Davinder Singh
Singapore
“As a result not many Singaporeans plan for the future. It is very important that the Government lay out the facts so that Singaporeans understand what is in store for them when they retire.”
“Resolved, That the following Address in reply to the Speech of the President be agreed to:- "We, the Parliament of the Republic of Singapore, express our thanks to the President for the Speech which he delivered on behalf of the Government at the Opening of the Second Session of this Parliament."”
“In October last year, the Minister informed the House that the Law Reform Committee and the Law Society would be putting up a proposal to the Attorney-General's Chambers and the Ministry of Law on the question of corporatisation of the legal profession.”
“Therefore, I think it is crucial that the Ministry consider extending the time during which students have to engage in community service. I would also ask the Minister to consider not paying too much emphasis on work with the RCs or peer tutoring.”
“Because then, you are deploying all your forces all over the place. It is like in defence of a locality. You do not spread them all over the place. You target them in places of vulnerability and that is the current approach. I think the approach is right.”
“Those applications sometimes make things quite cumbersome. We want to promote ourselves as an attractive place to do business from. We should rationalise all these incentive schemes to make matters simple for the investors.”
The complete record
Every one of 243 lines we hold for Davinder Singh, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 3 of 5.
“You can have a situation where there is one creditor who is owed $99,000 and the bankrupt is then discharged after five years on the certificate of the Official Assignee. He has hurt more than 20 creditors who are owed maybe $10,000 each, totalling $200,000, and the bankrupt then cannot get discharged because he has to make an application to court, because the amount is more than $100,000. I do not think really we should be setting a limit, whether it is $100,000 or any amount. We should look at what we are trying to address. If we are trying to deter dishonest conduct, punish them for it, but do not delay the bankruptcy discharge, as it were, on account of the fraudulent or dishonest conduct. In addition, I have three questions for the Minister. First of all, arising from what I consider to be sophisticated frauds that are now committed which I believe this Bankruptcy Bill does not address. The essence of the prohibitions in the Bankruptcy Bill is that if you have been naughty, if in contemplation or in anticipation of bankruptcy, you start moving your assets around, you can be caught. You can be punished and those assets can be retrieved. That deals with the straightforward cases where you really have assets and you move them. For example, if you have shares in a company, you move them to your wife or to a relative, the provisions operate. But these days, there are more sophisticated ways of diluting your assets without actually moving them. For example, you may be a 60% or 70% shareholder in a company. Instead of transferring those 60% or 70% shares to another person so that the creditors do not get at them, what you do is you contrive a rights issue. You renounce your rights. The minority picks up the rights. He becomes the majority. You are diluted to a minority.”
“We should take this opportunity to simplify procedures and decide what we are trying to achieve here. Bankruptcy is punishment. The question is: how long do we want to punish these people without affecting their ability to be rehabilitated, if you like? In England, they have a very simple procedure. If you have not been made a bankrupt for the last 15 years, you are given a discharge after 3 years, subject, of course, to the court's discretion. If you are made a bankrupt, and this is your second bankruptcy in a space of 15 years, you have to wait for 5 years before the court can let you off. I do not understand why in Singapore we have not followed a similar scheme. Because if you expect bankrupts to go to court to make applications to discharge themselves, then what you are going to have is a very heavy burden on the court. Because the court must go into all the circumstances of the case before deciding whether someone should be discharged from his bankruptcy. Why can we not have a simpler procedure where everyone is discharged after a fixed number of years? We are concerned, of course, with those who acted fraudulently or dishonestly. There is a way to deal with that. To the extent that there is fraud or dishonest conduct, create the necessary provisions which are loosely called bankruptcy offences and punish them for that conduct. If they are sufficiently punished for those offences, there is no reason, while they are being punished for that, to delay the discharge. It is not going to help creditors to delay the discharge because it is not going to increase the monies that will be available for distribution. Also, I find the $100,000 ceiling, as it were, somewhat artificial. I would like to know why $100,000 was proposed.”
“Sir, I declare my interest as a lawyer acting for parties who have an interest in the bankruptcy regime. Sir, there are many purposes behind this Bill. Two of them are to simplify the regime as well as to strike a correct balance between the interests of creditors and the interests of debtors. But there are two other objectives which I think ought to be considered when deciding whether this should be passed as legislation. They are whether the provisions would create a heavier load on our court system. That is number one. Number two, whether we are actually discouraging people from attempting to take risks, albeit honestly. There is no dispute that if you cannot pay your debt, you ought to be punished for it and, of course, the bankruptcy regime is available for that. You are made a bankrupt if you cannot pay up or cannot make a reasonable offer which is acceptable to your creditors. What I find difficult to accept is the new discharge provisions. The proposal is essentially two-fold. One is that the Official Assignee is entitled to discharge one group of bankrupts. There must be two conditions. One is that they are bankrupt for a period of not less than five years and, secondly, that the debt they owe must not exceed $100,000. That is one group. The second group which does not have the benefit of this discharge mechanism must make an application to court. The court will then review all the relevant circumstances which are listed out in the Act. And some of these circumstances include, eg, whether the bankrupt has brought the bankruptcy on account of his rash speculation or reckless behaviour. Or whether he has put up a frivolous defence in any claim that was brought against him for monies which defence was, of course, subsequently rejected.”
“Sir, we read a great deal about the economic liberalisation process in India that started in 1991 and which continues with vigour. By most accounts, the experiment is paying dividends. The economy has grown, stock markets are enjoying booms, foreign investors have begun to show greater interest and foreign funds are pouring in. Earlier this year, the Prime Minister led a trade delegation to India. The meetings between the businessmen of the two countries were characterised by a great deal of enthusiasm. There is a visible shift in attitudes among the big Indian corporations. They appear eager to enter into joint ventures with foreigners, including Singaporeans, in certain areas, for example, property development and manufacturing. They are happy to have us as business partners on account of our experience and money. There are, however, a number of questions that are very important from our businessmen's point of view. Before they commit huge sums, they want to know what the climate is likely to be in the mid to long term. The Indian electorate has grown up on a diet of self-reliance. Self-reliance is a very important slogan in the hands of politicians and the media. Certainly businessmen make their own investment decisions based on the assessment of opportunities and returns but they could do with some help from the Government. In this regard, they will be very keen to learn about Government's assessment of the durability of the liberalisation programme. I will be interested in the Minister's views.”
“It seems somewhat odd to me and I wonder whether the Minister would explain the policy rationale for that. Finally, if I could just ask the Minister a clarification under clause 4. When it is said that this Act shall not apply to any appeal, does that mean an appeal already commenced, or does that mean proceedings in which notices of appeal have been filed? Because there is a time lag between the filing of a notice of appeal and the actual hearing of the appeal.”
“I consider it slightly odd, to say the least, that the Government, having afforded that avenue, as it were, and the parties having adopted the option that has been given, having walked down that avenue, are now being told that that avenue is closed. Because what this Bill proposes to do is actually to abolish appeals altogether. We had, some five years ago, given parties that option. People have actually used it. Certainly commercial houses in some cases have, and now we are taking it away from them, summarily, if you like. Instances like these are not covered in the transitional provision. I wonder whether the Minister would consider including these instances in the transitional provision. Let those agreements be worked out, or at least run their course, before this Bill takes effect in so far as these agreements are concerned. Secondly, and this is related to the first point I have made, the transitional provision in clause 4 provides that the repeal shall not affect any appeals before the commencement or before the effect of the repeal. We are in a very odd situation because it means that parties who have pending appeals, and who might not yet have agreed to go to the Privy Council, are still given time to make that agreement to escape the provisions of this Bill. Because they are entitled to agree before the commencement of the appeal. In other words, before they stand up in the Court of Appeal, they are entitled at any time before then to agree to go to the Privy Council. This transitional provision appears to allow them more time to take a decision whether or not to agree. Whereas the transitional provision takes away from parties who have already agreed to go to the Privy Council on the faith, as I said, of the amendment that this House passed in 1989.”
“Sir, I declare my interest as a lawyer. Sir, I support the Bill and I wish to raise two points on which I seek the Minister's clarification. Sir, the position today is that civil appeals to the Privy Council are permissible only if the parties to the proceedings consent to be bound by the appeal to the Privy Council provided that that consent is given before the commencement of the appeal before the Court of Appeal in Singapore. This arose out of an amendment in April 1989. At that time, in moving the amendment, the Hon. Minister said that one of the options the Government had considered was a total abolition of appeals in civil cases to the Privy Council. But having regard to various views and suggestions expressed in the House as well as outside, the Government decided that we should not completely cut off appeals to the Privy Council in commercial matters for various reasons. One is because of the expertise of the Privy Council and the other is the legal store of knowledge that the Privy Council has. Therefore, it was decided that this option be made available to commercial houses, in particular, banks, finance houses, etc, that they be entitled to put into agreements that they enter into, a clause to the effect that they would agree to be bound by appeals to the Privy Council. Therefore, what we did in 1989 was to afford this avenue to parties which wished to retain the option of going to the Privy Council. Some parties obviously acted on the faith of that avenue that was afforded and entered into agreements with clauses to the effect that they agree to be bound by appeals to the Privy Council.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I inadvertently omitted to declare my interest as a solicitor, which I now rectify.”
“It may be that the problem will be academic and that we will never get 50 applicants for the Diploma in Singapore Law. But if we do, I do not think it is fair that a person's future livelihood, that his vocation should depend upon something that is arbitrary as a ballot. The second thing that the Minister said was that they would be looking into the question of a common professional examination. I think this is a good thing, something that we should all work towards. But I hope that the common professional examination will be in lieu of these rather arbitrary limits on institutions. Once you have got your common professional examination, you should not say, "Well, only those people from the 15 institutions can take that examination.", only two-ones or two-twos from NUS can take that examination. So I hope that when that is implemented, it is not treated as an additional hurdle but is treated as a long-term goal. And this restriction of institutions, this restriction on the quality of degrees, is going to be an interim measure until that can be done. Having said that, may I express my support for the Bill again. 5.10 pm [Mr Deputy Speaker in the Chair]”
“Accepting that there should be a cap, the real controversial thing is the way the cap has been implemented because people said, "Well, you know, this is arbitrary. With 15 institutions from the UK, are you saying that second upper from Durham is better than the first class from, say, University of Sydney?" This is the kind of impression they get. I think we have to look at this pragmatically. What we are talking about is turning off the supply of Singaporeans being qualified. So, in future, anyone who wants to practise law in Singapore knows that there are only 15 institutions outside where he can go to and have a decent chance of getting a degree. It is no reflection on the quality of the graduates of these institutions as such. We are merely making a signal to people who want a law degree that "Look, these are the 15 institutions." And the Minister has given the assurance that this list will be reviewed from time to time and I think we can be happy with that. There are two small things that I would like the Minister's clarification, if possible. Firstly, the Diploma in Singapore Law which is going to be a prerequisite for foreign graduates. The Committee recommended a ceiling of 50. I hope that this ceiling is not going to be treated as a sacrosanct thing. Because if, for example, you have got more than 50 applicants from the 15 scheduled institutions, how are we going to make the choice? This is the problem. If some got first class and some got second upper, all right, take the first class. But I doubt we will get 50 first class from these universities. You might get, say, 60 second upper. 10 will be excluded if you have got an absolute cap of 50. So may I ask for a little bit of flexibility, just in case.”
“I think we should make it clear that this cap does not affect people who are already qualified. It does not affect people who want a law degree as an academic qualification because they want to go into business, they want to go into Government, politics, or whatever it is. It only affects those basically who want to do litigation, or who want to do conveyancing. Every year, when we do interviews, I meet a number of young people who tell me that their burning ambition is to be a lawyer and they found this out because they watched "Matlock" on TV. The only people who are really going to be aggrieved by this cap are those people who feel that somehow a law degree is a passport to wealth and riches and I think we can assure them that it is not really so. Some people have said that this idea of capping lawyers is actually just a ploy by the legal profession to keep fees high and salaries high. I am not sure that is right. The market for legal services is not a perfect market. It is a very imperfect market. If I may draw an analogy. If you got a brain tumour, you don't go to the cheapest brain surgeon you can find. Is cheapness really something that you look for in a professional when you are looking for professional service? Paradoxically, you may find that no matter how many mediocre lawyers are in the market, the good ones will always have more work than they can cope with, and the good ones will always be able to command a premium. And if you go to a lawyer who does not seem to have any clients, is that really a recommendation? I very much doubt it. So these people who think that this is a ploy by all of us lawyers to keep our salaries high are perhaps looking at it a bit simplistically.”
“Because the disciplinary procedure takes many steps before it reaches the court, I would like to know whether the approach is that the amendments would only apply to inquiries commenced after the amendments come into force, or would they apply to any stage of the disciplinary procedure which is in existence on the date of coming into force. Assoc. Prof. Walter Woon (Nominated Member): Sir, before I speak, may I declare my personal interest as Vice-Dean of the Law Faculty, NUS, and as a practising advocate and solicitor. I support the Bill, but there are two major controversial things about this. Firstly, the cap on the number of lawyers and, secondly, the way that cap is being implemented. Paradoxically, these things are in the Bill itself. They are left to subsidiary legislation, as the Minister said. The first question is: Is there really a need to cap the number of lawyers? No one really knows for sure. But what we do know is that the Law Faculty is taking in 200 students per year, three times the number it used to take at the beginning of the 1980s. Three times the number of lawyers cannot be produced indefinitely, unless we are sure that the domestic legal services are going to grow indefinitely and I think no one, least of all the lawyers, wants litigation to grow indefinitely. So some sort of cap is necessary. The other problem is that when we are talking about the domestic legal services, things like conveyancing, which are almost now fully computerised will, I think, be very difficult to retain as a lawyer's monopoly forever. So we may actually find the demand for domestic legal services shrinking. So I fully support the Minister's suggestion and the Committee's suggestion that a cap should be put on the number of lawyers.”
“But the difference and a very fundamental difference is that the application before the Chief Justice is ex parte, which means that the applicant appears before the Chief Justice and there is no necessity to serve the papers on the legal officer who is alleged to have misconducted himself. Unlike the case of an advocate and solicitor who has a right to be heard at the very first stage of the disciplinary process, a legal officer, or a non-practising solicitor against whom a complaint is made, is not given that right under the Act. I wonder whether the Minister can explain why that is so. While that puts the legal officer on a worse footing, there is an example of something which puts him on a better footing vis-a-vis advocates and solicitors. A very simple example of that is that in the case of advocates and solicitors, if the disciplinary proceedings are founded on a conviction, the advocate and solicitor is not entitled, by reason of an amendment to the Act, I think, to challenge the validity of that conviction in the disciplinary proceedings. Whereas we do not have a similar provision which bars, or precludes, legal officers from taking up that challenge. Again, I wonder if the Minister would explain why there is a difference in the approach. Finally, Sir, if I could ask the Minister to clarify the effect of the transitional provision. It says that the amendment would not apply to inquiries, investigations, etc, commenced before the date of commencement of the amendments.”
“Sir, I support the Bill. I would like to seek clarification from the Minister on a number of aspects of the Bill. My focus is primarily on the new provisions dealing with legal officers and non-practising solicitors. As the Minister said, the proposed provisions on disciplinary proceedings have come about as a result of a recent Court of Appeal decision which extends the application of the present Act to legal officers and, in the words of the Minister, that has created an anomaly which this amendment seeks to rectify. The rectification is that from the Law Society, disciplinary jurisdiction over these officers will now move to the courts. However, I would have expected that notwithstanding this move, the same standards ought to apply to both advocates and solicitors on the one hand, and to legal officers and non-practising solicitors on the other. But looking through the Bill, one gets the impression that there are different standards, some make legal officers better off; some make them worse off. For example, in the case of an advocate and solicitor, if he is hauled up for misconduct, he first appears before the Inquiry Committee where he has a right to be heard in his defence and, of course, if the Inquiry Committee determines that there is cause for further investigation, he is referred to the Disciplinary Committee. In the case of a legal officer, the amendment replaces the Inquiry Committee with the Chief Justice. What happens is that if there is an allegation that the legal officer has misconducted himself, a complaint is made by way of an application to the Chief Justice.”
“But there are some residual areas which need to be addressed. For example, we still have Acts in this country which import English laws. One example of an Act is the Criminal Procedure Code. The Criminal Procedure Code purports to define the procedure in criminal proceedings in Singapore. But in the event of a lacuna, a gap, or an area which has not been addressed by the Act, there is a section which says that to the extent that the Act does not apply or does not deal with it, the law relating to criminal procedure for the time being in force in England shall be applied. This is very unsatisfactory. It is just one example of a host of Acts where we have similar provisions. The Criminal Procedure Code is one. The Women's Charter is one where, I suspect, because we are unable to think of all the possible situations that have arisen, we have taken this precautionary measure of saying that if the Act does not address the situation, we will apply what is happening in England. But because of the policy reasons that have been elaborated upon by the Minister, I think we will have to move away from that situation. We have to address it ourselves and decide what we want and what we do not want from England, and make it part of our own law, so that everyone will know exactly at any time they want to know it what the law is which prevails in this country.”
“For now, more than a hundred years, no one really knows the true answer to the meaning of section 5 of the Civil Law Act, and of course, that has given rise to considerable litigation and, as the Minister has said, a lot of literature on the subject. A third source of laws is what is called Imperial Acts. These are Acts which were passed by the United Kingdom Parliament designed for colonies, for example, Singapore. It is not peculiar to this country that we have had these laws or this experience. We have the Dutch laws continuing to apply to some extent in Indonesia, the French in Indochina, the United States in the Philippines. What is surprising is that it has taken us so long to deal with this situation. Hong Kong had a similar situation, but it dealt with it in 1966. They passed an Ordinance which was similarly named, Application of English Law Ordinance, to do away with this uncertainty and to specify which particular Acts which were prevailing in England would apply in Hong Kong. I think this is very much similar to what we are doing here, albeit almost 30 years later. This is a step in the right direction because it introduces a great deal of certainty, which is very desirable from a commercial standpoint. As I said earlier, today, if you ask a lawyer whether a particular Act applies in Singapore, he would have difficulty answering the question because he would need to know what is the issue that requires that answer. Because of the way section 5 of the Civil Law Act is drafted, you need to determine what issue is in question, how that issue arose, and to determine whether an English Act can apply in this country for the determination of that issue. With this Bill, all those problems will hopefully be resolved.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the Bill. This piece of legislation is long overdue. I agree with the Hon. Minister that the present state of the law in relation to the reception of English law is very unsatisfactory. This is just but one step that we have taken to remedy the situation. There are other things that we have to do, and I hope that they will be done soon. I will come to that in a moment. The difficulty has arisen because of our previous position as a colony. Like other colonies, the laws that applied depended very much on the laws that were prevailing in the colonial power. In Singapore, we received laws from England in a number of ways. One way, as the Hon. Minister has described, is the Second Charter of Justice. This was way back in 1826 when King George IV decreed that the laws of England as at November 1826 should continue to apply in Singapore. Whatever the reasons, we have continued to apply that law in Singapore. It is not possible picking up a book or a statute to determine with precision which law exactly applies in this country or if any particular law has been repealed. That is an example of one law that has been forced upon us, as it were. But in addition to that, we have other laws, as a result of us voluntarily receiving English law. For example, section 5 of the Civil Law Act which was referred to by the Hon. Minister. By that section, what we have done - I think that was enacted in 1878 - is that we decided, because of our inexperience in mercantile affairs, we would import the commercial laws of England to some extent. Although the intention was clear, there was difficulty in drafting the legislation. It has been a source of constant headache, both to practitioners and Judges.”
“Mr Chng Hee Kok asked the Minister for National Development if he will improve the priority scheme for first-time house owners in the balloting of Housing and Development Board flats.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I am honoured to be given this opportunity to pay tribute to President Wee. I echo the sentiments that have been expressed in this House and, as my colleague, Dr Tan Cheng Bock, has said, we have actually run out of adjectives and superlatives. There are very few people in this world who have the genuine affection, admiration and love of all their fellow citizens. We are very fortunate that one of these people is our President and he has given us eight years of his life sitting in the highest office in the land. It is very difficult to express one's admiration and regard for a man who, through great effort, though appearing effortless, has maintained the dignity of that office and has appeared to everyone as someone totally approachable, as one of them, and without any desire for the trappings of office. On behalf of the Sikhs in Singapore, I would like to say thank you to President Wee for his great service to the nation and to the citizens of Singapore. Like all the other Singaporeans, the Sikhs have a great admiration and love for him and we wish him a happy retirement. Mr Cheo Chai Chen (Nee Soon Central)( In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to use two very short sentences to express my sentiments. First, I have full respect for President Wee Kim Wee and his wife. As for his retirement, I am reluctant to accept the fact that he has to leave us now. ADJOURNMENT Resolved, "That Parliament do now adjourn to a date to be fixed." - [Mr Wong Kan Seng]. Adjourned accordingly at Nineteen Minutes to Three o'clock pm. Appendix 1 WRITTEN ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS FOR ORAL ANSWER NOT ANSWERED BY 1.30 PM HOUSING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD FLATS (Priority scheme for first-time house owners) 14.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I wish to speak on the Bill as well, but I take a different point of view from Mr Shanmugam. I think he makes two different points here. The first is that there will be a difficulty if the position in relation to the nature of the charge, ie, that it is one over possibly a book debt is not clarified. That, in my view, is a different problem altogether. It is important that there must be retrospective effect because you do not want a situation, after this Bill is passed, where banks have to call upon their customers, ask them to redo the entire transaction so that they fall within the ambit of this particular provision, giving rise to a whole series of problems including what in law is called consideration for the original loan, etc, etc. What we want to do is to be practical in the climate that we have today. Charges have been taken or purportedly taken by banks over deposits. You do not want banks and financial institutions to have to recommence the transactions to retake the charges so as to fall within the ambit of this legislation. The other problem my Hon. Friend, Mr Shanmugam, raises is an important one. But I do not think it is the difficulty that arises from this amendment. It is a difficulty which exists as a result of an English decision which says that a cash deposit is not a book debt and whether we want to follow that or take a different course is a totally different matter. I do not think that the mere fact of non-registration of an earlier charge on account of an advice or view taken that it is not a book debt would affect the operation of this section.”
“My colleague has said 50,000 people were cheering. No doubt a lot of them have other motivations. They have got money on the game perhaps, but there is the other group, a huge majority, including me, who derive a tremendous amount of satisfaction and pleasure when we win. And when you cheer, you are cheering for Singapore, and everybody identifies with the country for once. There is a lot to be said about Government taking the lead in setting aside a few jobs for the athletically inclined so that they can attend to their jobs from 9.00 am to 3.00 pm and then get out to the fields and concentrate on their sporting talents, build a great team in soccer, or in any other sport, and compete internationally. And if the Government takes the lead, the private sector will follow. If we do not do that, we will never get anywhere in sports. Sports is a unifying force, we should concentrate on it. 2.00 pm”
“Sir, I would like to support everything that Mr Chandra Das has said. Sir, for some reason, we do not do very well in sports when we compete internationally. I can understand that for a long time now we have been motivated by a need to succeed economically and that is laudable. But we do not really have to compromise on that principle or objective. There is a group of people in Singapore, very athletically inclined, and who for some reason are not inclined towards studies, and then do not make it to university or other tertiary institutions. If we do not give them incentives, they are not likely to continue to play the games that they excel in, with the result that they do not do well in life, either in seeking a job, or they do not exploit their sporting talents to the maximum. Therefore, what you have is this group of people who do not do well in life and at the same time Singapore loses out on this pool of talent. We have done well economically. We have concentrated on the arts. We are reaching out for other ideals now. I would urge the Government to pay more attention to sports not only because the SEA Games is around the corner but because sports has a unique way of bringing people together. I said this before. We can do so much better in getting Singaporeans to be passionate about our own country than by National Day events or by Orchard Road Swings, the big parties that we have. These events are contrived to get Singaporeans together and feel something for the country. But there is a way that we can do this without having to spend millions of dollars. This is by encouraging our best sportsmen, those who are not inclined to pursue a career or to take their studies further, to concentrate their talent where they have them on the field, for example, football.”
“Yes, Sir, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. The sum of $21,336,440 for Head V ordered to stand part of the Main Estimates. The sum of $1,360,000 for Head V ordered to stand part of the Development Estimates. Head W --”
“Whatever the virtues of our civil service, an additional check and balance will, in my view, ensure that the present excellent track record will continue.”
“This office will enable members of the public to air their grievances and to be given the opportunity to have these grievances investigated into, to ascertain that Government departments or statutory bodies have actually applied correct principles, have not acted arbitrarily or have not overlooked any relevant criteria. It is in effect another check and balance that I am suggesting. And as all checks and balances, we have to be careful in crafting the powers of this office or its functions. We do not want a situation where the Ombudsman usurps Government functions. He should not be allowed to question legislation or policy or guidelines, but he should have powers to look into files as and when matters are brought to his attention and in his discretion. Having powers to look into files does not mean having the power or the right to disclose details of these files to anybody else. Secondly, he should be given the opportunity to meet with the decision makers after such investigations to persuade them to review or change the decisions. It does not have to go public. If we want to start, we can keep it within a narrow framework and make it a very private affair. But as long as the public feels that there is an independent and impartial person looking at it, I think there is greater confidence in the way the system operates. Sir, the last time I made this suggestion, it was not implemented and I would not be surprised again if this suggestion is not accepted. I understand the reason is that we have a very clean, honest and efficient civil service. That everyone accepts. But it is a suggestion that I make not only for the present but also for the future.”
“Sir, as MPs, we are continually making appeals on behalf of our constituents. In a normal case, what happens is that a constituent writes in, in the first instance, to the Ministry or department in question. And if he is unsuccessful, he receives a standard form rejection notice. Very rarely does he get reasons for the rejection. And then he comes to his MP who in effect basically resubmits the application but with this difference. He writes an explanation of the merits of the case. But really when MPs do this, they are groping in the dark because they do not really know the basis of the decisions. They do not know if the guidelines have been properly applied. So the MP's task in this respect is not assisted to a large extent. 12.45 pm The difficulty, we are told, is that there are a whole host of guidelines and criteria which are sensitive, and that it is not in the public interest to reveal them to the constituents. I accept that in some cases. But while I may accept that, there is this difficulty that the man who has had his application turned down will not be happy with the fact that he cannot know the reasons or he cannot know what criteria he has to meet in order to successfully apply. Therefore, what we want to achieve is a compromise between not divulging sensitive matters and, at the same time, assuring the public that the merits of their respective cases have been fairly considered. The way to do this, as I said in the past and I repeat now, is to create an office of an Ombudsman or a Parliamentary Commissioner, as some countries call it.”
“Sir, I beg to move, That the total sum to be allocated for Head V of the Main Estimates be reduced by $100. Sir, in 1990, I had in this House suggested developing a system of accountability to give the man-in-the-street some assurance that he has been fairly treated by Government departments. I have suggested the appointment of an ombudsman and a change in the present system which does not require reasons to be given when decisions are handed down by Government bodies. I made those suggestions for a number of reasons. It was my feeling then that there was a growing demand for more accountability on the part of the Government and that this demand ought to be accommodated. It was also my view that it was important for Singaporeans to believe that their applications have been fairly considered. These reasons continue to remain valid today. This Government has always looked for ways to meet the aspirations of a sophisticated population. The Feedback Unit is one way. The Service Improvement Unit is another. The question is whether these steps are sufficient and, if not, what other measures ought to be put in place for this purpose. What we should ultimately seek to achieve is a situation where people's grievances can be expressed outside the ballot box and this will reduce the prospect of an unhappy result at an election if there are more avenues available for the people to do this. Our system of public administration is vast and complex. Government departments and statutory bodies have numerous functions and with them extensive powers. Whenever these powers are exercised, someone is affected either marginally or substantially and, in some cases, a person's livelihood is dependent or affected by Government decisions.”
“Having said that, Sir, I would like to know from the Minister whether he has sought the views of the Law Society for the reason that this amendment would certainly impact on lawyers generally in Singapore, and I wonder what the Law Society's views on these amendments are.”
“Sir, I support the Bill. Sir, it is a good thing that Turner's case came to court because it helped us focus attention on the provisions of the Legal Profession Act. Before Turner's case, there was some uncertainty as to whether foreign lawyers could come into Singapore and conduct arbitration proceedings on behalf of clients in Singapore. Turner's case said that the Act, as drafted, prohibited this and therefore this amendment to the Act. Why this amendment is logical and makes sense is that if we want to improve or project ourselves as a first rate financial centre in the world, or at least in this region, we must provide a one-stop service to the multi-national corporations, to the banks and financial institutions. At the moment, before this Bill is passed, companies can come into Singapore, enter into agreements, provide for arbitration, but the moment there is a dispute and they want to arbitrate, they have to get out of the country and fight the case if they want foreign lawyers to represent them as opposed to lawyers who are admitted to the roll in Singapore. What this does is to make it easier and to provide an overall package, as it were, to these foreign companies. While they can provide for arbitra-tion in their agreements, they can also conduct these arbitrations in Singapore in our new Singapore International Arbitration Centre. They can also bring in foreign lawyers to run these arbitrations provided that the law governing the dispute is not Singapore law. I also welcome in this regard the safeguard where, if the law governing the dispute is Singapore law, there must be someone competent or knowledgeable in Singapore law sitting with the foreign lawyer to run the arbitration.”
“It may be, and I would not like to preclude the final decision on this, that we may have a hybrid model where we adopt the best of the British system and the American civil forfeiture system. Because if we proceed purely on a basis that only the proceeds of crime of the convicted trafficker can be subject to this law, then the question arises: what happens in cases where there could be persons who are in preventive detention, big-time traffickers under the Criminal Law Act who also have stashed away large sums of money derived from drug trafficking? That kind of a situation makes us inclined at the moment towards a possibility of a hybrid system which combines the best elements of both laws, but a decision has not been taken yet. I hope this answers Mr Davinder Singh's question.”
“Also, the legislation in the other countries is relatively new and my understanding is that some of these countries are now in fact re-looking at the legislation to see if they can be refined. We need to know what are the problems which other countries have experienced and learn from their experience before we enact our legislation. I hope that the Bill on the asset seizure law can be introduced some time during the course of this year. Basically, such a proposed system must have provisions on certain basic aspects, such as the tracing, freezing and confiscation of drug assets of persons engaged in drug trafficking. The laundering of proceeds from drug trafficking should also be dealt with as offences. Such a new law should also provide for international or cross-border cooperation on the seizure of assets of convicted drug traffickers. There will have to be safeguards, as I have said, to protect the interests of third parties. There will also have to be safeguards to meet the point raised by Mr Davinder Singh in ensuring that the banking secrecy laws are not undermined. In other words, there ought not to be fishing expeditions to obtain information about the financial status of persons where there is no reasonable basis or, as he puts it, a prima facie case made out. As for the different approaches, whether we are going to adopt the British approach or the American approach, in the British approach, under their Drug Trafficking Offences Act, confiscation is possible only if there is a conviction by a court of law. Under the United States system, confiscation of proceeds from drug trafficking can be made even if there is no conviction. We are now seriously considering which approach to take.”
“In the United States and in Britain, steps have been taken to legislate and to empower the authorities to seize assets. In Britain, there is the Drug Trafficking Offences Act, which was passed in 1986, which allows seizure of assets or drug money upon conviction. Whereas in the United States, there is a system of civil forfeiture which allows seizure or forfeiture before conviction. What I would like to know from the Minister is what we are doing in Singapore and what form our law will take? Prof. Jayakumar: Sir, as the Member has noted, we have in fact announced that we will enact this legislation on asset seizure for drug proceeds. The reason is simple - to ensure that a drug trafficker and those associated with him, which may even be his family, do not enjoy the proceeds of their crimes. Do we need it? Because we have very serious penalties, like death penalty, preventive detention, and so on, I agree with him that we need it because there may be some people who will not be prosecuted, or cannot be prosecuted, but who may nevertheless have the proceeds of the crimes in Singapore. A team has been set up under my Ministry, comprising Ministry officials, Central Narcotics Bureau, Police as well as representatives from the Monetary Authority of Singapore and legal officers who are now studying the experience of other countries. It is not an easy law to draft. We must be cautious because if the powers to be exercised under this law are not clearly spelt out, then we could have problems where the rights of innocent parties are not properly safeguarded and confidence in our financial system may be undermined.”
“Sir, last year, the Minister for Home Affairs announced that the Government had decided to draft and implement laws relating to asset seizure. This is one instance, in my view, where tough laws are required because they relate to the seizure of the profits of drug traffickers. Singapore has always been very tough against traffickers and drug abusers and we have been successful in our fight. While due credit must be given to the enforcement agencies, I would suggest that one of the main reasons behind our success is the existence of severe penalties in this country. Controlling drug abuse is only one aspect. The source of the problem is with the trafficker. Most major drug traffickers do not physically handle drugs themselves. They have a network working for them. There is now a concerted effort by many countries around the world to fight drug trafficking and one of the main weapons that these countries are using is the seizure or forfeiture of the assets and profits of these drug traffickers. It makes sense and it is effective because once these profits are seized, there goes the incentive to traffic. In my view, Sir, Singapore must play its part in this international effort to implement drug asset seizure laws and that I fully support the implementation of legislation with a view to forfeiture of the profits of traffickers. This can also be done without undermining our banking secrecy laws because provision can be made for information pertaining to customers' accounts to be available only to certain stipulated authorities in the event, for example, that prima facie evidence is produced to these authorities which demonstrate that profits from drug trafficking are now with Singapore banks.”
“Sir, this Government will certainly deliver the goods. It is not a wish. It is a promise. But we would like to see that promise fulfilled in a way which enjoys the support of the majority of Singaporeans. We would like to see that promise fulfilled in a way which will attract the best of Singapore and keep Singaporeans in Singapore. We would like to see that promise fulfilled in a way which will ultimately make us a better people and a better society. Sir, on that note, I thank all Members for their contribution, for their support, and I thank you, Sir, for your patience. [Applause]. Question put, and agreed to. Resolved, That the following Address in reply to the Speech of the President be agreed to: - "We, the Parliament of the Republic of Singapore, express our thanks to the President for the Speech which he delivered on behalf of the Government at the Opening of the Third Session of this Parliament." COMMITTEE OF SELECTION (Appointment of Members) Resolved, That this Parliament, in accordance with paragraph (1) of Standing Order 95, appoints the following as members of the Committee of Selection:- Mr S. Chandra Das Mr Goh Choon Kang Dr Lee Boon Yang Dr Seet Ai Mee Encik Sidek bin Saniff Dr Tony Tan Mr Wong Kan Seng - [Mr Wong Kan Seng.] ADJOURNMENT Resolved, "That Parliament do now adjourn to tomorrow, 1st March, 1991, at 3.30 pm." - [Mr Wong Kan Seng]. Adjourned accordingly at Eighteen minutes to Three o'clock pm.”
“It is a direction that I think is worth moving, and it is a good start that the book "The Next Lap" has been the product of the efforts of various Singaporeans outside the Government. Finally, the last major theme that has arisen in the course of this debate is Singapore's international profile, and that is also interesting in itself. Because, once again, it reflects where we are. Economically, I think, most of us are very comfortable, and because of that, we certainly have the time to think about all these ideas and to suggest that they be implemented. Now, we are not comfortable, we are not satisfied with thinking about what we ought to do within this country, we want to project ourselves overseas. That is going to take a long time. But this is the start. We want our businessmen to go out of this country. We want entrepreneurs to venture overseas. We have sent a medical team to the Gulf. We have sent relief to the Philippines and we want more of that. Because we have benefited from international society, so in a way it is a debt that we repay. But more than that, I think, more selfishly, we want to be known for what we are doing. We are achievement-oriented. We have achieved, we want people to know it. Not many people around the world know about Singapore, maybe more than it used to be. But we want more to know about us. And we figure that the only way that can be done is if we move outside the country, we extend our hearts and our minds and our money beyond our shores. There is nothing wrong with that, because someone outside Singapore will necessarily benefit by that exercise. One day, hundred years from now, maybe the history books will record the fact that there was this small country with a big heart. I think that itself is reason to be proud.”
“Sir, what, however, has emerged over the last few days is the recognition by Members of this House that whatever we do, there are certain fundamentals that we should not tamper with - defence, industrial peace but, most importantly, and most prominent in this debate is our multi-racial accommodation. For a change, Members have been pointing the finger at Government and saying, "You have forgotten to remind us in your Address that we have to maintain our multi-racial harmony." I do not think, to be fair, that the Government has forgotten about it or underestimated it. Because the manner in which this country is run is evidence of the fact that this Government is not likely to treat the subject of multi-racial, multi-religious harmony as blase. It is an important subject and it will continue to be important. But we have, I believe, reached that stage in our political development where we can sit in this House and delineate between serious discussion and frivolous argument, where we can talk about issues that are really going to affect us in the long term: participation, people's rights, the role of the media, multi-racial harmony, defence, etc, and accept that all of us have different views about them. We have reached that stage in our development where we are now saying, and I am very happy to hear that, that Singaporeans ought to begin to think and believe that they will have a say in the way our institutions are built up, established, formed, and that they will ultimately have to take responsibility for the kind of institutions that are ultimately established. It is not good bleating about a lack of say. If the opportunity is given, it must be grasped. And if it is taken, then so goes along with it the responsibility of the end result.”
“That opportunity to have access to basic services, basic needs, education, health and the like, so that even if they do not make it, then their children get an opportunity to reverse that difficulty. This debate has also been spiced up by a very vigorous exchange of views about which route we ought to take in connection with our national identity. Should we promote our separate cultures? Should we mix them all together in a "melting pot", which, I believe, is the phrase that was used. Both views have, in their own way, received support in this House. It is not the answer that we are seeking in this House. It is the ideas that we want to encourage Members to throw up because, whether it is a cultural policy, whether it is a medical policy, whether it is an educational policy, it does not really matter that Government has decided to take a certain course. Because any policy deserves to be reviewed from time to time. It can only be reviewed if we come back here and talk about it, and encourage others outside the House to do likewise. There is no right or wrong. It is an experiment. So we have taken the route where we promote our respective cultures. It is an exercise. It is an experiment we will know the result a few years down the road, maybe more. But it does not mean that the other view which has been expressed, which is that we should all get together and mesh our respective backgrounds, is wrong. It is a view which deserves consideration, and a view which may yet hold water subsequently, if things do not work out the way we plan them to.”
“But we want more. Bearing in mind the limitations of a Parliamentary democracy, we want Government to continue and expand this process and to give people the opportunity to say what they think about our policies. We may or may not agree with what they say. We may or may not take them into account finally when we do consider what policies we have to formulate and implement. But the point is they must be given an opportunity to say what they think, about how this place is run, and what they would like this society to be in 20 years from today. I was very happy to hear the speech of BG George Yeo. It augurs very well for us that a Member of this Government has affirmed in this House Mr Goh Chok Tong's promise of participation and has also encouraged Singaporeans to come forward to contribute because, after all, it is their contribution which will determine where we go and how far we go. The other major theme that has run through this debate is our quality of life. Members have given support to the Government's intention to upgrade our quality of life, but with a caveat. Members have asked and reminded the Government to continually bear in mind that there is a small group of Singaporeans who are not so fortunate, that group of Singaporeans which requires assistance, because despite their honest efforts, they are not just making it. They may well be slow learners, slow starters, or people who just do not achieve for various reasons. We have to find the place for them in our society. If they are born in this country and they are citizens here, they deserve as much respect as you and I get. In fact, they deserve a bit of help that you and I do not get.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I wish to thank all Members who spoke on the motion. They have all contributed to a very lively and interesting session. This debate has not been about whether the Government's programme in the President's Address is worthy of support. It is. I think we are all on common ground. There has been consensus amongst Members that the Next Lap is our masterplan for the future. This debate has not been about whether the Government will achieve what it has set out to do. It will. There is no dispute about that. The Government's 30-year record speaks for itself. This debate has not been about the gloss on the book "The Next Lap" or the number of pictures in that book. We are here to discuss, to brainstorm ideas, which this debate has been all about. It has been about our ideas of how we can make Singapore a better society, about how we can together achieve our collective vision, about how we can stand tall as a responsible member in the family of nations and about how we can meet the hopes and aspirations of Singaporeans of all ages and walks of life. Everyone in Singapore has an interest in the aims and objectives set out in the President's Address and in the book "The Next Lap". Members have taken painstaking efforts to think about and to present their views on how these aims can be achieved in a manner beneficial to the majority of Singaporeans. It is impossible for me, Sir, in this brief overview of the debate to do justice to all the speeches which Members have made. But I think it is fair to say that in those speeches there were a number of major themes which ran through them. First, the style of government. We have heard Members speak about how happy we are that this present Government has kept its promise to involve people in national issues.”
“It appears to me that it is only unequal and unfair to those whom the majority of Singaporeans do not want as their leaders. Does that merit change? Sir, I oppose the amendment.”
“While we talk about participation and while we talk about increasing participation in Singapore, there is no running away from the fact that there is one body which makes decisions, and that is the Government. And that is the way the people voted. While everybody will continually and increasingly have a say in the way things are run, everybody must accept that at the end of the day, like it or not, there are a few people who must decide and everybody should abide by it. And that is the way the system is. Once you start talking about referendums and once you say that referendums should be held, in his words "on issues of national importance", then we run into difficulties. Because not only then are we extending the concept of referendums to areas outside the Constitution, we are also going to run into difficulties of what are issues of national importance. Are we to have referendums on what are issues of national importance before deciding on referendums on the decision of these issues? The Government has to take a decision. In my view, holding referendums on national issues is an abdication of the Government's role in making a decision, a decision which the people have vested in the Government the power to make. As far as consideration of proportional representation is concerned, I adopt and agree with what my colleague, Mr Lim Boon Heng, has said. It has been canvassed in great detail and I see no purpose in covering the same ground. If he continues to insist that he has valid arguments to make for proportional representation, so be it. He can make it as a suggestion. But why withhold the thanks and support for the goals that we are trying to achieve? And I ask him to consider this. He says it is presently an unequal and unfair system.”
“Sir, I likewise oppose the amendment. Sir, Dr Lee Siew-Choh started off by giving us his views on the Gulf War and Singapore's position on the Gulf War. To me, it is a very simple issue. You either take a stand or you dodge the question. Singapore has always taken the stand that the rule of law must be upheld, and that is consistent with our position at the United Nations. If all countries were to remain quiet on account of perceived sensitivities, then Iraq would be sitting in Kuwait today. As I said earlier, we have benefited from peace derived from the maintenance of the rule of law, and certainly as the beneficiary of peace, we have a corresponding and ever increasing obligation to contribute to that peace, both by statements that we make in support of the rule of law and by active contributions towards that end. And in this regard, not only has Singapore done right, in my view, in taking a stand, it has also done right by sending a medical team to the Gulf. On the amendment, I am glad to note that Dr Lee does not take issue with the goals set out in the President's Address or in the Addendum and "The Next Lap". He appears, as I understand him, to be fully in support of them, and I think that is probably right because the goals are highly admirable and something that we should all aspire to achieve. What we are really concerned with today is the best way to reach those goals, and that is why we have all come to this House to give our suggestions, so that the Government is assisted in that exercise. But to withhold unconditional and unqualified thanks and support to the President for his Speech, I find it unable to accept or understand. He refers, in the first instance, to the institution of holding referendums. One thing has to be made clear today.”
“I am sure Members will have much to say about them. I have no doubt in my mind that given the chance, Mr Goh's Government will achieve what has been promised in the Address. Singaporeans should work with him because these are everybody's goals and they will benefit all of us. But as we work towards that end, I hope that this Government will continue to keep pace with the changing moods and aspirations of Singaporeans, especially the young, and continuously review its policies, approach and style to accommodate these changes. Sir, I beg to move. Question proposed.”
“But the young and the aged are helpless, as the war consumes them. It is very tragic because many parents will lose children, and many children will lose their parents. Unfortunately, the coverage in Singapore in one newspaper has, at times, been less than serious. I think it does not reflect very well on us as Singaporeans. War is a serious matter. It deserves grave reporting. While we work to extend our vision and compassion internationally, we should constantly think of ways of increasing our international profile. One way, which in my view has received little attention, is sports. Singapore never figures in any major sporting event. We are always left to root for participants with whom we have no bond. I do not for one moment suggest that we can overnight transform ourselves into a major sporting force to be reckoned with. But steps should be implemented to add on to the present policy of sports for all. We should actively encourage selected students to excel in sports. Disincentives ought to be removed. We should select the best athletes in school, nurture and develop their talent, give them incentives to concentrate and excel in their chosen field. Over time, we may not have a world class soccer or hockey team. But we may have teams who will do us proud in Asian competitions. That gives us a profile and an added reason to be proud. Government should not underestimate the power of sports to bring people together. I suggest that a crowd of 50,000 rooting for our soccer team has probably more patriotic feelings in their veins than the same crowd singing national songs. Why do we contrive of ways to evoke patriotism when sports bring them out instinctively? Sir, I have not touched on the details of the President's Address.”
“I ask they consider extending it and include access to satellite broadcasting if you want Singaporeans to have a global view of matters. We have begun to think in terms of the world and can only continue to do so if our understanding of the globe increases. It is because of our growing appreciation of our place and role in international affairs that Singaporeans have been generally very supportive of our decision to send a medical team to the Gulf. In the context of the allied effort, it is only a token contribution, but it is important in other ways. It is a signal to the international community that Singapore is willing to take concrete steps to back its belief in the rule of law. I do not think that it will be easily forgotten by the United States and its allies. It, together with our contribution in Namibia, will also slowly and steadily bring Singaporeans to terms with the fact that to be a beneficiary of peace, one must contribute to that peace. There will be many more occasions when our boys and girls will be called upon to leave our shores to aid international efforts. I hope to see us doing more, for example, for the people of Ethiopia. Some day maybe, we will send a relief team. This cannot but increase our sense of pride in being Singaporeans. I would like to see the media focusing on Singapore's role in the international context. The media really mirrors the state of our society. The Gulf War is a good example. It is not only a dramatic event, it is a very sad one. Hundreds of thousands of soldiers are fighting for a principle more importantly to them and to their families, they are fighting for their lives. There are millions of innocent people in the war zone, many will die. They did not start the war, they do not want it.”
“We can address that problem. It is not a difficult problem. But they fear that failure may be devastating to them and their children. Not many people are comfortable with that prospect. I would also like to see in the years to come less Government. Government runs virtually every aspect of our lives - from the types of homes we live in to the values we are to share to the amount of petrol we have to fill in to cross the Causeway. I believe that the way forward is less legislation to regulate our lives and less visibility of the Government. As we mature, we should rely more on persuasion than on sanctions to order the lives of Singaporeans. Too much legislation, in my view, gives grounds for all sorts of suspicion and criticism. It sometimes reflects a lack of confidence in the very people who voted us in. I accept that there are still many areas where only legislation can work and sanctions are required because of human frailties. But the less time we spend in Parliament regulating the minor aspects of the lives of Singaporeans, the better. Government should be less visible. We read too much about Government and Government policies in the newspapers. In my view, it is not necessary. The people in Singapore do not need to be convinced that they have a good Government and an effective one. They can see it all around them. I am not saying that there should be less coverage of Government policies and more of opposing views. I am saying keep domestic politics in the media to a minimum. Instead, and for example, give us more access to international news and commentaries. CNN is a welcome move. I thank the Ministry of Information and the Arts for it.”
“With open Government, we explain the reasons for rejection of certain applications. I accept that there are some which public security demands that no explanation is required or is necessary. But in most cases, explanations will help people address the problem, come back again, having addressed the problem, and apply afresh. I see that the Government is setting up a Service Quality Improvement Unit to monitor and improve the standard of public administration. It is significant that it will be under the Prime Minister's Office. I eagerly await further details of this Unit and of what Singaporeans can do to obtain redress for legitimate grievances as opposed to having to go through lengthy and costly legal disputes in courts. Let us also actively remove the "One-Mistake Society" label that we have. Singaporeans are talented. The younger more so. They have the ability to scale great heights. But they are being conditioned, in my view, to suppress their desire to do so because of the fear of failure, what one Minister has called the "Risk Averse Syndrome". We are so oriented to success and excellence that there is no place in Singapore for moral, intellectual, political, or social failings. This fear, in my view, restrains enterprise, engenders unhappiness and encourages people to look elsewhere. How can we expect to persuade Singaporeans to stay in this country and talented foreigners to come in when there is this constant concern that one mistake will render them social outcasts? Sure, there will be some talented people who will come because the living conditions in their country are far inferior to the living conditions in this country. But there are others with a choice and it is these people that we want. They are not coming because this country is culturally sterile.”
“Let us be a bit more thick-skinned to criticism. Let there by more channels for airing legitimate grievances and differences of opinion. If some disagree and openly say so, then let us convince our voters that we are right. That, after all, is our job. But let us not engage in open confrontation to the point where citizens who are basically loyal to this country are disenchanted and think of leaving us. If we are proven wrong, let us be gracious enough to accept our errors. We have often changed policies. I think we are becoming more comfortable about acknowledging that certain policies may not have been as effective as we would have liked them to be. It is my view that the people of Singapore, knowing that this is an honest and effective Government, will respect us. If we do come up-front and say, "We make a mistake and we are changing course as a result of what the people of Singapore have said", and if our errors are openly acknowledged, I think Singaporeans will not easily tolerate opportunists who wish to take advantage of our mistakes. I would also like to see more open Government and not just honest and effective Government. There is no doubt that our civil service is one of the most effective and honest in the world. But the question is: Is it the most satisfactory given the rising expectations of Singaporeans? We want to know why our applications have not been successful. The civil service makes decisions which affect us every day. They decide where we live, whether our family members living abroad can come back and rejoin us, what is our access to domestic help. The question really is this: Do we anticipate this change or do we wait for there to be an outcry for more open Government? There are two options.”
“It is very difficult to find fault with the aims and objectives contained in the book. It reflects the wishes of the man-in-the-street. That by itself surely deserves support. Look at the Acknowledgments page - seven pages of people who took time off to help the Government conceptualize a vision for this country. If your name is in there, then you have every reason to feel proud that you have had a say in what Singapore is likely to be in the next 15-20 years. And if your name is not there, then the way things are going, it is more likely than not that you will in due course have a say, either a big or a small say, in the way this place is run. I am confident that this process of letting the people have a say will continue and expand. There is no turning back. Government has involved the private sector. We cannot now ignore it. In my view, Government is vastly improved by the wealth of talent outside Government. We do not have a monopoly on smarts. There are many people in Singapore who love this place, who want to see it grow, but would like the opportunity of having their views aired, and the respect of having their views considered. The Next Lap goes a long way in accommodating this aspiration. I think we are on the right track. As the Government continues to encourage policy making and participation by the public in this exercise, we should also study how else we can accommodate the aspirations of Singaporeans, especially the young. For example, we must be willing to accommodate public criticism of our policies. We must be ready for it. In a way, it is of our own making. The Government has created the conditions in Singapore for the development of an educated and critical mind. The young in Singapore are becoming more self-assured and demanding in their needs.”
“Is it intellectually acceptable that the Government is making a decision which all my years of education tell me is wrong? And if it is wrong in my mind, can I say something about it? Can I change things? If I can't, what are my options? Do I stay here? Do I leave the country? If I leave the country, do I stand a chance of coming back if things do not work out abroad? For a while, it seemed like the Government was either not fully aware of or was not willing to accommodate this change in thinking. That led to unfortunate intellectual clashes which, while it demonstrated the no-nonsense attitude of the Government, did not address the underlying causes of this shift in outlook. In the process, quite a number of basically supportive citizens were alienated. Not because they did not support the Government but because they wanted the respect of having their views considered. But we are, I am happy to say, changing. And I believe we are changing in a big way. The President's Address is a re-affirmation of the Prime Minister's promise to open and maintain a dialogue with the people. The Address, if you look at it carefully, together with the Addendum, ie, the book, "The Next Lap", is couched not as a dictate but as an invitation to Singaporeans to work together towards certain goals. "Participation" and "cooperation" are the key words. Government has promised to widen public participation in national issues and the entire tone and approach is changing. The book "The Next Lap" is concrete evidence of this change. It contains noble aims and objectives, goals that we should all aspire to. But more important than that is the method by which the book came into being. It is a book produced by the people for the people.”