Goh Chok Tong
Singapore
“This is what your father said during the debate on the Nassim Jade episode: "The proudest thing (for your mother) are her three children − upright, well-behaved and honourable... They are brought up straight, they are likely to stay straight. It is like, as I have said, a code of honour. If you break that code, you have brought shame...”
“They are not just the headaches of the Prime Minister and his team. They are not just the headaches of the PAP. They are also the headaches of the Workers' Party and every Singaporean. On their own, the Prime Minister and his team cannot resolve them. They require us, the Members of Parliament, and the people, to work with them.”
“The national financial education programme, MoneySENSE, continues to work with partners such as the Association of Banks in Singapore (ABS) and the media to educate consumers on the responsible use of credit facilities and the factors consumers should consider before taking on debt. PROPERTY AGENTS' COMMISSION RATES 2.”
“Mdm Halimah Yacob asked the Minister for National Development (a) in 2008, what is the takeup rate for the interim rental housing scheme that is provided to those without homes; (b) what are the reasons given for rejections under this scheme; (c) whether the rental rates were affordable; and (d) how many applicants had rejected the rental…”
“MAS is working with relevant government agencies and stakeholders to study the issue carefully, and to consider the various proposals that have been raised, including the feasibility of introducing a no-fault regime.”
“Mdm Cynthia Phua asked the Minister for National Development (a) if he will provide an update on (i) the use of sustainable alternative materials in the construction industry and (ii) the cost of construction materials in view of increasing inflation rates and rising oil prices; and (b) how will the high material and labour cost impact on…”
The complete record
Every one of 1,367 lines we hold for Goh Chok Tong, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 12 of 28.
“I suggest that we focus on the Report of the Select Committee and the various changes made to the Bill. I shall myself focus only on three politically more significant areas: 1) pre-qualifying the Presidential candidates; 2) requiring candidates who are members of political parties to resign from their party before nomination day; and 3) requiring the President to consult the Council of Presidential Advisors on appointments. Changes have also been made to the financial provisions but I shall not deal with them because they are essentially technical. These changes are an improvement. They increase the effectiveness of the financial provisions but without unduly hampering the operations of Government, statutory boards and Government companies. On the first major issue, this was whether we should retain the approach in the original Bill whereby Presidential candidates are required to meet more than minimal constitutional qualifications and disqualifications. The original Bill seeks to require exacting standards of competence, experience and rectitude of Presidential candidates. But some representors argued that the qualifications would deprive many people from the chance of being elected President. The Select Committee examined this issue at length and decided to retain the pre-qualification approach. The Report listed many reasons but the main reason is that it must not be easier for a person to become a President than a Prime Minister. In other words, if you compare the position of the President with that of the Prime Minister, one should not be able to become the President much more easily than to become the Prime Minister. I agree. The Elected President's responsibility is as critical as that of the Prime Minister's.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Third time." We have taken a long time and taken our time to bring the Bill to this stage, deliberately. The Elected President proposal is an important innovation to the way we govern ourselves. It seeks to check and balance the powers of the elected Government in two key areas - the spending of reserves accumulated by a previous government and the preservation of integrity of the public service. It is an innovation tailored to meet the unique circumstances of Singapore. Because it will change our familiar system of government, we have moved step by step to take this Bill through Parliament. The Elected President proposal was first mooted by the then Prime Minister Mr Lee Kuan Yew in 1984. The first White Paper was published and then debated upon four years later. A second White Paper incorporating useful suggestions by MPs and members of the public was tabled in August 1990. This was followed by the Bill, and a thorough debate on the Bill in October last year, at the end of which I referred the Bill to a Select Committee. The Report of the Select Committee is now before the House. The Select Committee considered some 34 serious representations and sought clarifications from 10 representors in public sittings. I believe the Bill, as amended by the Select Committee, is practical and effective in meeting its objectives. I want to place on record my and the Government's appreciation for the many constructive comments and criticisms and suggestions made by both MPs and representors. Their participation has been useful and helpful. The Bill is the better for it. For the debate today, I propose that we avoid covering old grounds.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, his point is noted, that he has got more experience than Mr Jeyaretnam on this matter.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, on the first point why do we introduce the NMP Bill now, I think there is no need for us to go through old grounds. We have argued this point during the debate on the Second Reading on why we want to introduce the NMP Bill now. I still maintain that Dr Lee Siew-Choh has an unnecessarily suspicious mind and worse, I think he is following the footsteps of his predecessor from the same party over here, going on fishing expeditions, making wild allegations, smearing here and there. And if he is not careful, I think he would go the same way as his predecessor.”
“May I answer that point? I think in Parliament if Members feel strongly over certain issues, Members can always move a motion and have the matter discussed.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, there is no real conflict. When an NMP is appointed into Cabinet, it means that the government of the day values the convictions, the judgment and the expertise of that particular NMP. And of course from the government's viewpoint, there must be certain overlapping interests. In other words, the government believes that the NMP's viewpoint coincides with its own generally and can contribute to good government. So the government will appoint him as a Minister. That Minister would not be a member of the political party which runs Singapore. That Minister therefore has more leeway than the other Ministers. He contributes as a Minister but he is not like the other Ministers and he cannot be disciplined or have the Whip imposed upon him. It is entirely up to the NMP who is appointed as a Minister. It is like a Cabinet where you have a coalition, two or three parties forming a Cabinet. And because the coalition government comes from two or three different parties, they have different viewpoints in Cabinet and one party cannot impose its viewpoint on the other party. There has got to be a compromise. Likewise, when an NMP is appointed into the Cabinet, we would expect that kind of debate or compromise to take place before a policy is accepted. So it is non-partisan in the sense that it is not politically affiliated to a particular party.”
“Mr Chiam made some points which actually have been debated during the Second Reading and I do not believe we should go over the same grounds in the Third Reading of this Bill, eg, the essence of democracy is that you must have elected representatives and so on. I think this is the wrong forum for that debate. Mr Speaker, Sir, I believe I have covered most of the main reservations or queries of the MPs who have spoken. Again, I urge, take a detached view, approach this from the higher interest of the nation and not on how the NMPs would affect us personally. And despite the reservations, I urge, give this a try and I believe you will see the merits of the scheme and the contributions of the NMPs when they come into this House. And if you are not convinced after trying out this scheme for the remaining period of this Parliament, in the next Parliament you decide. The Whip will be lifted and you can decide how you want the NMP scheme to go in the next Parliament.”
“The answer lies in giving Parliament the discretion to decide on NMPs. He made the point that a party should not use the NMP scheme to consolidate its position. I have a different view on this. I think it is all right for the parties to consolidate their position by appointing the right people into Cabinet. If the NMPs can make a contribution to the government, that party does consolidate its position. But it does not help that party to have additional numbers to consolidate its position, because on matters of confidence MPs can move a motion of no-confidence against the government, but NMPs have no votes. So the additional NMPs do not help to consolidate the party in charge by having additional numbers in the party, because NMPs would have no votes on motions of confidence. Dr Lee Siew-Choh again made wild allegations without facts that our mind has been made up on the appointment of somebody into this House. Otherwise why do we provide for this uncertainty in expenditure in the Bill. If he refers to all Bills, he will discover that those are standard wordings, because expenditure cannot be estimated. Yes, we can estimate the allowances that are paid to NMPs precisely, provided we have agreed what the allowance is. But we have not agreed what the allowance is. There will be advertisements, and the procedure itself will incur some costs and those are not at this moment known. But the main point which I want to make is that the NCMP is very fond of making wild suggestions without any basis of facts. I can assure him and this House that we do not have anybody earmarked to be an office holder.”
“Its Constitution states that "the Prime Minister shall appoint a Minister of State [that is, Minister]. However, a majority of the number must be chosen from among the members of the Diet." In other words, in Japan which is a democracy, they can appoint non-Diet members to be Ministers, provided the majority still come from the elected representatives. Those are the main arguments why the Select Committee decided on allowing NMPs to be considered for appointment as office holders. We can look to other countries, eg, the United States, which has a different system. It is not a parliamentary system. But the President has the right to appoint Secretaries of State to assist him. And NMPs do give a future government that additional flexibility which I think will be very useful for Singapore to have. There were a few other suggestions by other MPs which related to the questions which I have dealt with, eg, by Dr Lau Teik Soon. He suggested that the public should be allowed a say on who should be nominated into Parliament. He asked for the opportunity to be given to members of the public to register their approval or disagreement. I want to remind the House that this is a scheme for nominated MPs. It is not a scheme for elected MPs. So I think we keep the public out. Just leave it to the Special Select Committee and leave it to the MPs who have been elected. Perhaps it is not in the Bill, but I think the Special Select Committee can also consult the Non-Constituency MP in this House. It is entirely up to the Special Select Committee to do so. Dr Wang Kai Yuen suggested that whether we have NMPs or not should depend on the number of Opposition MPs in this House. It was the point which I think he made in the debate on the Second Reading of this Bill.”
“And you can count the number of positions in Cabinet from which such a ruling Party will have to select its Ministers. There are certain key positions where we should not just have a politician to head the Ministry. We must have the right politician, the man who is capable of doing the job, and the most critical Ministry, in my view, is the Ministry of Finance. I would rather that a government has the flexibility to appoint the right person to be the Minister for Finance than to compel that government to select from whoever is available in the House to be a Minister for Finance, even though he is not the best person. Again, my approach is what is in the interest of the people. If you appoint a rather inadequate person to be the Finance Minister, after four or five years, the economy is mismanaged, your reserves are depleted because of incompetent management, are we better off as a people or are we worse off? I believe we are worse off. And I want to give this flexibility to a future government that may need to have recourse to such an option. This recourse is fair to both parties because we cannot envisage down the road 30 years from now, 40 years from now, who will form the Government and what kind of Parliament we would have. I think it is wise for us to have this flexibility for the future, for the good of Singapore. I hold the view that what we do is not undemocratic because there are precedents for this. In Thailand, General Chavalit resigned yesterday so that he can be appointed a Minister, and he does not have to go through elections to be a Minister. Thailand is not the only example. In Japan, one can also be appointed as a Minister from outside the Diet, the equivalent of Parliament, and this is provided for in the Constitution of Japan.”
“But if he wishes to hedge his bet and stand as an independent, I do not think we need to require him to resign. It is entirely up to him. Again, I think convention will evolve over time. I see no real purpose served in requiring him to resign legally. Hence the Select Committee did not make this change to the Bill. On the more important point of appointment of NMPs to office positions, I can sense the unhappiness of Members of Parliament over this change because it does mean that the Government is looking outside this House, not this Government but perhaps a future government, to appoint certain people into office positions. I can understand their reservations and their unhappiness. But my primary concern is for the good of the nation, and I am not referring to the present Parliament, a point which was missed by Dr Lee Siew-Choh. We have 80 out of 81 MPs in this House and we are going to have in the next Parliament perhaps just as many PAP MPs in this House as now. I see no need for the PAP to appoint a nominated MP into Cabinet. But let us look further down the road. What are the possible scenarios - 20 years, 30 years? Can you assume that Parliament will always have 80 MPs from which to choose the Cabinet? I do not believe that 30 years down the road, we can still have the same situation. I hope we can, but I am not sure whether we can because success, I think, breeds certain restiveness in the population, and the population may want to vote in more Opposition Members. Or perhaps down the road, an alternative party can emerge and contest with the ruling Party and split the seats more or less half-half, in which case, whoever forms the Government in the future will have only about 40, 41 MPs to choose the Cabinet from.”
“In this way, the Special Select Committee actually would be able to know the views of MPs in so far as their support for certain nominees is concerned. And I believe in the process of consultation, views can be made known to the Special Select Committee, whereas if you go through a process of voting, the views of MPs may not be known. It is only an "aye" or a "nay" on particular nominees. I believe the procedure which we have outlined is superior to a simple process of voting in Parliament. Again, I believe we are over-arguing the point about NMPs having to retire or resign from political parties. I think the point is taken. If a person wishes to be an NMP, he should by convention resign from a political party. I prefer to leave it to convention because I do not want to load the Bill unnecessarily to legally require a person to resign from a political party. I think it is unnecessary. Anybody who wants to come into this House as an NMP, and who has been a member of a political party, should resign. Anyway, the PAP will make sure that if we have such a person who wishes to be considered, and who is in fact considered and selected by the Special Select Committee, that man should resign from the party, so that he can keep his distance from the party, and have his independence in voting and speaking on issues. I believe this convention should also apply to NMPs who wish to stand for by-election. I do not think there is any purpose served in requiring an NMP who wishes to stand as independent from resigning his position. You can call him opportunistic, wanting the best of both worlds, so be it. But I think a certain convention will evolve over time. If an NMP wishes to stand for elections or a by-election, as a member of a political party, he should resign.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I thank all Members of Parliament who have spoken this afternoon. I notice that some MPs still have some reservations over certain changes to the original Bill. The points which they addressed have been debated by Members of the Select Committee and I would try to use the points in the Report to persuade those MPs who still have reservations to come on board. First, on the question of "sunset" clause, Dr Arthur Beng raised the point that if we do not lift the Whip in the next Parliament, it is as good as getting the NMPs accepted not just in this Parliament but also in future Parliaments because MPs who disagree will not have a choice. My approach in this exercise has been to try and persuade as many MPs as possible to come on board. If MPs are prepared to come on board on this issue, I am prepared to let them man the oar on this issue in the next Parliament. In other words, I am prepared to lift the Whip on this particular issue. I think it is fair that MPs should decide at the next Parliament whether they want to have NMPs or not. For this Parliament, I think once we have debated and decided, we should go ahead to appoint the NMPs. On the question of procedure, I believe some MPs are making heavy weather of the issue. For example, they argue that there should be a secret ballot for NMPs. I do not think the procedure of a secret ballot is superior to the one which we have put in the Select Committee's Report, and that is, for the Special Select Committee to consult, wherever possible and practical, each and every MP, either individually or as a group. In the process of consultation with the MPs, if Members so desire, the Chairman of the Special Select Committee can always do a quiet tally as to their views on particular nominees.”
“Just one final word. There is no need for us to pursue the subject any further. The decision has been taken by the people, and it is clear as to where the decision lies.”
“Sir, I am perplexed by the stand of Dr Lee Siew-Choh. I do not know what rule he is going by to say that the Government does not have the support of the people when it has 60% of the votes, and it has won the election decisively - 80 out of 81 seats. In case he has forgotten, there were 11 uncontested seats, and we claim 100% of those votes. Added together with the seats contested, I think we can come to some conclusions whether we have or do not have more than two-thirds of the popular votes.”
“In the last election, town council was an issue but the issue was the elected President and both the Opposition and ourselves joined issue on this. Let us not forget that. We joined issue on this and they went out to campaign that the PAP should be denied two-thirds of the seats so that we could not carry through the proposal. They lost. I think the matter is closed. As to consulting the people, that will carry on. The Bill will be presented to the House. It will be fully debated in this House. We will hold feedback sessions with members of the public to explain the intricacies and the main objectives of the Bill. We will send it to a Select Committee so that if there are suggestions for improvements on the Bill, those suggestions will be taken into account by the Government before we pass the Bill in this House. I think I have said as much as I could say on this subject. To repeat, we intend to table the Bill before this House sometime this year, and Members will have full opportunity to debate the provisions in the Bill.”
“Sir, Mr Chiam See Tong was wrong to say that we promised to table legislation before Parliament in December 1988. Certainly I did not create that impression that the Bill was intended to be tabled before December 1988. It could not be possible because we held the election in September 1988, and at that time none of us had decided when the first Parliament Sitting would be held. So nobody in his right mind would have promised to have the Bill tabled in Parliament before December 1988. Again, he suggested that somehow we created the impression that the elected President proposal was to be implemented almost immediately. To borrow his words, "imminent". I think he was the one who created this impression in the minds of the public. All we did was to put our necks on the chopping block because this was an important issue. We wanted them to know that when we were returned after the elections we would proceed to implement this constitutional change. Nowhere did we create the sense of imminence that the proposal was about to be implemented immediately after the elections. It was the Opposition parties who suggested that there was a ploy, that Mr Lee Kuan Yew was meant to be the first candidate for the elected President. In the process, I think they have created this impression in the people's mind that it was something to be held imminently. I am a little surprised that Mr Chiam should be wondering why we took such a long time. It is an important piece of legislation and I thought he would welcome the fact that we are letting the matter lie for as long as possible so that he, Members of the Opposition parties and the public, would have as much time as possible to think over this, to chew over this and to digest the proposal before the Bill comes before the House.”
“I stand corrected. He was ill when he summoned Lord Home. He did not summon Lord Home on his dying bed. Resolved, That the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore (Amendment No. 2) Bill be committed to a Select Committee consisting of Mr Speaker as Chairman and seven Members to be nominated by the Committee of Selection. - [Mr Goh Chok Tong]. 4.30 pm ENVIRONMENTAL PUBLIC HEALTH (AMENDMENT) BILL Order for Second Reading read.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, before I move the motion to commit the bill to Select Committee, may I make a point of clarification? In my speech, I mentioned that Lord Home was summoned by Harold Macmillan on his dying bed. I am sorry. I think I despatched him many years too early. He had to resign because of the Christine Keeler affair. An hon. Member: He was ill.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, I just want to make one clarification. I did not imply in any way that our PAP MPs are not performing to expectations. I thought I should make that clear. Therefore, the remarks of Dr Beng would be irrelevant because there was no such implication whatsoever.”
“Nobody has the right to advise us, according to the Prime Minister.”
“We have the power here. We are elected by the people.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I was referring to the principle of people who are not elected to check those who are elected by the people. I do not have the quotations which he has. If I can borrow his papers, I will quote the same thing in his face and say that he has in fact contradicted himself with his proposal.”
“Can I just seek a point of clarification, Mr Speaker, Sir? The Member for Ayer Rajah has proposed a solution to my proposal to have Nominated MPs. His solution is that we should set up a body outside Parliament to check and vet the policies of the House. Is he not arguing against himself when he proposed this? Because earlier on he has quoted, I think, from the Prime Minister and from the Chief Justice's Commission and so on that nobody, who is not elected by the people, should be given the power to check the powers of the elected representatives. Dr Tan Cheng Bock: Mr Speaker, Sir, when the Prime Minister made that statement, he was saying that these people should not be in Parliament. They can do so outside Parliament. Because in Parliament it is really involved in a political debate which is very different.”
“A point of clarification, Sir. May I ask the Member how does the proxy work? How do these people who speak for the communalists and the chauvinists get into the House?”
“I think one who does not hold any official position, and I can say that most PAP MPs are very close to the Ministers. But when they solicit funds or they organize a party to raise funds for their Party, they do not in any way use their official position. They approach supporters purely as Party members. HOSTING OF US MILITARY FACILITIES 3. Dr Lee Siew-Choh asked the First Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Defence whether, under the proposed agreement to grant military facilities, the United States will be permitted to keep nuclear warheads and other nuclear weapons in Singapore, whether on land or aboard vessels or aircraft stationed in Singapore under the agreement. The Minister of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr Peter Sung) (for the First Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Defence): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, this question now is in the domain of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. With your permission, I will reply on behalf of my Minister. Since the visit of the US site survey team in June 1989, there have been no further developments. The US Government is presently studying the report of the site survey team. They have not yet decided what facilities they would like to have in Singapore. The US has not raised the issue of nuclear weapons with Singapore. The question is therefore hypothetical.”
“And the Prime Minister has not made that statement. The question asked was, as I suspect, to give a yes or no answer which would, in fact, put the one who answers the question in a bad light. It is a double-edged question. I have therefore spelt out the exact position of what we should or should not do and what the Prime Minister has made very clear in his speech to the Party members and supporters in that fund-raising dinner.”
“Ministers of Government do not solicit funds.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I do not quite follow the question of the Member for Potong Pasir. Which statement is he referring to?”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I thank Mr Chiam for that clarification. Ministers of Government, as the way he spells it out, do not go out in their official capacity to raise funds. In other words, I as the Deputy Prime Minister, will not approach any Party supporter to contribute to the Party. If I do approach, it will be in my capacity as Mr Goh Chok Tong, Assistant Secretary-General of the PAP. But in order that there is no hint of any improper practices even I, as Mr Goh Chok Tong or as Assistant Secretary-General of the PAP, do not approach anyone for funds for the Party. We leave it entirely to Party MPs who are not Ministers.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, it is entirely different. In the Recruit case, I think favours were done to the company which donated funds. In our case, no favours are done or will be done for those who contribute to the Party.”
“The answer is no. They are not connected at all with the business of government. This is purely for the Party, and I suspect that the Member is also thinking of how to raise funds for the Party. If he is nice to the Chairman of the PAP fund-raising committee, Mr Chandra Das, I am sure he can give him a few tips.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I think the fund raising objective is quite obvious. The fund-raising committee, if I may elaborate, comprises Backbenchers and also non-MP members. The Chairman of the fund-raising committee is Mr Chandra Das. Mr Chua Sian Chin is also a member and I think there are one or two others whose names I cannot remember. They approach Party members, friends and supporters who believe that they should contribute to support the system through the Party. And the system which we are talking about here is the system of good government, honest government, and having this integrity in our society which is what the PAP stands for. As to the amount, we leave it entirely to the donors who came for the Party function.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, as I said just now, the Party has vast numbers of supporters, and we leave it to the fund-raising committee to select those who feel that they should contribute to the Party. I hope that the Workers Party, to whom the Member belongs, is not asking for ideas on how to raise funds for his own Party.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, if he is a Member of the Cabinet he must be a Minister. He will be a Senior Minister in the Cabinet. TENANTS OF HDB SHOPS AND FLATS (Rental arrears) 2. Mr Peh Chin Hua asked the Minister for National Development how many tenants of Housing and Development Board shops and flats were unable to pay their rental arrears in 1987 and 1988; what course of action was taken by his Ministry; and how many of these tenants eventually returned their shops or flats to the HDB.”
“Contrary to newspaper reports, there is no trilateral defence relationship among Indonesia, Malaysia and Singapore. Singapore maintains close bilateral defence relations with all ASEAN countries. We will build upon these ties to promote mutual understanding and cooperation. We therefore support and participate in informal bilateral and multilateral meetings, like the one held in Bali last year with Indonesia and Malaysia. Multilateral defence cooperation in ASEAN does not depend on a few countries forming a nucleus with closer and more formal ties among themselves. This can be counter-productive, as it may isolate those ASEAN members outside the arrangement, and lead to unnecessary suspicions and misunderstandings. A stronger foundation for multilateral defence cooperation within ASEAN lies in good bilateral relations and a better understanding of one another's security perspectives. statistics - APPEALS TO THE PRIVY COUNCIL, NO. OF CASES FIXED FOR HEARING BEFORE THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL FROM 1979 TO 1988 (Cols. 127 - 130)”
“If we can get them, I would regard today's discussion on the salary revision as a huge success. And that is what we are aiming for, get two or three more potential Ministers between now and the next election. Thank you, Mr Speaker, Sir. The Chairman: Mr Chen, do you wish to speak on your next subject?”
“Just offer them a proper salary, one which is not much higher than what the workers earn, and they will come forward. Why are we being so stupid as to risk incurring political cost to revise salaries of office holders openly? Why do we do that? It is because we are now entering a different era. There is a vigorous private sector doing very well and Singaporeans in the private sector are earning handsome salaries. I know that many Singaporeans are reluctant to come in and I am not sure, as I said just now, even with the revision that we can get them. But I believe that we should revise the salaries not just because we need to minimize the financial sacrifice for them but to give a signal that we are doing all we can to minimize their sacrifice, and that they should come forward to help us discharge our responsibility to our country and people. If as a result of this discussion, we can find two or three potential Ministers to join us between now and the next election, this debate would have been worthwhile. We know that it is a great drain on our personal resources in terms of time which we have for ourselves and our family. I know that many of us will not like the glare of publicity, but what choice do we have if Singaporeans who are able and honest do not come forward to keep up the high standard of clean and effective Government. What choice do we have? Do we want to end up with a wrong Government with many of us becoming mere statistics of either being a foreign worker, an illegal immigrant, or worse, a refugee in some forgotten refugee camps. I think we cannot allow that. This discussion is in a sense to reach out to Singaporeans outside who can serve, whom we know have got the character attributes, the intellect, ability and motivation.”
“I recognize that idealism is very important and, in fact, it is important because all of us who are in government did not come in because of the salaries which we will get. There is a certain sense of mission in us and, as Mr Dhanabalan put it, this mission grows with time. When I got involved in 1976 at the invitation of Mr Hon Sui Sen, I do not quite understand what the job was all about. I did not feel that passionate about the job. Mr Hon asked me whether I could be considered as one of the candidates for the PAP. You know that before this I was not very keen on politics. I never took part in community service or join the PAP or what have you. But I asked myself: why did he ask me when there are others in Cabinet, there are so many others in the PAP, why did he ask me, a person who has not shown any interest in politics? I came to the conclusion that by the time he asked me, it meant that the Government would run into trouble unless people like myself made a contribution. I am not a natural politician but I believe that I have got to give my best to the country. It took me only three days to say yes. I said, "Yes, I will try. If I do not make a success of it, if I cannot succeed, let me know. I am prepared to leave the political scene." I give it a try and the more involved I got, the more strongly I feel that we have got to do our duty for Singaporeans. And one of these important jobs that I have got to do is to build a team to take over from the Prime Minister, and later to build a team to take over from us. If I can do this without having to offer high salaries, why should we offer an attractive salary? Why should we talk about market forces and so on?”
“We have got to find, as PM put it, another Goh Keng Swee, another Hon Sui Sen, and so on, and that is my job, as well as the job of my colleagues. The present Cabinet is not yet a complete team. There are still some empty slots. Prof. Jayakumar, for example, holds two portfolios: Minister for Law and Minister for Home Affairs, We have got to find a potential Minister for Law to succeed him or a potential Minister for Home Affairs to take over from him. Wong Kan Seng, two Ministries: Ministry of Community Development and Ministry of Foreign Affairs. So likewise we have got to find a Minister who can take over one of his two Ministries. I have been looking for people for the Party and for the Government, since 1976. Soon after I was elected, I got involved in this talent scouting. The Prime Minister wrote me a note right away: Do you know any people who could become Members of Parliament? So I learnt early the importance of getting good men and women to join us in Government and in Parliament. I have been at this for quite some time. It has not been easy, and it is not going to be easier. My job now is not just to complete the team in Cabinet. It is also to look ahead and to ensure that there will be others coming forward to take over from us. Dr Richard Hu, I think is over 60 and many of us are getting on to 50, and in this process of learning how to govern, I can tell you that it is stupidity to think you can just get somebody elected, make him a Minister and he can govern effectively right away. It is not possible. I have been in this for quite some years. It takes many years for us to learn what government is all about and how to discharge our duties effectively and competently. I take a practical approach.”
“Learn from his experience, how did he bring Singapore into today's state, how did he achieve progress for Singaporeans? The key lies in his having assembled a good team first for the Government and secondly, for the administration, that is the Civil Service. Of course, the Prime Minister has a commanding intellect, and is a man of exceptional ability. But despite his own ability and competence, he still needs to assemble a team of excellent administrators and dedicated and highly motivated Ministers. That is the key to his success, and I would be foolish if I did not follow the same formula. I believe that that is the key to Singapore's success and we have got to follow the same formula. In other words, target the top 0.001% or the top two or three Singaporeans per ª million Singaporeans to join us in Government. And of course also the others to join us in the Civil Service. If we do not not succeed in getting them to join us in Government and the Civil Service, I think we cannot succeed in carrying out our responsibility of bringing about a better life for Singaporeans. The Prime Minister mentioned Dr Goh, Lim Kim San, Hon Sui Sen, Mr Rajaratnam, Dr Toh Chin Chye. I have worked with Dr Goh Keng Swee, the late Hon Sui Sen and Lim Kim San. I know the quality of the men, not just in Cabinet; I was a civil servant at one time, working with them as my Ministers. I know that they are sharper than any Permanent Secretary and they did have very sharp Permanent Secretaries - Joe Pillay, Sim Kee Boon, Ngiam Tong Dow. But they were better than their Permanent Secretaries and they were also bolder. They were in a position to take decisions, innovate and they did their job beautifully.”
“I will illustrate the importance of having good people in charge from the number of courtesy calls which foreign visitors made on me. Many of them have nothing to do with my Defence portfolio. They are trade and industry matters. For example, the President of a Japanese computer company and the President of an American Bank, asked to make a courtesy call on me. We discussed internal and regional situation and world events. Why did they want to call on me? And why did I want to see them? Each time such a foreign visitor makes a request, I will check first with the Ministry concerned as to whether I should see them or not. In these two cases, I was advised to see them because I was told that one has plans to extend his factories - he has more than one factory in Singapore-and the other his banking operations; he is thinking of making Singapore his regional headquarters. No decision has yet been taken as to whether they would or would not expand their presence in Singapore. We chatted for half an hour or so at the end of which they told me that they enjoyed being in Singapore, they have benefitted from their presence in Singapore, and they would like to extend their operations in Singapore. Why did they want to call on me? I think it is to size up whether the next person who takes over from the Prime Minister shares the same kind of outlook in economic philosophy, in political ideology, in dedication and motivation to serve the country, whether he can deliver the goods because they are going to sink in millions of dollars in Singapore. They want to know. So what do I do from here? I do not believe in re-inventing the wheel all over. So I study the Prime Minister.”
“The figures I am going to quote are published figures available from documented sources. Indonesia $1,700 p.m. Philippines $2,300 p.m. Thailand $5,000 p.m. Malaysia $6,700 p.m. Britain $10,000 p.m. Japan $31,000 p.m. You should ask yourself the reasons for the differences in pay in different countries and see whether the system in each of these countries applies to Singapore. Mr Speaker, Sir, I am gratified by the overwhelming support given by Members of Parliament to the need for us to revise Ministers' salaries in order for us to have good men and women to carry on with the job which the Prime Minister is handing over to us. Personally, I feel it rather awkward that we should be talking about our own salaries. But I am not at all defensive on the need to revise salaries. We are doing this not for ourselves. The Ministers are already in Cabinet. We do not have to revise salaries for ourselves, but we have got to look forward. Our main mission now is: how do we keep Singapore going after the Prime Minister steps down? That is my main preoccupation at this stage. Can we shoulder the burden of government and ensure that Singapore continues to prosper and grow for the benefit of Singaporeans? That is my number one worry. It is not just taking over from the Prime Minister, drawing a handsome salary and enjoying the power, the status and the prestige. It is what do we do from now on, and how do we discharge our responsibility to Singaporeans. I think the answer boils down to whether we can succeed in getting good Members of Parliament and from the Members of Parliament whether we can draw up a team that is as good as the Prime Minister's, if not better.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I do not propose to speak at length on the subject because it has been well debated and discussed. However, we owe Mr Chiam an answer. He has raised some queries and I should provide him with the information. He asked three questions: what are the perks, if any, of Ministers in addition to their salaries? Secondly, are the salaries tax free? Thirdly, whether I can provide some figures of Minister's pay in UK and Australia. First, on the perks. Ministers do not enjoy perks other than the car allowance which is similar to the civil servants'. I do not know the exact formula. I think, it is two months of basic salary for every year of service, quite like the civil servants. But there are no other perks. Salaries are taxable, like any employee's in Singapore. So whatever increase the salaries which Ministers may get as a result of the revision, a portion of this will go to tax. It goes back to the Government. As for Ministers' pay in other countries, I did not provide them earlier because I thought they would not be relevant for our discussion. What Ministers get in each country depends on the political culture of the country. UK has a different culture; Japan, Indonesia, Malaysia, they have different political cultures and the pay is therefore not really relevant to our discussion today. Anyway, if you have a good man available somewhere else, you cannot get hold of him, whatever his worth to us. But I will provide the figures since Mr Chiam has asked for them. I do not have the figure for Australia but I have it for Britain, Japan and some Asean countries. We do not know the supplementary income because in other countries they have other less obvious ways of remunerating the Ministers.”
“In the case of Ministers, we are actually paying them less than what they are worth, so that no one can accuse a Minister of profiting from taking office. That is why we decided on 90% instead of 100% make-up pay for future office-holders. The cost of the salary increases is negligible, compared with the big decisions Ministers have to take. The price of failure to induct the top 0.001% (that is one in 100,000) of Singaporeans to serve the country is incalculable. Just look at what happened to the Philippines under President Marcos. It will be many years before Filipino people stop having to leave home to work in foreign countries and send money home. If we fail to uphold the high standards of government because we have failed to induct the best and the ablest into the political leadership, Singapore's future can be very bleak. Unlike the Philippines, we do not have the land, the rivers and the mountains to grow rice, mangoes, bananas, pineapples and other fruits for export, or dig for gold, bauxite and other precious metals. Our best bet is to induct the best, the honest and the able to keep up a clean and effective government, the best that Singapore can field. We are committed to fielding the best national team for the Government of Singapore. You have to support us in this task. DEBATE ON MINISTERIAL STATEMENT IN COMMITTEE OF SUPPLY (Announcement by Mr Speaker)”
“The Prime Minister was especially supportive and encouraging. In fact, he offered to speak in support of my statement in this House. I thanked him, but I told him that since this is a the decision of my colleagues and I, we have got to carry out the decision both in this House as well as outside this House. Ministers' salaries are a political issue in every country. I do not think I need to tell the MPs this. They know this very well. If you look around at other countries, because it is a political issue, some countries pay Ministers derisory salaries, but give them less conspicuous benefits, some proper, other ingenious, to make up. Other countries have a revolving door arrangement. They allow their Ministers and high officials, after leaving office, to make up, as lobbyists or lawyers, through consultation fees and book royalties what they were not allowed to earn in office. Yet others keep up the pretence that being a Minister is such an honour that salaries are hardly necessary, with the result that able people shun public office, and the country declines. My colleagues and I have decided to tackle this issue directly and openly. We could have avoided this issue by camouflaging Ministers' salaries, through ingenious allowances invisible to the public, like furnished housing, servants and gardener allowances, cars with drivers, and paid annual holidays abroad for the family-or by making the salaries tax-free. But that would not be in keeping with our practice of honest and open government. To continue to have a good and clean government we believe our best policy is to pay a person what he is worth, be he a civil servant, a political appointee, or a private sector employee.”
“7 million for the Judges and other statutory appointments. Implementation The revised salaries will come into effect on 1st April 1989, together with the revised Civil Service salaries. Conclusion This revision will narrow the gap between Ministers' salaries and private sector incomes of senior executives, managers and professionals, and between Judges and lawyers in the private practice. It will not eliminate it. The gap still remains significant. Some people will try to make political capital out of this revision of political salaries. We must expect it. They will say that those who go for public office should be ready to make sacrifices. This is hypocrisy. People talk of others becoming political leaders and needing to make sacrifices. But will they sacrifice their own comfortable careers for a political life? Will they ask their favourite son or daughter to go into politics? Not just for one or two years but for 10 and more years. Have the Opposition found such noble self-sacrificing people to join them and offer a credible alternative leadership to the PAP? Singapore's future requires us to be hard-headed. In spite of better terms for the MPs and Ministers, I do not expect a rich harvest. Our talent pool is small, and no salary revision can enlarge it. But proper salaries can help us to gather whatever talent we need from whatever talent we have. I know this salary revision is politically sensitive and I think MPs should also know this. It should have been done much earlier, but the Government postponed it because of the economic recession. This time, before proceeding, I discussed this with my colleagues. They agreed that we should act, although they knew that we would have to work hard to win public support for this measure.”
“At present, the Chief Justice earns less than 56 other lawyers in the private sector, and Judges less than 86 other lawyers in the private sector. The gap is so wide that few lawyers fit to sit on the Bench are willing to serve as Judges or even as Judicial Commissioners. After the revision, in terms of earnings the Chief Justice will rank behind 25 others, and the Judges behind 51 others in the private sector. This is a substantial improvement. The Attorney-General and Chairman PSC will also have their basic salaries increased from $15,900 per month to $21,100 per month. The Speaker will also have his salary increased. The Leader of the House will move a motion on this later. All these appointees will receive the same additional half month of Variable Bonus, like other civil servants. This is, of course, subject to the performance of the economy. It is not feasible for these statutory appointments to be paid a Performance Bonus. Supreme Court Judges receive fixed salaries, in order that they cannot be pressured by the Executive, or even by their peers, into rendering harsher judgments. It would be invidious to pay them performance bonuses. On the other hand, to leave them out from the scheme altogether would deprive them of a significant benefit. The Government has therefore decided to pay the statutory appointments a fixed bonus in lieu of the Performance Bonus. The President, Chief Justice, Speaker, Attorney-General and Chairman PSC, will receive two months of this fixed bonus. The Judges will receive one month of the fixed bonus. Cost The total additional cost of this salary revision is $9 million per year, made up of $4.3 million for the President, Ministers, Parliamentary Secretaries, Political Secretaries, and Speaker; $3 million for the MPs, and another $1.”
“For example, British Members of Parliament and US Congressmen have legislative assistants. They are often bright new graduates, either doing a post-graduate degree, or seeking two to three years of broad exposure before moving on to bigger jobs. We will draw up the rules later. The rules will apply equally to both opposition and government MPs. Non-constituency MPs will be eligible to claim reimbursement for 2/3rds of the full allowance for a legislative assistant but not the 1/3rd for secretarial assistance, since they have no constituents to look after. Judicial and Other Statutory Appointments Now, I shall deal with the salaries of the judicial and other statutory appointments. Judicial appointments include the Chief Justice and Supreme Court Judges. Other statutory appointments include the President, the Speaker, Attorney-General and Chairman of the Public Service Commission. Annex B, which I have distributed earlier, gives the details of their salary revision. The components parallel those for Superscale Officers in the Administrative Service, namely: (a) Higher salary grades for each appointment; (b) a 1ª months non-pensionable Variable Bonus contingent on economic performance, and (c) a fixed bonus in lieu of the performance bonus payable to the political office-holders and the Superscale Administrative Officers. The Chief Justice will have his basic salary increased from $18,800 per month to $28,950 per month, and Supreme Court Judges from $13,600 per month to $19,550 per month. The Government will amend the Judges' Remuneration Act to effect these changes to Judges' salaries. Judges are recruited from the Bar as well as the Legal Service. The salary gaps between them and private sector lawyers are especially large.”
“The calculation will be based on his income tax returns for the last two years before his appointment. The make-up pay will not be carried on for ever. A Minister can continue to receive this for up to two terms of office. In other words, after two terms the make-up pay will be removed because after that he either returns to the private sector or continues on his rank pay alone without this make-up pay. We are introducing this system of make-up pay because I believe this will enable the country to benefit from the services of those who do not wish to make politics their entire career, but who have a contribution to make to the nation. They can now become Ministers without having to make too much of a sacrifice. The system of make-up pay will not apply to existing office-holders. It will be used primarily to induct successful people between 35 and 45 years of age to be tried out as Ministers of State before they are appointed as Ministers. MPs' Allowances Members of Parliament currently receive a tax-free basic allowance of $3,000 a month (gross $3,850). This will be increased to $4,000 a month (gross $5,184). In addition to the MPs' allowance, MPs will be allowed to reclaim reimbursement of up to $750 a month, to defray the wages of a legislative assistant and a secretary. Several MPs can club together to engage a young graduate (e.g. one who is doing his Masters or Ph.D) as a legislative assistant, plus a secretary. The legislative assistant can help the MPs to research issues and look up facts, so that MPs can be better prepared for public speeches and Parliamentary debates. The secretary is to help the MPs to despatch constituency work. Such help may make it easier to get good men to run for Parliament. Most mature legislatures provide such support to their members.”