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 4 of 5.
“As a result, the older generation did not therefore see any purpose in questioning the policies or the mode and style of implementation. As we succeeded, so too our self-confidence grew and developed. We are quite happy, when we travel, to tell people where we come from, and what we have achieved. In fact, we have begun to tell others how they should order their lives, re-think their politics, and sort out their economic woes. With this confidence comes a feeling that if we can run our own lives, why should anyone run our lives for us? If we can, through our own intelligence and industry, comfortably sustain a family, own a home, a car, perhaps a membership in a club, have the means to travel, things which were not all so easily within the reach of our parents, who has the right to tell us what to do and how to do it? The young of Singapore are confident people. They know that they have the ability and the determination to pass examinations, get a job and do well. They read books, magazines, listen to the news, have intellectual discussions and hold strong opinions on a variety of subjects. The new Government may be highly talented but why, the young ask, should they listen to the Government when they can think for themselves? Who, they ask, is the Government to run their lives? Every move the Government makes is watched and scrutinised carefully. Every time a decision is taken, Singaporeans, especially the young, ask a series of questions. Why is this done? Is it for political gain? Do we have to make any sacrifices because of this decision? If so, what is the extent of our sacrifices and how will it impact on our ability and the ability of our children to live the lives they want to, even if no sacrifices are involved?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, 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.". This Session opens with a new Prime Minister in charge. The transition from the older generation to the younger team was handed in such a manner that it was effectively a non-event. To that extent, the former and present Prime Ministers have achieved their objective. Life in Singapore goes on despite the change and I think it is fair to say that Singaporeans are comfortable with the new team. What, however, is more significant than the fact of the handing-over of power is the result of that hand-over. Mr Lee's philosophy, put briefly, suggests that unfettered political freedom and choice is inconsistent with peace and prosperity. That for there to be peace and prosperity, there must be a core of leaders who are intelligent, honest, tough, and fair and that the people must be prepared to leave most decisions affect- ing their lives to a select few. And that if the people were to take their cue from the Government things would work for the common good. It is a philosophy which has worked for us. Its acceptance and support by the people has been the reason for our growth and stability. Mr Lee and his team were able to apply this philosophy in this country because of the circumstances under which his team came into power, and because Singapore was in such a state that it needed people like them to get things going. They transformed Singapore and our lives for the better.”
“If we can contain our emotion and always uphold the attitude of placing Nation above all, I think many, many problems can be solved. Taking all the major and minor events that happened in Singapore over the past few years, I cannot see any one of them which cannot be resolved through consultation. I have not seen any event in which any opposing view was being suppressed in the process of consultation. On the value of consultation, the tripartite cooperation between the Government, the employers and the employees practised in Singapore in resolving industrial disputes is one clear example of the consultative way of solving problems. As we all know, consultation has brought about our economic prosperity. Singapore has a conducive environment to attract investments. The average income of our workers has doubled once every ten years. I feel that this consultative approach to resolving problems is absolutely correct, there is nothing wrong with it. Perhaps if we make some minor amendment to the proposed statement by deleting the word "contention" and substituting it with some other suitable words, it would be more acceptable by the people. Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the motion. EXEMPTED BUSINESS (Motion) Resolved, That the proceedings on the item under discussion be exempted at this day's sitting from the provisions of Standing Order No. 1 - [Mr Wong Kan Seng]. SHARED VALUES (Motion) Debate resumed.”
“It would appear that our younger generation of Singaporeans are no longer having the type of traditional values that their forefathers had. Even if they do have the values, they do not observe them as fervently as their forefathers did. Without the traditional values left behind by the older generation, can our younger generation of Singaporeans survive the stormy world of today as smoothly as our older generations did in Singapore. When confronted with a national crisis, can our young Singaporeans act as their forefathers did by placing nation before self, and face the challenges with determination? This is something for us to think about. I feel that at this point of time, for the Government to propose this set of Shared Values which emphasises unity of our people, nation before self, and urge our people to help in our nation building with a positive attitude is a correct move, worthy of our support. Of the five Shared Values proposed in the White Paper, three of them are relevant to my points above. Firstly, Nation above all; secondly, maintain racial and religious harmony; and thirdly, to settle problems through consultation. The first two items are easier for our people to accept. But the third item has aroused much criticism, mainly because some feel that this would result in opposing views to be suppressed. Personally I do not think so, because we have already come to a new era. In the early days of Singapore, we did have very different political ideologies which were entirely incompatible. But these are things of the past. The type of present or future conflicts that we may have in our domestic affairs are not really that explosive.”
“These values could be seen and they have played an important role in our early days when we were fighting the Japanese, when we were striving for independence, and in our nation-building process after independence. After independence, we have been building our nation over the last 25 years. Our economic development has not been plain sailing all the way. In 1971, we had the early withdrawal of the British military forces and in 1985, we faced economic recession. Our people placed national interest above their own, and were prepared to respond to the Government's plea to tighten their belts and to put in a concerted effort to help our economy ride over the crisis. In 1985, particularly, our workers accepted a "pay-cut" which enabled Singapore to fully recover from the recession within the very short span of two years, and we recovered our international competitiveness. During our 25 years of nation building, we have also implemented many policies which have caused, to a certain extent, some temporary hardship to our people. One of these policies worthy of mention is the land acquisition policy implemented in conjunction with our industrialization policy. For all these, our people are prepared to tacitly sacrifice their own interest for the long-term interest of our nation and this has resulted in the economic success and prosperity we enjoy today. If what had happened during the last 25 years were to happen to the young people of Singapore today, then I am afraid all these effective measures taken during the last 25 years may not have been implemented as smoothly as they did. Otherwise, Prime Minister Mr Goh would not have to change the style of our Government to one of more consultative type.”
“Will they still be able to choose the vocation of their choice? Will they be directed to any particular course of study in the common good? These questions are basic and have to be answered. For otherwise, there will be no basis upon which we can invite a debate on these values unless people are fully informed as to the values, their extent and their full operational implication, people are unable to determine the merits of these values, and to either say Yes or No to them, or to perhaps offer a third solution. When the National Ideology was debated sometime in early 1989, I had suggested that it is very important for us to win the support of the people, especially the young. If the young do not accept the values and transmit them to the following generations, the entire plan will fail. So, I would urge the Government to undertake what in effect is a PR exercise to explain, by reference to real-life examples, how these values will affect them. Unless these questions are answered, I would suggest that it is premature to enter into a full-scale debate on whether these values are acceptable to us in the longer term. Dr Low Seow Chay (Chua Chu Kang)( In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the Motion. Singapore is developed from an immigrant society. In the early days, Singaporeans brought with them, from their native countries, traditional values which were essentially oriental values. They were hardworking and they attached great importance on family relations and morality, loyal to their nation and ever willing to help others. They were prepared to sacrifice themselves for their community.”
“If contention is to mean debate and clashing of ideas, then I would suggest that unless we have that debate and differences in opinion, it is going to be very difficult to accommodate different viewpoints, opposing viewpoints, on the merits of the White Paper. It is essential that there be some form of contention, some form of a conflict of opinion if we are to obtain universal acceptance of the Shared Values. To that extent, I am in agreement with my fellow speakers that the word "contention" either has to be defined or changed altogether. The third question is: Are we satisfied that by making contention a bad word we are not turning future generations of Singaporeans into "compromisers"? What we are trying to do here is to avoid clashes and disputes. If that is right and if down the line we lose the spirit to fight, to contend, do we also not stand the risk that in times of need, when the Government requires the people to take a strong stand and to support the Government in a strong stand on issues, the people will be more inclined to compromise because over the years, they have been inculcated with the idea that compromise is better than taking a strong issue on any particular point. I think that is worth considering. Finally, the last question is: How will the implementation of this value system affect the lives of ordinary Singaporeans? This is uppermost in the minds of Singaporeans. They see the principles in the White Paper, they read about it, but I do not think that they appreciate how these values will over time translate into operation and how they will have effect on their lives. What sacrifices will Singaporeans, especially the young ones, have to make to their personal choices in abiding by these values?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the Sikhs in Singapore agree wholeheartedly with the aims set out in the White Paper. As ideals to aspire to, the five shared values are highly commendable. In my view, while the White Paper should be used as a model for the development of our values, there are some questions which the White Paper throws up, but does not address. And I would like to take this opportunity to raise these questions because I believe that it is timely that they be answered. The first question is: what form will these values take? Are they going to be the subject of legislation or is it intended that they be translated in one way or another in directives? If so, what kind of legislation or directives does the Government have in mind to entrench and transmit these values? If legislation is intended, I would ask the Government to bear in mind that legislation is perhaps more consistent with imposing values, and it is not consistent with obtaining or securing a voluntary and widespread acceptance of these values. However, if it is not the intention that there should be legislation or directives from the top, then the question remains, how are we going to transmit these values? The White Paper suggests that it will be done perhaps through the schools and parents as well will be responsible for doing it. But the White Paper stops short of explaining how exactly this will be done and what sanctions, if any, will follow if students, parents or school teachers refuse to abide by these values. The second question is: how are we going to settle on these five values when one of them is consensus rather than contention? This, in my view, is a logical difficulty and again it turns on the meaning of the word "contention".”
“This will fortify or reinforce what we are doing in the way of consensual Government as well as give everyone affected by any policy the feeling that his views and his legitimate concerns have been taken into account. I support the Bill.”
“Sir, I support the Bill and I would like to declare my interest as a lawyer. I am very happy to note that the Minister has taken into account the views of the Backbenchers in connection with the admission of QCs. It is very important that we do not close the door on the admission of silk from London or elsewhere for the reason, as the Minister has stated, that there are many cases in Singapore. Which still require their expertise. Of course, there will come some point in the future where the door will have to be closed but that only in circumstances where we are satisfied that our local talent pool has grown to a size which is sufficient to service the requirements of the local community. What is also very significant, in my view, of what the Minister has just said is that, apart from taking into account the views of Backbenchers, the Minister has also taken into account the views of the Law Society. I commend that, because it is my view and I would respectfully suggest that in all situations where policies are being formulated and Bills drawn up which affect, directly or indirectly, the interests of professional bodies, then their views should be sought, so that they can offer ideas as to both the policies as well as to the crafting of the Bills. These are the people whose views are most important because they have their ears to the ground and they are the most experienced in that particular field of activity. It is not necessary that you accept what they say but the opportunity ought to be given to them to air their views and we should, in Parliament, be in a position to consider those views and, if we do not accept them, to say why we do not accept them.”
“The Bill will effect a fundamental change to Singapore's Constitution and our system of government. I support the plan to commit the Bill to a Select Committee, in order that we may refine it further. The people must take this opportunity to discuss it and give their views, in the interest of Singapore and in the interests of our future generations.”
“For example, under the ISA, the Minister for Home Affairs can detain anyone involved in subversive activities. If the Advisory Board chaired by a Supreme Court judge advises that a detainee be released, the Minister will have to abide by the advice. Otherwise, he will have to get the concurrence of the President. Thus, the President will have the power to either release or detain a detainee under ISA. The granting of wider powers to the President is a wise move and is in the interests of the country and the population. This would certainly ensure the stability of the nation. Fourthly, the Bill provides for the setting up of a Council of Presidential Advisors. This is an advisory body comprising qualified individuals who will act as a check on the President. The President will have to consult the Council in the exercise of his powers to reject or approve the Government's budget. Thus the Council in turn ensures that the President does not abuse his own powers. Mr Speaker, I would like some clarification from the First Deputy Prime Minister as to how the Elected President will be elected. Will he be bound by the regulations of the Elections Department? I ask this question as I am concerned that the Presidential elections might involve massive use of funds and that we might then be heading towards a system of Presidential elections that thrives on money politics. We have to be careful about this. Perhaps we could limit the amount of funds to be used by each candidate, like under existing election laws. Finally, Mr Speaker, the Bill is important as the Elected President will serve as a check and balance that will ensure that Singapore will be administered capably and honestly.”
“With the powers vested in the President, these funds will remain secure and when the time comes for us to withdraw our CPF savings, the money will still be there and will still have its value. Secondly, the Bill enables the President to reject the appointment of key personnel in the public service if there is nepotism or where the appointment is made for political reasons. In other words, where the Government appoints candidates to key positions in the public service to serve its own political interests or where leaders place their own relatives to fill these appointments. We can see examples of this in many Third-World countries, where an excellent civil service was inherited from a former colonial ruler but as a result of nepotism and appointments on the basis of political connections, the country suffers a breakdown of its administrative system and falls into ruin. We are fortunate, Mr Speaker, and we are proud that, in Singapore, appointments of key personnel in the public service are made on the basis of meritocracy and that this has produced a public service that is clean, capable and trustworthy. We must defend this policy because it is an important factor in ensuring justice in the public service. We must maintain it in order to ensure the integrity of our civil service. Through this Bill, the Elected President will be able to play a role as a check and a safeguard on our civil service. Thirdly, the Bill gives the President the power to prevent any abuse of the powers of the Minister under the ISA and the Maintenance of Religious Harmony Bill and in relation to the CPIB. The President will be able to act as a check on the powers of the Government in these three areas. This is necessary to prevent Ministers from acting arbitrarily and abusing their powers.”
“I gave my full support because the Elected President will be charged with safeguarding our national reserves and ensuring that the public service is headed by qualified and competent people of integrity. Parliament has accepted the principles set out in the White Paper as the basis for preparing a Bill on the Elected President. During the past two years or so, the public has given their views and suggestions. Indeed, this became a major issue in the General Elections of September 1988. I am impressed by the way the Government sought the views of the public, including the Members of Parliament in this House. The Government's openness in this feedback process is something we can be proud of. Mr Speaker, the outcome of the lengthy discussions on the issue is the present Constitution of the Republic of Singapore (Amendment No. 3) Bill. Besides his primary powers of safeguarding the national reserves and the integrity of the public services, the Elected President is to be given additional powers, ie, to prevent abuse of the Minister's powers under ISA and the proposed Maintenance of Religious Harmony Bill and in relation to the CPIB. I support the Bill for a number of reasons. Firstly, the Bill enables the President to stop an irresponsible Government from squandering the reserves in extravagant programmes, such as providing excessive subsidies, not to ensure the survival of the people in times of adversity but simply to win votes in an election. The President will be given veto power and in this way he would be able to prevent the country from losing its reserves and falling into bankruptcy. The people of Singapore should know that almost all our national reserves stand as a guarantee of our CPF savings. The funds belong to all the workers of Singapore.”
“To me, these people must have certain qualifications and experience. They must be well versed in banking, finance and monetary matters and with a good knowledge of Government's fiscal policies, state affairs, internal security and religious matters. They must also not belong to any political party. These qualifications and experience should be clearly spelt out in the Constitution. This will ensure that only Singaporeans of the right calibre and qualifications are appointed to the Council. Sir, because the power conferred upon the Elected President is quite diverse, ranging from protecting the nation's reserves to internal security and religious harmony, it may be difficult in practice to find six wise men who are equally well versed in these various fields. My point here is: should we not provide in the Constitution for a greater number of Council members? Do not limit it to six members, but allow for, say, a minimum of six and a maximum of 12. This will allow for greater flexibility and also ensure that more capable and well qualified Singaporeans can be appointed to the Council. In summary, Sir, I urge the First Deputy Prime Minister to consider including in the Constitution more specific criteria for Singaporeans aspiring to serve on the Presidential Council and a provision for the Council to have up to 12 members. Encik Ibrahim Othman (Bedok GRC)( In Malay): Mr Speaker, when Parliament debated the White Paper on the Constitutional Amendments to Safeguard Financial Assets and the Integrity of the Public Services in August 1988, I supported the principle behind the idea of the Elected Presidency.”
“Sir, under the Bill, the President will be advised by a six-member Presidential Council, two of whom are to be appointed by the President himself, two by the Prime Minister and two by the Chairman, PSC. The President, as the First Deputy Prime Minister had said, must consult the Council when exercising his discretion to approve or veto budgets of the Government, statutory boards and key Government companies. In practice, the President will also consult the Council on all other matters where he has discretionary powers, such as key public service appointments, the Internal Security Act, CPIB investigations and religious harmony. Sir, this Presidential Council has, therefore, a very important role to play. It is indeed a very powerful Council. It, de facto, acts like a Senate or an Upper House of Parliament. The Members who form the Council must, therefore, be able and well-qualified men or women of the highest standing and integrity. Article 37D in clause 6 of the Bill only states that they must be Singaporeans of not less than 35 years of age. Sir, the Bill contains stringent criteria for any Singaporean aspiring to be an Elected President. But it is seemingly silent on the criteria for any Singaporean aspiring to be an advisor to the President. Sir, I think the Bill should be more specific and to state clearly the qualification criteria for Singaporeans wanting to serve in the Council. We could argue that, in practice, members appointed to serve in the Council would be Singaporeans of good standing since they would be appointed by the President himself, the Prime Minister and the Chairman, PSC. But should we take the chances? I think it is better to state in the Constitution some specific qualifications for Singaporeans aspiring to serve in the Presidential Council.”
“And it should not be a long time either because it limits the time within which any damage can be done. I support the Bill. Mr Chew Heng Ching: Sir, I asked a young Singaporean lawyer for his opinion regarding the plan to give more powers to the Elected President. He told me frankly that he did not see the need for an Elected President in Singapore. I asked him why. His immediate reaction was: why change the system that had worked so well for the past 31 years? When I asked him if he realised that the amount of reserves which the PAP Government had accumulated through prudent government in the last 31 years could vanish overnight by a future irresponsible Government, seeking short-term popularity, squandering the savings built over the decades, by turning Singapore into a welfare state. When I asked him this question, he raised his eyebrows. Sir, I believe the view of this young Singaporean lawyer reflects the complacency among many a young Singaporean today. He seems contented and tends to take success for granted. He assumes good, honest, effective Government will be here to stay, in perpetuity. Sir, I support the Bill before us. To me, it is a very important Bill because it involves a fundamental change to the system of government here. The proposed change serves as a safeguard for the future. It is also an insurance against bad or irresponsible Government. To me, it reflects an on-going effort by the present PAP Government to build in checks and balances and to preserve and strengthen our political institutions for the long-term benefits of Singapore and Singaporeans.”
“The people will be happy with the result or the people will not. If they are happy with it, then the incumbent President, who is obstructive, can be voted out in favour of one who is supportive of the policies of the government of the day, or in fact with the requisite majority, even legislated out of existence. However, if the people are not happy with the government which they have voted into power, then what this Bill does, in my view, is to give them a second chance, a chance to force fresh elections, by voting in a President who is likely to block the policies of that government. In my view, if you have a President, who does not see eye to eye with the government, a deadlock must ensue with the result that the government must call for fresh elections for a bigger mandate. The Bill, therefore, gives the people of Singapore a chance to either confirm or revoke the mandate that has been given to the government during the general elections. I accept that this process will cause some disruption. But balance that against the loss of investor confidence which will come about, if investors perceive on the horizon a risk of political instability because the people, who are unhappy with the government, cannot do anything about it for at least four to five years. To give optimal effect to this Bill, I would, therefore, recommend that instead of the scheme of Presidential elections every six years, we ought to consider elections within a stated or fixed period after the general elections, six to twelve months, for example. The reason is this. It gives Singaporeans sufficient time to consider whether they wish to stand by their decisions during the general elections or whether they wish to revoke it.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the Bill because of its message to our investors as well as the second chance that it gives to the people of Singapore. We are heavily dependent on foreign investments. They are our life-blood. A stable political climate attracts the best of these investments and the success of these ventures by the creation and distribution of wealth in turn contributes to that stability. Investment decisions are based on a number of factors. One is the integrity, prudence and economic orientation of the Government. Another is the support which the Government enjoys from its people. Investors always have an eye out for the next general elections and they tend to keep themselves well informed about the moods of the electorate. So long as there is stability, so long as the government of the day creates circumstances which are right for investment and for business, and so long as the system is sound, honest and effective, investments will stay and more will come. But these are, if you like, big "ifs". There is no certainty, because the system has to be renewed as it were every four to five years. It must have the mandate of the people. And if the government of the day which has created or continued that system, whether it be this Government or any other government, is voted out, then I believe that foreign investors will transfer their assets elsewhere, and together with them, will go our economic future. There may come a time in Singapore when the government, which is voted into power because of its different priorities, may have an economic orientation which is not identical to that which this Government boasts of. And that may be a PAP Government, it may be a non-PAP government, it may be an alliance. One of two things will then happen.”
“If guidelines have not been complied with, then the man-in-the-street will know what he has to do to comply with the relevant guidelines. If these steps are put in place, Sir, people will believe that they are being given fair treatment. If that is the case, Sir, there will be very little reason, or at least less reason, for them to be upset with the system. Our system cannot be hurt if we experiment with an exercise to ensure fair play.”
“Ministers are accountable in a way. Public servants may well take the position that they are accountable to their respective Ministers in Parliament. But there is this theory of accountability of Ministers in Parliament which in practical terms works in a very limited way. We all know that in Parliament we debate legislation and we discuss policy matters through the legislative process. It is a very rare occasion when we get down into the nitty-gritty of individual complaints, ie, complaints of constituents in relation to their livelihood. We do not discuss these things in Parliament. It is in our interest, I suggest, that we develop a system of accountability, a system which will assure the man-in-the-street that if he has a grievance, he can take it to a person or a body who has a right or has power to look into it, look into the files of the Ministry, if necessary, or bring a complaint of shoddy treatment up to the superiors. This can be done by appointing a commissioner, or what in other jurisdictions is called an Ombudsman, with powers to look into complaints, with powers to redress grievances about treatment. Alternatively, the terms of reference of the Feedback Unit could be widened. So people with legitimate grievances can come forward and feel and believe that there is someone willing to listen to them and someone willing to take something up. At the same time, I would ask Government to consider changing the entire system about not giving reasons when decisions are made rejecting applications. Reasons should be given as far as possible. If reasons are given, constituents or MPs, on constituents' behalf, can know the reasons why an application is unsuccessful and take steps to address that problem. If more information is required, obtain that information.”
“It is time that we changed the stony and sometimes disrespectful face of the public servant and made him accountable for his decisions which affect the lives of the man-in-the-street. Accountability of the public service is, in my respectful view, the safest guarantee for the integrity and survival of the system. Hundreds of Singaporeans interact with public servants everyday and quite a few of them walk away extremely disgruntled for two reasons. One, the nature of the decision which is made in respect of their case and, two, the manner in which they are treated. As things stand today, public servants can make decisions without giving reasons for those decisions. And without reasons, how are we to know whether those decisions have been taken rationally, legally, in good faith and with full access to all relevant information? Most of us believe that the public service in Singapore is well oiled, fair, efficient. But there are many people who feel differently. These are the people who have had their applications rejected without reasons. These are people who have gone for assistance, for answers, to public servants but have been treated very badly, extremely shoddily. And their feelings for the Government must take a turn for the worse and with good reason. This is all very counter productive because, as we know, our Ministers spend a lot of time listening to members of the public, accommodating their views. They do their best to give members of the public as much access to them as is possible. What good is all of this going to do if the representative of the Government, which the man-in-the-street encounters everyday, is rude and is disrespectful? Sir, all of us are accountable. MPs are accountable to constituents. Judges are accountable to Appellate Judges.”
“Due to education and information, we have been brought up to question, to assert our views, to demand respect and to take control of our own destinies. Gone are the days when Singaporeans would do what they are told to do because it is in the interest of themselves and in the interest of Singaporeans. Some of us see this as a degenerative trend which, if left unchecked, would result in a tearing of our social fabric. Measures have been put in place, for example, the reshaping of our educational policies and the encouragement of acquisition of cultural ballast. And in fact we have also been accused of over legislating. These measures have an effect but the effect will be limited. The process of westernisation is an inextricable one. There is no stopping people who have had the benefit of education and information from reaching out for western ideals, especially accountability. There is just too much information flowing into Singapore and the sources of such information will increase over time. Increasing numbers travel and they make up their own minds about the merits of one system over another. Satellite TV, as we all know, is at the doorstep and I personally cannot see how we can keep the door shut. Short of a calamity affecting the standing of the United States in the eyes of the world or affecting our livelihood, it is my view that this empathy for the need for accountability will strengthen with the passage of time. If the system is to survive, we must anticipate and accommodate these ideals of democracy. We must adapt our style and system of government so that we keep in tune with the mood, as it were. Participation in government is one such way and we have been doing that. I applaud that move. But we have to move further afield now.”
“Sir, I support the motion. The President has given us a general idea of how Singapore will be governed under the new leadership. Two features stand out in particular - consultative government and the Elected President. Whatever the merits of the Elected President, what impressed me were two vital ingredients which have been endorsed by the Government, ingredients which are vital to administration in any democracy. First, open government and, second, a system of checks and balances. Sir, a government which is detached, impervious and inscrutable can be effective but not indefinitely. It can only work where and for so long as you have people who due to their circumstances are preoccupied with other problems, for example, the need to survive. Our parents found themselves in that situation. They were out to sink roots in Singapore. Their primary concern was to earn a living and to do that, they needed a secure environment. They had come from places and backgrounds which had given them a real sense of insecurity and which encouraged them to play the game according to the rules, as it were. They were not likely to rock the boat or to allow anyone to do that if the result of that exercise were to increase the insecurity in Singapore. They had nothing to gain from challenging, questioning or taking issue with the manner in which government was run if that government was seen to be fair and honest. They had other problems on their mind. In that context, one can understand why in the 50s and the 60s it was not fashionable to demand for the rights which during that time had become cherished by the Americans - democratic ideals, in particular, the need for accountability. But we have come a long way.”
“The way to address this, I believe, is perhaps the formation of a committee comprising representatives from the Ministry of Law, a judge perhaps and definitely lawyers. We must have lawyers on this committee to decide or to give their views on what nature of applications should we exclude Queen's Counsel from. It is not a difficult task because you can identify a whole series of applications which you do not require specialist assistance. If we can prepare an exhaustive list, then in so far as they are matters which fall outside that list, we shall then leave them to the courts to decide whether in each particular case the matter is of such a complex nature that it requires assistance from England. That way we assist the courts in their task and I think we also develop talent in Singapore. But until that is done, the paramount interest must be the protection of the client. And if the client is better represented by a Queen's Counsel, then he must have that right.”
“You can go and appear in Court, at the same time do office work, whereas in England you decide on graduation what you want to do. You either do a solicitor's job or you become a barrister, and you spend the rest of your life doing that. You join a particular set of chamber. It may be commercial, it may be criminal, and you do nothing but the type of work which that set of chamber attracts, and therefore you specialise. The question is: should we in Singapore follow that system? Should we also have a split profession? Personally, I think not, for the reason that we will not, in the foreseeable future, attract good people to do a barrister job. There is not the status of a barrister's in England that is present in Singapore or will be present in the foreseeable future. It is also not an easy job. It is not as lucrative as a solicitor's job. If we are not going to get good people to join the Law Faculty in the first instance and then to persuade these good students to specialise in barrister's work, then it is going to be very difficult to build up a core of specialists who can appear in Court to the exclusion of Queen's Counsel. What then is the solution? The solution is not to carry on the present practice, which is to have ad hoc admissions of Queen's Counsels, whether the case is complex or not. I firmly believe that Queen's Counsels continue to play a very useful role in Singapore. There are many cases which they should continue to appear in which perhaps local counsels are not as experienced or not so specialised in. For example, constitutional law and some aspects of commercial law. But then again, there must be stricter guidelines in the sense that we must limit admissions to highly complex matters.”
“Thank you, Sir. Sir, in Singapore there are two types of lawyers who can appear in the Courts - first, it is the Singapore lawyer who has been admitted to practise in Singapore; and secondly, it is the Queen's Counsel who is admitted on a case by case basis. The Queen's Counsel is only admitted if he satisfies certain pre-requisites, one of which is that he must be a specialist in his field. The rationale behind allowing admission of Queen's Counsel is this. Queen's Counsels are experienced English Barristers who specialise in one area of the law. You may have commercial law, but they specialise in a sub-area within that wider field, for example, either in banking or company law within a commercial field, and similarly for constitutional law and public law. There are two advantages to this. First is that the client gets better representation. It must follow that if you have a barrister who spends the better part of his life dealing with one area of the law, chances are he will be more up-to-date and that he will be better in that area than other lawyers. He will also be able to see more issues and different angles to any one problem within that area of law. The second advantage is that the law in Singapore develops. This is because Judges rely heavily on Counsels. And if Counsels are good, they will be able to assist the Court in relation to the applicable law and how the law should move, whether in line with the law in England or whether specially in a particular direction in Singapore. Why is it that they specialise and Singapore lawyers do not specialise to the same degree? It is because in England the system is a split profession, unlike Singapore which is fused. Here, after you graduate from the Law Faculty, you can practise both as a solicitor and as an advocate.”
“Mr Chairman, Sir, I beg to declare my interest as a solicitor. Sir, last year I had raised the question whether our insolvency laws would be revised to bring them in line with the Insolvency Act in England and the Minister said that he would look into this. I wonder whether he could be good enough to give this House a progress report on that. Sir, while I am on my feet, may I have your permission to touch on a topic which Dr Beng raised, that is, Queen's Counsel?”
“It is their right to do so as individuals. If they think that the Government is bad or evil, they should throw out the Government through the ballot box as individuals. That is what elections are all about. That is why we hold elections regularly and fairly. It is a non-violent constitutional way of changing governments. And this is the best safeguard against abuses of this Bill when it becomes law because any abuses of the law will be highlighted by politicians and that government will lose support during elections. If we observe the simple rules of live, and let live, and keep religious authority separate from state authority, there will be peace and harmony among Singaporeans of different religions and different political persuasions. This is what the Bill seeks to achieve. In a sense, this Bill is a recognition of a retrogression, or potential deterioration, in religious harmony. The Government takes no joy in introducing it. I take no joy in speaking on this subject. It is not something which we are very proud of. We introduce it more in sorrow than with joy. It is to prevent us from sliding backward. It is an act aimed at preserving common sense and harmony. 1.37 pm”
“Because if we allow the Catholics to be involved in politics as a church, we must allow the Buddhists, the Muslims, the Hindus to do likewise, and all others who want to use their religion to advance their political purposes or to use religion to get into the political arena to advance their religious faith to do so. In Burma, the Buddhists monks were involved in politics. In Sri Lanka, they too were at the forefront fighting against the Jaffna Tamils and the Hindus. If religious leaders in Singapore apply force on the Government, it will be a no win situation. Because the Government will enlist the help of those religions well-disposed to it. There will be strife and Singapore will end up worse than Northern Ireland and Lebanon, because in these two countries, at least the people are all Irish or Arabs. Here, we are not of the same race. Having said what I have said, I come back to the basic point that it is indeed difficult to try and separate spiritual political life. It is not a new problem. I think church versus state has been a problem for centuries. We studied the history of England, history of the church in Europe. It has been a running battle over many centuries. But we can try and separate the authority of the religion from the authority of the State. I think that is a bit easier, keep the two authorities separate. What we are trying to do in Singapore is actually to follow the American example where the church and State are kept separate. Let me conclude by saying that Singaporeans are free to believe in whatever religion they choose so long as they do not go overboard and engage in activities which can cause disharmony or which can lead to disorder. They are free to engage in politics whatever their religious faiths.”
“" In other words, they preach active non-violence. But, if necessary, violence can be used. Under the section on "Church and Partisan Politics" - " ... the whole Church must be involved in political activity which means organized, purposeful activity for the common good ..." This document is an example of what liberation theology teaches. Liberation theology advocates the involvement of the Catholic Church in the political arena to protect human rights and advance the common good. It was spawned in Latin America and found its way to the Philippines a few years ago. It was a rationale for religious organisations to enter the political arena to challenge the government. It legitimised political activism under the cover of the church. Some liberation theologians preach the gospel of violence, struggle and revolution. In other words, not all, but some do. Given the conditions in the countries where liberation theology originated, ie, in Latin America, we can understand why many religious thinkers felt impelled to do something about human conditions in this world, and not just for the next world. The Singapore Government does not presume to judge the rights and wrongs of liberation theology or of their movements in other countries. It is not within our means or within our right to judge whether they are right or wrong. All we are saying is whether it is wise to practise this in Singapore, whether it is good for Singa- pore and whether the practice of liberation theology in Singapore would not lead us to ruins.”
“" "The local Church's role vis-a-vis governments may have to become more critical and prophetic, ..." " ... The Church does and should not support [that means, does not and should not support] individual candidates or particular Parties in a public way because of the division this can bring to the community, but there is a need to morally support and challenge politicians to maintain Gospel Values and to be informed of the social teachings of the Church." Then under the section on "Parties Catholics can Work With" - "In the political process, Catholics have to connect with, other religions such as Buddhism and Hinduism, with some religious groups who take an adversary position against the Church, with Racial groups or with Marxists. In each case discernment is needed to decide how best to work for the common good without compromising the position of the Church. Cooperation with Hindus and Buddhists has been generally successful. Catholics can help influence them to respond to their needs and can work with them to respond to human rights issues and the needs of the poor. With mixed racial groups, the work of the Church should be to encourage multi-racial parties or activities to work towards reconciliation and to prevent polarization with Marxists. Though Catholics cannot accept Marxist ideology, they can dialogue and work together [that is, the Catholics and the Marxists can dialogue and work together] in a practical way under certain circumstances for the common good. This dialogue and cooperation will require prudence and proper discernment." How would they respond? " ... "Active non-violence" is the final point. Catholic teaching adds that when all these means have been exhausted and the tyranny continues, violent response may be a possibility.”
“And just to illustrate the point that I was not painting an imaginary picture, I will quote you some abstracts from a document which ISD found amongst the possessions of Vincent Cheng. I think all of us remember Vincent Cheng rather well. This is the report from a workshop organised by the Federation of Asian Bishops in Tokyo called the Federation of Asian Bishops Conference in 1986. Its title was "Laity in Politics and Public Service". It is quite an interesting report. I think there are about four or five pages. I have extracted some relevant quotations, and I will go through them to let you get a feel of what they were contemplating and what they believed in. There is no suggestion here that they are up to any mischief. I think they believe in what you call liberation theology, and this is a document which relates to the teaching of liberation theology. "The group reflected on situation in different countries of Asia of poverty, injustice, and tyranny in various forms and also on the fact that there is present a great amount of opportunity and freedom to respond to political happenings. " This was in the opening paragraph. "Politics is not dirty ... It involves organised, purposeful activity for the common good, ... the Catholic is called upon to participate in activity that leads to the common good." Nothing wrong with that. " ... As the church in Asia becomes more self-reliant and more mature in its own understanding and as the laity become more aware of their call by God to be living members of the community, concerned with the common good, the hour has come to discern how to become more truly a community concerned with human rights and a people with a clear option for the poor.”
“And it will be foolish of any group, any religious group, to think that they can harass and unseat the government without expecting the government to strike back, using a counter religious force, if necessary. Let us examine the distribution of Singaporeans by religion. The Straits Times conducted a survey in January-February 1988. Christianity or Christians - some 19%. Say, some groups in the Christian faith (I am using this as an example) try to use their faith to harass the Government, to unseat the Government, to get Government to change its policies. Then, the ruling Party or the Government during election time will have to craft its election speeches accordingly, appealing to the majority. Because no government is going to allow its authority and power to be challenged by another group, using religion for that purpose. And how would the election speeches be crafted? Who are the majority? In Singapore's context, 43% of Singaporeans are either Buddhists or Taoists. And if that force is not sufficient, I think political parties will also look for other religions which are well disposed towards those parties and less well disposed towards the group that was trying to use its own religion to challenge the Government. For example, speeches can also be made aiming at the Muslims and the Hindus to get their support. Where will this end? It will mean the end of Singapore. Isn't it? I make this point not as a threat, but to urge all Singaporeans to take a practical, commonsensical approach in our religious and political lives. The present situation where there is clear separation between religion and politics is the best and most comfortable for us all. We want to keep it that way. I was not speaking in the abstract.”
“That it is not easy, and perhaps not possible, to separate our spiritual life from our political day-to-day life because politics and religion represent one's total way of life. But, nevertheless, we must try, in the context of a multi-racial, multi-religious Singapore. And we must try for the good of all Singaporeans. Let me put it this way. If a religious leader is entitled to his political views, and of course he is entitled to his own views, but if he is allowed to use his religion to advance his political views in churches, mosques, or temples, we must allow a politician, who also must be entitled to his own religious views, to use Parliament and mass rallies to propagate his religious views. In other words, a religious leader has got the right to have his own political views. A politician too is entitled to his own religious faith or views. If you allow the religious leader the right to propagate his politics, you must allow the politician the right to propagate his religion in Parliament, during election time, over mass rallies. So where will that lead us? Can you imagine where it will lead us? If we try and push our religious beliefs indiscriminately and try to use that to change certain government policies or even governments, then the State and the religion concerned must clash - for we are using the authority of a religion to challenge the authority of the State. First, it will start off as a clash between a religion and the State, and then as the clash develops, it will degenerate into a clash between a religion and perhaps many other religions. Now, let me explain how this process will come about. Singapore is a multi-religious society.”
“Some 30 MPs and all the GPC Chairmen who were consulted were generally supportive, and convinced that we need to do something. But we did not take a head count, so I would not know whether the support is unanimous. Still, when the Bill was ready last year, we decided not to table it immediately but to publish a White Paper, because we have got to look at the people outside this House who have not yet been consulted. We wanted the White Paper to explain the background and to explain why the Bill was necessary. A draft White Paper was circulated and discussed with various groups, such as GPC Chairmen and the religious leaders. The Prime Minister met them and a few other Ministers met them too, and I was also there. I also personally conducted two dialogue sessions with two different groups of community leaders, some 2,000 of them. They made significant suggestions and their suggestions were incorporated into the final White Paper. The changes were accepted, and we were happy that we consulted them because there were useful points made. And this reinforces my personal viewpoint that there are benefits in consultation because in consultation, in the very process itself, we are able to build consensus. Now that you have got a good sense of how the Bill has evolved and why we took such a long time to evolve this Bill, I want to address one point which seems to trouble many MPs and some people outside this House, that is, for some religions, including Islam and Christianity, religion is a total way of life, and a person cannot compartmentalise his religious life and his political life into two parts. It is not really possible to separate the two halves and I concede that. I agree with that point of view.”
“We cannot risk this Bill being misconstrued as a curb on religious freedom or a curb on the freedom of expression of individuals. So not only had the Bill to be drafted with some care but care had to be taken to explain and satisfy the people as to its objectives and operations. There is another reason why the Bill has such a long gestation period. I had to convince my fellow Cabinet members and MPs to come along. Quite a few had reservations initially. I believe the Minister for Home Affairs had lost count on the number of drafts he went through. We have in our Cabinet, and in Parliament, Ministers and MPs of so many different faiths -Christians, Muslims, Buddhists, Taoists, Confucianists, agnostic, no religion, free thinker, Hindus and maybe one or two others. And we had to take into account the reservations and apprehensions of the MPs and the Ministers. They asked the questions which MPs are now asking: Will the Bill be misunderstood? Could the Bill be abused by a less honest government in future? These are very legitimate questions and it shows our concern as a body of politicians over how a Bill can be misconstrued and over abuses of a Bill. And I think it is a healthy trend that we should show such concern. But as we discussed and as we pursued our points, and as we worked and improved on the Bill, a clear consensus emerged. I am glad to say that the White Paper and the Bill reflect the unanimous view of all my Cabinet colleagues. I cannot say, however, whether it reflects the unanimous view of all MPs, the PAP MPs. I know that the Workers' Party MP does not quite agree with this. The Minister for Law and Home Affairs did consult a cross-section of MPs.”
“We did not reject it outright. Although we thought that was not the way to go, we kept it open as an option. We used that to discuss with other Ministers and MPs in 1987 and 1988, both the draft Bill as well as the Declaration of Principles. We felt that the solution was to have a legally binding code. We were aware that we were breaking new grounds. So we looked around at other countries to see how they tackled the problem. Other than Turkey, which has some provisions in its Constitution and Criminal Code on this, no other country has a law along the lines that we envisaged. And because of this we proceeded ever so carefully. We wanted a law that could deal with the problem in a very fine way instead of having to resort to ISA or the Sedition Act or to use court prosecution under some other relevant laws to deal with those who cause disharmony through religion. I have heard the arguments by many MPs over here and also other people outside that we should not introduce a Bill because we have already under existing laws the means to enforce discipline if some people were to go beyond the bounds in propagating the religion. If they support the use of the ISA or other laws to enforce what we want to do, then I see no reason why they should not support this Bill because this Bill is intended to be a finer way of dealing with the problem. It is like trying to use a scalpel to make a precise incision to deal with problem cells instead of having to use a chopper to amputate. This Bill has taken us nearly three years to lay before the House. I think we took the right decision not to rush it because religion is a very powerful, emotive subject. It was right that we were very circumspect and very measured in our approach.”
“Option One, a non-legislative, non-enforceable approach. For example, to come out with a set of guidelines or guiding principles, make this into a Declaration of Principles, a list of do's and don'ts to guide religious leaders and members of their flock; or we can choose option two, which is to have a legislative, enforceable mechanism, a law that could restrain trouble makers, those who jeopardise religious harmony. We were not decided which option to take. So we asked the Attorney-General to put up two drafts - one a Declaration of Principles and the other a draft Bill. Both were submitted to us in June 1987. The Declaration sounded good. It was indeed a possible option for us to take. I will read to you just one or two guidelines what we had in mind. For example, it would state: 'All persons are guaranteed the freedom to practise and propagate their religion. In the exercise of this freedom, they must have regard to the multi-racial and multi-religious character of our society and, in particular, the sensitivities of persons professing other religious beliefs and practices.' Another guideline: 'No religious group shall incite or otherwise influence its members to violence or to be hostile towards other religious groups, races or classes of the population.' I do not think many people will quarrel with the guidelines. But we asked ourselves what purpose would such a declaration serve? The majority of religious leaders and members of religious groups would readily agree and observe this principle. Our problem was the minority of persons who did not agree and would pay no regard to such principles. That is the problem that we have got to deal with, the minority. Therefore, useful though the Declaration of Principles was, it would not meet our purpose.”
“It is a do-nothing approach and nobody would know that there was such a problem. It would not be discussed. Painless, no political cost at all, or at least no immediate political cost. The cost may come later on. The second option will be controversial. It means another set of rules to govern the way we behave and it will carry some political costs. And it will carry a big price if we are unable to explain and persuade Singaporeans to believe in our explanation that such a Bill is required. Since the radar signals showed that there are dangers ahead I felt that it was unwise not to do something about them. In fact, I felt that it would be thoroughly irresponsible on my part and on the part of the Government if we do not take preventive action now. I consider racial and religious harmony as the most important bedrock of our society. If there is no harmony there will be no peaceful prosperous Singapore. As simple as that. The Prime Minister and his colleagues have spent many years to build up this climate of harmony amongst Singaporeans and nurtured a climate of tolerance amongst people of different religions and I have every intention of ensuring that such a happy state of affairs remains. I then discussed the subject with my Cabinet colleagues and most of us decided to act. Most, because not all agreed that we should introduce a legislation or take steps to prevent this trend from developing. There were some of us who argued that we should leave things alone. It is a very sensitive subject, very emotive, and they said, leave things alone, leave well alone. After all, where is the problem? Having decided to do something about the problem, our next question was: what form of action? Again here we considered two options.”
“I found myself reading the Catholic News not for its theological teachings but for its articles on political issues like MNCs, foreign workers, and the Newspaper and Printing Presses Act. I wondered how these articles got into the Catholic News when they had nothing to do with religion per se. The Prime Minister also read the ISD reports, the MCD reports on religion and publications on liberation theology. So he became quite an expert on this subject. He saw the danger signals. He was very concerned. It was clear that we would have a problem on our hands, first, of many religious groups competing fiercely for followers leading to the possibility of clashes and, second, of some religious groups entering the political arena through their religion and causing a collision between religion and the State. We spent sometime to discuss the implications where all this will lead us to. I think the conclusion was obvious. It will lead to disharmony, disorder, chaos, confusion and conflict. At the same time, the Prime Minister said that it was not an immediate problem. It is not something which would take place very quickly or in one or two years' time. It was a problem of the future and because it was a problem of the future he left the decision to me and my colleagues. It is one in which we have got to deal with because it is something which will happen not in 1986 but perhaps several years down the road if the trend was not checked. I had two options: leave things alone and hope for the best a do-nothing approach and hope that good sense will always prevail and religious harmony will somehow be maintained. Or I can decide not to take risk and do something to preserve the present harmony amongst Singaporeans of various religions faiths. The first option is easy.”
“It started some time in 1986 when we read ISD reports on how certain religious groups were becoming over-zealous in their proselytisation, how aggressive propagation of faith was affecting others and how other religious groups were planning to fight back to retain their following. We studied the situation to see whether these were isolated incidents or they represented a trend. We came to the conclusion that it was a trend, not just in Singapore but worldwide. We then asked the Ministry of Community Development to commission and do a proper study of religious trends in Singapore. This study was undertaken by three NUS lecturers and they published several reports, the final one being the Report on Religion and Religious Revivalism in Singapore in October 1988. The study confirmed that religious fervour was indeed on the rise in Singapore and also in the world, and that, to quote from the Report, "followers from some religions have also become more fervent in their religious interest and activities." This was true not only of the Christians but also of the followers of other religions, the Buddhists and also the Muslims. We were not concerned with the rise of religious fervour per se, but worried that such a trend in a multi-religious, multi-racial society, might lead to a clash between religions. That was our concern. This trend in religious fervour was complicated by another trend, the mixing of religion with politics by some sections of the church. ISD sent us reports on a number of Catholic priests and activists using social action to take on the Government and alerted us on the introduction of liberation theology into Singapore or the practice of liberation theology into Singapore.”
“I think they can be assisted in that task by a person who is experienced in that field and a former judge would, in my opinion, be the right person. I would also ask the Minister to consider whether deliberations within the Council can be disclosed in a court of law, whether express provisions have to be made to render these deliberations privilged from disclosure. Two final points. I would ask the Minister to consider whether clause 8 should also extend to activities of intra-religious groups as opposed to just activities of inter-religious groups. Lastly, whether provision ought to be made for a restraining order for the Minister to be vested with power to issue a restraining order for the 14-day period between the time the Minister determines that he intends to issue a prohibition order and the time that he does so. There may be circumstances where the conduct of the person in question is such that it is continuing and it might be prejudicial and there may be cause for an interim restraining order until the final decision is made. I support the Bill, Sir. 12.59 pm The First Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Defence (Mr Goh Chok Tong): Mr Speaker, Sir, the Minister for Home Affairs has given a comprehensive explanation of why we need the Bill. I want to complement him by bringing you into the inside track so that you can appreciate better how the Bill has evolved from start to finish. The Bill may have taken two and a half years to finalise, but actually the idea started long before that.”
“It is in the interest of the people that there be certainty and I would venture to suggest that it is in the interest of the Minister as well that people do not feel that he has vested in him a discretion which is too vague to define. In fact, if a religious leader or a head of a religious body were to recommend the principles behind this Bill to his flock, then arguably, that act, that recommendation, may be equivalent to promoting a political cause, because it is in support of legislation. Clearly, this is not intended. There are things that they should be allowed to do and there are things that they should not be allowed to do and there must be some definition. There must be clear-cut guidelines to enable the citizens of Singapore to determine how they should conduct themselves. Having said that, Sir, I would like to make a few suggestions in relation to some substantive and drafting aspects of this Bill. Clause 7 of the Bill provides that the proceedings of the Council shall be secret and that no person shall be permitted to divulge anything that transpires within that meeting unless he is expressly authorised to do so. The Bill does not say who is entitled to authorise a member of the Presidential Council to disclose the contents of those proceedings, and I think that that should be addressed. Secondly, I would recommend that, in so far as the constitution of the Presidential Council is concerned, a former judge of the Supreme Court should be made a member. Because the Presidential Council will be considering evidence which will be put before it by the Minister and will have to engage in the exercise of evaluating the evidence and determining what weight to attach to that evidence.”
“But the Court of Appeal in Singapore has had occasion to express an opinion on the meaning of the term "domestic politics". This was in a decision reported in the 1989 Malayan Law Journal 385 in the case of Dow Jones Publishing Company Asia Inc versus the Attorney-General. In that case, the Court of Appeal expressed the following opinion: 'In the context of Singapore, domestic politics would in our view include the political system of Singapore and the political ideology underpinning it, the public institutions that are a manifestation of the system and the policies of the government of the day that gives life to the political system. In other words, the domestic politics of Singapore relate to the multitude of issues concerning how Singapore should be governed in the interest and for the welfare of its people. In this broad sense, the political, social and economic policies of the government of the day are part and parcel of the domestic politics of Singapore.' That is an attempt by the court of appeal to define the term "domestic politics" and it is binding on all Singapore courts. The term "political cause" must have the same width or is necessarily wider than the term "domestic politics". It is too wide and it is too vague and for that reason, I would request the Minister to reconsider the use of that term and to identify another term to enable the purposes of the Act to be carried out. It is a difficult task, I appreciate. But if laws are to be passed, there must be certainty. People must know what they can and what they cannot do. There cannot be doubt.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the Bill. After the publication of the White Paper, I had occasion to meet the leaders of the Sikh community in Singapore. At that meeting, we discussed the contents of that White Paper and the proposed legislation. The Sikh leaders comprise the Presidents of the Sikh temples in Singapore and the Chairman of the Sikh Advisory Board. They are all in full support of this Bill and of the principles behind it. The reason for their support is two fold. First, they understand the good sense behind this Bill and, secondly, it is consistent with the principles of the Sikh religion that there should not be inter-meddling between religious groups. I would venture to suggest that we have seen overwhelming support in this House for the Bill as well as support outside this House for this legislation primarily because this Bill does not state anything new. We have all along conducted ourselves in Singapore on the basis that we should mind our own business and that if we interfered with any other religion, trouble will result. These are the unwritten rules that govern our social conduct. All this Bill seeks to do is to translate that into a written form and formalise the relationship between the peoples of Singapore. Having said that, I would like to say that I personally have difficulty with one aspect of the Bill and that relates to the prohibition against the carrying out of activities to promote a political cause. My difficulty arises from the inability to define the term "political cause". It is something which is easy to recognise but difficult to define. The Bill does not have a definition of "political cause" and I think it is not found in our statute books.”
“It is this difficulty that I was addressing - the trap that we have fallen into by looking at the form and not the substance. He says that the NCMP has a measure of support. What is a measure of support? Is one vote a measure of support? Is the second highest poll a measure of support? It does not really matter. What matters is an opportunity is given for another viewpoint to be expressed and we should ask ourselves: is that opportunity good for Singapore? Is it good for our legislative process? And if the answer is yes, as it must be, then Mr Chiam has no ground to stand on.”
“In much the same way as the principle has been deviated - if that is the correct use of the word - by the presence in this House of the NCMP. It is hardly true, is it, that he is the representative of the people in his constituency? That constituency has elected another Member of this House. But the NCMP is with us today, has been with us for this term, takes an active part in this discussion. And I do not recall Mr Chiam jumping up to object to what the NCMP has said and actively contributed to debates in this House.”
“It is a bold move and we ought to support it. If it is a gamble which can only result in harm to ourselves but good to the others, then it speaks volumes of our good faith. I would urge this House to look at it in this light. Let us give it a try. Let us give it a go. If it does not work, it can be rectified. Nobody will be hurt. If it works, Singaporeans will be the better for it. I support the Bill, Sir.”
“As I see it, none of the established principles of parliamentary democracy has in any way been violated by what is being proposed. Parliament remains supreme. The entire exercise is within the control of Parliament through a Committee. There is accountability. A point was made yesterday about the absence of accountability on the part of these nominees. I would like to think that we are all accountable to ourselves for what we say and we are also accountable to everyone in Singapore whose future is affected by us and who reads what we say in the papers and who watches us on the television. Accountability to our constituents is a well-established principle. But it is not a notion to be used to stymie an exercise to further the legislative process. What is legislative process? What is our role here? Our role is to ensure that any Bills which are passed are passed for the benefit of Singaporeans as a whole, for the majority of our voters. Does this mean that we are constrained by principles which have been laid down years ago in other countries? In fact, personally I am not even moved by the examples cited by the First Deputy Prime Minister. We do not need illustrations. We can be the pioneers. If the end result of the legislative process is that it works to the benefit of the populace, then it is something that we should support. At the end of the day, one should ask oneself: is this Bill going to hurt anybody? If we think about it, it cannot but hurt only the governing party. If it succeeds, we are all the better for it. If it fails, well, it will be perceived to be a wrong move. As I said, the man-in-the-street is not affected. But the governing party is doing it knowing that the only adverse repercussion can be on it and on nobody else. It is a gamble.”