAP for use as education centres?”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the Minister has mentioned that some of these shops are to be allocated to non-profit organizations. Do the PAP education centres come under this classification?”
“What about workers in electronics? BG Lee Hsien Loong: Let me finish. In Taiwan you can hire a fresh graduate engineer for S$800-$900 a month. In Singapore you cannot find an electronics engineer for less than $2,000 a month. So for engineers, we are much more expensive. As for workers' per hour wage rates, there is no basis for saying that we are as cheap as Taiwan. If the Member has figures, I would be interested to see them.”
“Sir, one last supplementary question. The Minister has given a long answer. As I understand it, investments are still pouring into Taiwan and I believe the wage rates in Taiwan are now almost equal to that of Singapore. Why aren't the same amount of investments coming into Singapore, whereas investors are going in big numbers to Taiwan? BG Lee Hsien Loong: Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, before we answer questions, I think we should examine assumptions. First, I am not sure that investments are pouring into Taiwan. I am not sure what the Member for Potong Pasir means by "pouring in". Taiwan has 16 million people, probably more than that. If we make a per capita comparison, or one based on the size of the GDP, I think we are not doing badly. Secondly, I do not know what the basis of the Member's statement is - that Taiwanese wages are almost as high as Singapore wages. The last time I looked at them, there was a very significant differential. I do not have the numbers with me. The differential is even larger for professionals like engineers. In Taiwan you can hire a fresh graduate engineer for S$800-$900 a month.”
“10%. BG Lee Hsien Loong: 10%, even more so reinforcing my point. Hong Kong about 6%, Singapore 1.9%. I think that is reason to think we have not completely recovered. Why do I think we have made progress though? Because our investment commitments last year went up drastically over the year before. The year before was $1.1 billion. Last year it was more than $1.3 billion. At the last count, I think more than $1.4 billion. And if you look at the commitments for this year, 1987, we are expecting an even better year for investments, although naturally EDB and MTI would be cautious about giving hostages to fortune and promising any numbers before delivering the results. However, as I have said before, these investments have been committed on the assumption that they will find a low-cost business environment in Singapore. As one multi-national corporation employer said to me, "We put in these commitments in brick and mortar, believing the Government when it said that it would hold its wages down, when it said that the CPF would be trimmed, when it said that it was concerned with business costs in Singapore." If the Government now changes its position, or for that matter if the unions and the population now changes its resolution, and the assumptions on which these calculations were made are demolished, then I do not think the bricks and mortar will stand for very long. Because the entrepreneurs will remake their calculations and, if the arithmetic no longer works out right, they are not going to pour good money after bad.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, we still got no answer from the Minister. How competitive are we now in this present position as regards wage rates compared to Hong Kong, Taiwan and South Korea? BG Lee Hsien Loong: Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I do not have the statistics with me. Our estimate is that overall the policy measures have made a difference of about 30% to the cost of doing business and that this is not quite a complete recovery. How do I know it is not quite complete? Well, because if you look at our performance last year and the performance of the other NICs last year, we did a lot worse than they did. South Korea had 11% growth, Taiwan about 9% ---”
“Sir, the Minister has said that our wage rate is competitive. How competitive is it now compared to Hong Kong, Taiwan and South Korea? BG Lee Hsien Loong: Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, when we embarked on the package of measures after the Economic Committee published its report, we estimated that it would take about two years for us to regain our competitiveness; in other words, to get back to the position in 1981. We have since then been monitoring our progress. We have to calculate not just wage rates but the overall cost of doing business - cost of utilities, rentals, Government bureaucracy, administrative charges. MTI's assessment is that the measures have had a significant impact. We are perhaps three-quarters of the way to recovering our 1981 position but not quite all the way there. That is why the Government has said that we need one more year of wage restraint to make sure that we do not ruin the game plan before the game is won.”
“Sir, why was the Government silent or did not make an announcement during the period from 20th November to 19th January?”
“This is a moral question of saving lives. Do you want this person to die just because he has objected? Or to give it to another person who has not objected but he has got six months more to go? I think this is a moral question which the Select Committee has got to decide. The main purpose of this Bill is to save lives. In fact, this clause on priority is in conflict with the purpose of the Bill. There will be cases like that. Of course, there will also be people who may have objected because of superstition and fear. I think we also have to safeguard these people. For various reasons we have to respect their reasons for objection. They may have fears in their minds that their objection may not be taken note of. The Minister of State says that it will be computerized. But what happens if an accident happens and there is a fear in his mind that his organs may be removed? So I think in this respect you should also protect those who have objected. I think this Bill is ahead of our time and I do not know how long this Bill is going to be considered by the Select Committee, taking into account our cultural, social and Asian background. But in any event I support this Bill.”
“Well, I am not adding fuel to rumours. I say that if there is any objection, it is probably due to these reasons. Of course, any sensible person would support this Bill, because if they have friends who suffer from chronic renal disease they would know how not only those patients suffer, but their whole family also. In fact, I have been asked to bring up this question of whether the Government would like to put more money in dialysis machines. Because, from what I have heard, there are not enough machines at the moment to go around. Some patients have to queue up and they suffer as a result. So I would urge the Government that before they pass this Bill they can tell the public that there are enough dialysis machines for any sufferer of chronic renal disease who wants treatment on demand. I think they have to do that first before they pass this Bill. I had the opportunity to attend a chronic renal disease seminar three years back. The delegate from Israel was proud to say at that time that any patient who had a kidney disease could get a dialysis treatment on demand. I do not think we can say that of Singapore today. So I hope the Minister will look into this very important aspect of kidney disease sufferers. The question of priority has been mentioned and we note that 15% of our population is not involved, due to their religion which, I think, we should be sensitive to. They may have strong reasons not to want to donate their organs. The purpose of this Bill is to save lives. Let us say, we have two cases. One is a very acute kidney case, and he might die any time if he does not get a transplant. The other is a patient who can live for another six months or a year. But unfortunately for this sufferer with the acute problem, he has objected.”
“If there is any objection, it would probably be due to the controversial nature of this Bill. We are an Asian society. Superstition is rife. We have just heard from the Minister that in Europe only three countries so far have got this kind of a law. They are socially much more advanced than us. As I say, if there is going to be any objection to this Bill, it is probably due to superstition, to fear, and, I think, also suspicion of the PAP Government. An hon. Member: You are adding fuel to rumours.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, may I be allowed to join in this debate. May I, first of all, refer to the remarks made by the Member for Nee Soon. He said that the Opposition shall be using this particular Bill to say things against the Government. I must tell him that this is a very unbecoming thing to say. The Opposition are also human beings. They also want to save lives. I support this Bill because its purpose is to save lives. How can he go about saying irresponsible things like that?”
“I am asking this question. Is it because in line with this policy of self-reliance, ie, Singapore going all alone, not caring about our neighbours, that we invited the President of Israel?”
“All right. The policy of the Government then would be to survive together. Now I fear that the Government has switched over to a foreign policy of self-reliance. Is it in line -”
“Yes. It was said at that time, "But at the end of it all, we have one mutual interest which overrides everything else, namely, the need to survive together, ie, with Peninsular Malaysia and the other Malaysian states, in a troubled and changing world and to create prosperity and stability despite the -”
“Sir, in 1961, the PAP was advocating merger with Malaysia and the Prime Minister spoke over Radio Sarawak -”
“Sir, would the Minister agree that with hindsight it was poor judgment and it was all a big mistake?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I am asking him to state whether or not there are any advantages. I think we have to balance it, is it not - our interests in Malaysia with our interest in inviting the President of Israel to Singapore. What are the advantages? You do not just invite because you want to invite. Mr Dhanabalan: Mr Speaker, Sir, I have already stated that we have had diplomatic relations with Israel since 1969. I have also stated that they did help us in the early years to build up our SAF and they have been asking us for some time to invite their President. When we have diplomatic relations with a country, it follows that at some point if they continue to request a visit, we must invite the leaders. It is normal accepted diplomatic practice. As I said, although we were aware that the Malaysians do not have diplomatic relations with Israel and we were aware that they would not be happy, we expected that in accordance with the normal practice in ASEAN they would accept that there will be a difference in our approach to Israel between Singapore and Malaysia.”
“Would the Minister agree with me that in respect of our relations with Malaysia, there are only disadvantages in inviting the Israeli President to Singapore and no advantage at all?”
“Sir, will these refunds be made in full? Can the Senior Parliamentary Secretary guarantee that there are no deductions from these refunds?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, is the Senior Parliamentary Secretary proposing to pay interest on all those monies held for over a year?”