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 13 of 28.
“There will be no difference in title or address between those on the higher and lower grades, whether they are Ministers, Ministers of State, or Senior Parliamentary Secretaries. In other words, we will continue to address a Minister a Minister even though he is on a higher grade. We have the term "Senior Minister" but this term will continue to be reserved for special individuals, like Mr Rajaratnam. Conversion After this revision, all current appointment holders will be placed onto their corresponding new grade points. I do not intend to promote any Minister, Minister of State, or Parliamentary Secretaries to the higher grades immediately. I will do so only later, when I judge it necessary. Make-up Pay for Ministers Even with the higher salary grades for Ministers, we will still want from time to time to induct successful and able men from the private sector into the Cabinet, men who are earning far more than the revised pay for Ministers, to serve for one or perhaps two terms. If such a person has first to be tried out for a period as a Minister of State before being appointed a full Minister, the problem becomes more acute. To accommodate these possibilities without upsetting the protocol order, the Government is introducing a system of make-up pay, similar to that practised with reservist national servicemen. In future when a Minister or a Minister of State is appointed, he may receive make-up pay in addition to his rank pay. In other words, if he earns more than that of a Minister of State and he is appointed as a Minister of State, the difference will be paid to him by way of a make-up pay, but he will not receive the entire difference. He will receive only up to 90% of that difference.”
“But promotion grades will allow us to reward those who continue, and contribute, in office for many years. Now I shall deal with the details of the various grades. Senior Parliamentary Secretaries First, Senior Parliamentary Secretaries. Senior Parliamentary Secretaries are presently on Grade E. This will be revised to E1, and an additional grade point of D will be added. Ministers of State The Minister of State grade is currently Superscale Grade C, and the Senior Minister of State is Superscale Grade B. There will be three grades for Ministers of State: D1, C and B; and three for Senior Ministers of State: B, A and Staff Grade I. The overlap at Grade B is a transitional arrangement. These additional grades, especially the higher grades for Senior Ministers of State, will enable office-holders to have a full political career without necessarily becoming full Cabinet Ministers. Such men can make important contributions at the Ministry level, managing complex departments and making operational decisions requiring long experience and intimate knowledge of their field. We need more such people to reinforce our team. Hence the provision of promotional grades for them. Ministers Ministers will move from Staff Grade I plus 5% to Staff Grade II plus 10%. There is also a promotional grade for Ministers. The promotional point will be Staff Grade IV. Ministers will be appointed to the higher grade on a personal basis. Ministerial responsibilities differ considerably in scope. Those carrying heavier portfolios should be paid more. The higher point will enable us to recognize this and pay them properly without having to move up the salaries of each Minister. We will not be attaching new appointment titles to the new grades.”
“Variable Bonus On variable bonus, political office-holders will get the same additional 1/2 month of variable bonus. This, of course, depends on the state of the economy, just like civil service salaries on the variable bonus. Performance Bonus We have introduced a performance bonus for Superscale civil servants. Ministers, Ministers of State, Parliamentary Secretaries and Political Secretaries will likewise receive a performance bonus of up to two months of salary, varying from individual to individual, like the Superscale officers in the Administrative Service. The Prime Minister will receive the full two months as a fixed arrangement. He will decide how much each Minister, Parliamentary Secretary and Political Secretary should receive. And his decisions will be kept confidential. So would the amount paid to each person. Promotional Grades Now I come to promotional grades. The Government has also decided to create promotional grades within the ranks of Senior Parliamentary Secretary, Minister of State, Senior Minister of State and Minister. Why are we doing this? It is because promotion from Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State, Minister and upwards is a route which few can take. The leaps in responsibility are just far too large. Promotion grades within each rank allow us to reward a Parliamentary Secretary or Minister by promotion to a higher salary grade when he does his job well. Despite providing for promotion grades, let me say that a political career is not iron-clad. It is fraught with the vagaries of the ballot as well as the risk of making political blunders. In other words, you cannot plan on the basis of a steady career or progression in your career in the political service.”
“For example, let us look at the Ministers. Ministers are now on Staff Grade I plus 5%. They will move to Staff Grade II plus 10%. In addition, the new grades will carry the revised Civil Service basic salaries, so that they will be worth 7% more than before. You remember that the Superscale Civil Service salaries were revised by 7%. These two changes will increase the basic salaries of the various posts. Annex B - MONTHLY SALARIES (Cols. 833 - 834) We have raised the grades for Ministers, and this will give more room for promoting civil servants. By creating the new Staff Grades IV and V, we will preserve the existing correct relativities between top civil servants and political posts. After the revision, a Staff Grade V Administrative Officer will earn more than any Minister except the Prime Minister, just as a Staff Grade III officer does today. In other words, we are retaining the relativity. In percentage terms, this increase in basic salaries may appear to be large. But in spite of this increase, Ministers' salaries will still be modest compared to the professions listed in the table which I handed out earlier, Annex A. A Minister's revised monthly salary at $22,100 basic, which when you gross up becomes $28,644, including NWC, is less than the top incomes in any of the professions in Annex A. Even the Prime Minister's revised salary at $38,275 basic, which when you gross up becomes $49,608 per month, will still be far less than what a top doctor or lawyer can earn, and no more than what the Chief Executive Officer of a large local manufacturing company can expect. Top doctors earn on average $93,000; top lawyers over $100,000 per month. So the Prime Minister's salary falls far behind them.”
“But because of rapid economic growth, they still lag well behind incomes in the private sector. I shall now ask the Clerk of Parliament to circulate a table which I call Annex A*. It is the same table which was released when the Civil Service Pay Revision was announced last week. But I think it is useful to refresh your memory. [Copies of table circulated to Members]. The table shows typical salaries of top executives and professionals in the private sector in 1987. If you look at the table, you will notice that not only are these numbers much larger than civil service salaries, they even exceed the salaries of Ministers. This disparity will make it harder for us to recruit men and women of ability and integrity into Government, and to maintain the quality of political leadership. This is the reason for adjusting the salaries now. Structure of Salary Revision I shall now deal with the structure of the salary revision. The components of the salary revision parallel those for Superscale officers in the Administrative service, namely: (a) Higher salary grades for each appointment; (b) A half-month increase in the existing end-of-year non-pensionable variable bonus, bringing it to 1ª months; (c) A new discretionary non-pensionable performance-based bonus of up to two months of salary; and (d) Promotional grades for Senior Parliamentary Secretaries, Ministers of State, Senior Ministers of State and Cabinet Ministers. Higher Salary Grades Now I shall ask the Clerk of Parliament to distribute Annex B (Cols. 833 - 834). Annex B gives the details of the new basic salaries. Salaries of political office-holders are expressed in terms of Civil Service Superscale and Staff Grade points. The Government will now attach higher grades to the various appointments.”
“And he would have lost several hundred thousand dollars had he resigned to stand for elections. Why should he resign? Why should he? I do not blame him for saying no. But I have not given up yet. I am going to send Peter Sung to see him and bring him to the Philippines, if necessary. I also failed to persuade a public accountant to stand as a candidate for elections to be a Member of Parliament. He works in an international firm. His firm disallows its employees to take part in politics, as a matter of policy. To contest the elections, he had to resign and forgo an annual income of over half a million dollars. It did not make sense to him or to me that he should resign just to be a Member of Parliament. The sacrifice is simply too great. Rationale for Salary Revision People who enter politics in order to get rich are unfit to be Ministers. Let me make that quite clear. If you think that the salary is so attractive that you want to be a Minister because of the salaries, you are unlikely to pass our screening test. We are not interested in people who come into politics because of what they perceive as a handsome salary. But why should we require able Singaporeans who are fit to be Ministers to make a large financial sacrifice in order to enter politics? If we demand this of them, why should able men enter politics at all? If Singapore is to continue to have able men in Government, we must at least ensure that after having sacrificed their privacy, leisure and family time, such people do not also have to make too large a financial sacrifice. This is the rationale for the current salary revision. Salary Revision of Political Office-Holders Salaries of political office-holders were last revised in 1981.”
“Dhanabalan was required in the Foreign Ministry. I got them to say "yes"-Dr Richard Hu, Wong Kan Seng, and the others because I persisted and appealed to their sense of duty, duty to their fellow citizens, to their friends and relatives and to their own family. They did not volunteer to serve. They were called up. They finally agreed because of a sense of service to the nation. Evenif we had paid them more than what they were earning, they would still not have come in without intense persuasion. It is therefore necessary to minimize the sacrifice that a person is asked to make, and minimizing the financial sacrifice is the least we should do. Peter Sung was persuaded to stand in a different way. Dhanabalan recruited him. Dhanabalan asked Peter Sung in 1984; Peter declined. Then Peter was sent to the Philippines as our Ambassador. Whilst he was in the Philippines, he realized that if good men did not come forward to serve, the country would go down. So when Dhanabalan approached him again in 1988, Peter said yes. Although I am a persistent person when it comes to talent scouting for the Government, I have not always been successful in recruiting good candidates. For example, there is a young man out there in the private sector who would make a top-rate Minister. He works for a multi-national company. I failed to persuade him to stand in the last General Election. I must have tried over half a dozen times, but he stood firm. One of the reasons was the heavy sacrifice this would mean to his family life. He does not like publicity, and neither does his wife. And they saw no reason whatsoever to forgo privacy for the family. But another reason why he was reluctant was because he was locked in by his company's stock option scheme.”
“The brighter they are, the more clearly they understand that to succeed they must have that feel for people, that ability to sway people and galvanize them into action, that something called political leadership. Putting aside any loss in salaries, why should they give up the certainty of a good career and a good future in a profession, or a bank, or a big company or the Civil Service, for the uncertainty of ministerial office? Why should they give up their privacy and subject themselves to the glare of publicity? Why should they spend more time with voters when they need the time to spend with their families? Why should they be called upon when others can do it? Why should they do it when others are running the government so well, and they, like everyone else, are enjoying the fruits of economic progress? Examples of Reluctant Politicians Do you know how many times I had to see Dr Richard Hu, Wong Kan Seng, George Yeo, Mah Bow Tan and Seet Ai Mee before they said "yes"? At least three times each, and over many months. I remember Richard Hu seeing me in my office, looking thoroughly miserable, and I was looking just as miserable because I was not able to get good men (this was in 1984). I told him I needed a Finance Minister. He said, "But you have got Dr Tony Tan." Dhanabalan, and Dr Goh Keng Swee were still around at that time. I then explained that Dr Tony Tan, then Finance Minister, would be needed him to run the Education Ministry. I think Dr Tan was the Finance Minister at that time. Then, it dawned upon Dr Richard Hu that Dr Goh Keng Swee was retiring because I talked about Tony Tan going over to the Education Ministry.And I think that gave him little choice. He said "yes". He realized I could not just find a Finance Minister in 1984 to take over from Dr Tan.”
“I can say that nearly every Minister in the present Cabinet was among the top 50 students of their year. So were many of our MPs. Many of the Ministers were, in fact, President Scholars, which means that they were among the top 10 of their year. Let me give you some names. Dr Yeo Ning Hong- he was one of the nine State Scholars (this was the predecessor to the President Scholarship); Lee Yock Suan- one of nine President Scholars in 1966; Mah Bow Tan-one of seven President Scholars in 1967; Lee Hsien Loong-one of eight in 1970; George Yeo-one of 11 1973. And they were at the top of their class in the best universities, competing against the best in UK and, in some cases, Australia. Difficulties of Recruiting Political Talent We need more Ministers like them, more at each election. But such men are increasingly difficult to recruit. I know the difficulties because I have been talent scouting for the Government ever since I was elected in 1976. Those whom we want in the Cabinet are invariably successful people. If they were not successful, why should we want to invite them to join us and enter politics? Unfortunately, successful Singaporeans are seldom eager to enter politics. That is a fact of life in Singapore. They do not believe that the future of Singapore depends on their being in politics. They are content to leave the country in the hands of other honest and capable people so that they can follow their own private careers in peace. They know that however successful they may have been in their careers, going into politics is a risk, the risk of failure to meet a challenge of an altogether different kind. Because even if they can manage a Ministry well, they may not be able to handle the sensitive political issues dealing with people's lives, their hopes and fears.”
“This is equivalent to our being able to buy all the HDB flats that have been built so far by the Government. Suppose we have an incompetent, dishonest, spendthrift, Government. They may fail to attract investments, and then economic growth will falter. They will not balance the budget year after year, and we have to dig into the reserves. They may invest the reserves unwisely or they may dip their fingers into the till, as Marcos did in the Philippines. Then, your CPF savings will be devalued, or even wiped out, long before you can get them on retirement. Every Singaporean has a vested interest in making sure that the honest and the able stand for elections and that the best of them form the government. Every one of Singapore's Ministers must come from the top of their cohorts, not just academically- although this is definitely useful-but also in proven performance. At each General Election, we need 15 to 20 new Members of Parliament, just to replace those who are getting older. Amongst the new MPs, we need two or three who will make good Ministers. These two or three must be amongst the best in Singapore, in terms of ability, character and motivation. They must have the intellectual and moral calibre to govern Singapore. About 50,000 babies are born each year. We are looking for two or three Ministers every five years, which means in between elections we are looking for two or three Ministers out of an election cohort of a quarter million Singaporeans - 50,000 times five. That means we are looking for that one man in every 100,000 Singaporeans. When it comes to the Prime Minister, we can count ourselves lucky if we can produce one in every 10 or 20 years! By dint of enormous effort, we have succeeded in building a small team of Ministers, just a small team.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the Minister for Trade and Industry announced the salary revision for the Civil Service last Friday. Along with it, the Government has decided to revise the salaries of political, judicial, and other statutory appointments. I shall deal first with the political appointments which include the Prime Minister, Deputy Prime Ministers, Ministers, Ministers of State, Parliamentary Secretaries, Political Secretaries and Members of Parliament. Need for the best to form the Government There are 81 Members of Parliament, excluding the Non-Constituency MP. From them, we appoint the Prime Minister and other Cabinet Ministers. Presently, the Cabinet has 13 Ministers. These 13 men are responsible for policies which affect every aspect of our lives. Their decisions determine what kind of homes we live in, what kind of education our children have, and whether we receive good medical treatment should we fall sick. Their economic and financial policies affect our job, and our take-home pay. Their effectiveness in maintaining security and upholding law and order enable all of us to sleep soundly at night. Their foresight and judgment and their ability to solve acute problems, both long term and immediate, determine our future. If we want the right decisions to be taken for Singapore, we must continue to get the right people to do the job. Let me illustrate this with a simple example. Almost every Singapore family has savings in the CPF. Our total CPF savings amount to a colossal $33 billion. To let you understand what this size means, let me give you their equivalent of housing units. This sum of money can buy 626,000 4-room type HDB flats, at a price of $54,000 per flat.”
“Parliament has the sole power to make or unmake the Government because in our system of government the Prime Minister can only remain as Prime Minister so long as he enjoys the confidence of the majority of the Members of Parliament. An MP is there not just as a petition writer for his constituents or a maker of speeches against motions and Bills. He is a powerful person. In a crisis, whether he stands firm or rallies to a common cause or whether he turns tail and shows his lack of conviction, can make all the difference to the fate of the nation. The public knows this and therefore an MP is an influential person. What he says counts. People look up to him. His words do not just reflect public opinion but influence and shape it. He is elected not just to repeat what others say but to exercise his judgment, to think and act as he considers wise on behalf of his constituents, on behalf of Singapore.”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker, Sir. Let me give another example to illustrate why this idea of thought-control is ridiculous. 500,000 Singaporeans travel overseas and this excludes those who go to Malaysia. When they come back they must have seen different values or they must see different things. This is an open society. We do not control access to information. Anybody who wants to read the Far Eastern Economic Review or the Asian Wall Street Journal can do so. There is no control on access to information. What we are doing is to make it difficult for protagonists in our domestic politics to dabble in our affairs. If they want to do so, we fight them and we make it painful for them and we make sure that we emerge on top. If you want to read any magazine, you can get them in Singapore. There are thousands of foreign magazines in Singapore. I want now to deal with the mission of Members of Parliament your mission and my mission. During this debate, some Members seem to think that an MP's duty is to attack the Government and to repeat the criticisms which they have heard others made. When they hear someone criticizing the Government they come here to repeat it. I think that is a serious mistake because you are now multiplying just one distorted point of view to the whole of Singapore. In other words, I sense that the MPs feel that they should be humble towards the public but truculent towards the Government. If this were so, then we should have no difficulty getting MPs. To be an MP you must have judgment, intelligence, character and conviction and courage. Reflecting public sentiments, yes, it is part of an MP's role. I think we should all reflect public sentiments but it is only a small part. As a Member of Parliament, an MP is a key digit in our political structure.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I think the Member is digressing. I have given him a clear answer as to the reason for the date for the General Elections, and the relevance of his second part of the question to the first part. He is now going from Swing Singapore into Sing Singapore. Again, I repeat, the decision to hold the General Elections will be made on facts, and judgment on when will be a favourable date. It has nothing to do with Swing Singapore. Swing Singapore was organized before we decided to call the General Elections.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, when I had to decide when to hold the General Elections, I considered many factors. And, of course, I considered factors which were favourable to the party. I think there is no sin in that, whether it is during National Day celebration month or whatever month. If the factors are favourable, we will call a General Election. So I decided that 3rd September was a good time to have the General Elections, and I was proven right.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, from Mr Seow we have now gone on to Mr Jeyaretnam. I decided on the date of 3rd September without knowing when the Privy Council would hear Mr Jeyaretnam's case. It was totally irrelevant to me.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, no. I was aware that Mr Francis Seow had been charged in court with several counts of income tax fraud and evasion and that his case would be heard in December. Indeed, if the Member will recall, the matter of his possible conviction and disqualification was openly discussed in the last General Elections. In view of the gravity of the charges, if he was convicted, he was likely to be disqualified from being a Member of Parliament. I saw no reason, no reason at all, to bring forward the opening of Parliament just to allow Mr Francis Seow to be sworn in as an MP before the court had determined his guilt.”
“The decision was made after the General Elections.”
“I know that several other points have been raised by MPs. These points will be considered when we draft the Bill and they can be debated further when we present the Bill to this House. In conclusion, I would say this. Whether we have an elected President or not depends finally on the wishes of MPs and the wishes of the people. It is their money, it is their reserves, it is their civil service, it is their future. We are trying to make the system of governing safer for the people, but whether they want it or not is a matter for them to decide. [Applause].”
“Thank you. Of course, he may not necessarily agree with the details as proposed in the Bill. I think that is fair enough. We can have a debate later on on the detailed mechanism. If the Member for Potong Pasir agrees with the principles as embodied in the White Paper, I think that is enough for us for today.”
“That is right. Am I right that he would agree with us that the integrity of the civil service should be protected?”
“We let the legislative process takes its course. First, a White Paper, resolved today. Then the Bill will be prepared on the basis of the discussion today plus any other new ideas which we may gather from outside this House. The Bill will then have to be presented to this House, debated and, if necessary, we can have a Select Committee. Election issue. If election is held this year, then I think it will be an election issue because I do not think we expect the Bill to be ready for presentation to Parliament before the end of this year. But am I right, because the Member for Potong Pasir was not here, that he is not opposed to our making some changes to our system in order to ensure that our reserves are not depleted? Am I right?”
“In our history of some 30 years from 1959 as a self-governing and later on independent nation, we have only conducted one referendum in 1962 and that was over the issue of merger with Malaysia - a matter of life and death for Singaporeans. If you look up the Constitution, it is clearly spelt out where referenda should be conducted. These are issues over ceding of our sovereignty to another nation, over the disbandment of the Singapore Armed Forces. On these two key issues, you must go to the people because life and death are involved, a matter of survival for the country. I think we should take one step at a time. Perhaps after the Bill is out, after the election is over, it may be clear to all that there is no need for a referendum. The support I think for the proposal is so clear. The hon. Mr Chiam See Tong (I think he likes to be addressed that way) insists that the proposal should be made an election issue. That, of course, depends on when the elections will be held.”
“So a competent, dedicated government, I think, will not worry too much about the presence of a President who has safeguard powers over reserves and appointments to key positions in the civil service. The Member for Telok Ayer is quite explicit in his view. He is against any change to the Constitution. That is one point of view - the belief that the system has worked, it is better to have one centre of power, otherwise it will confuse the public or it may lead to potential conflict situations. I think it is for Members to decide whether we do nothing or whether we make some changes to our Constitution. The assumption there is that the electorate will always return a government that is all-knowing, that is wise, that is dedicated, that is honest. If you think that assumption is correct and all future Prime Ministers will be wise, good, knowledgeable, competent, totally honest, then, yes, perhaps there is no need to change. But can we be sure? Again, I go back to the analogy of the financial controller and the managing director - two signatories required for a cheque. Nobody assumes that all financial controllers are honest and if they are honest, well, so be it, no difficulty in having a second signature. If they are not, then you have got to worry and better have a safeguard. There seems to be some desire to have a referendum to resolve this issue. I do not believe in governing through referenda. As an elected government, we must have the courage of conviction to make improvements to our Constitution, if necessary, to implement difficult policies, if necessary.”
“If you want to leave open a big hole in which all kinds of candidates can slip through to stand for election, then we are in fact having a worse situation because all kinds of people can become President. It is not an improvement over the present system where all kinds of candidates can stand for elections in a general election. I think this is one of the more innovative features of this elected President which some Members might not have noted, ie, the quality control over potential candidates for important positions. I wish it could be extended to all candidates standing for election to Parliament. But we do not want to do that because that will cause all kinds of misunderstanding that we are going to change the system. So we have no intention of doing that. But if you compare the qualifications required for someone to stand for election and the qualifications you would insist upon before you appoint a person an accountant, a SAF officer, a doctor or a lawyer, you will be shocked at the slack and totally non-existent control over eligibility to stand for election to be a Member of this House. Will the elected President weaken the position of the Prime Minister in future? This appears to be a concern of Members of this House that a future government may be in extremis crippled by a strong interfering President. If we have a scenario of a competent, dedicated, honourable Prime Minister and Cabinet members, I do not think the question will arise, especially if both the President and the Ministers come from the same party. It is like having two signatures on a cheque in a way. A competent financial controller will not feel that his powers are being diminished just because there is a managing director who has to sign the same cheque.”
“It is like a star player in a football team. If that star player becomes a referee, his role changes. He can still be a member of a football club which the team belongs to. But he is a referee and the public respect him to be the referee. Should the Vice-President be required not to be a Minister or a Member of Parliament? In other words, should Ministers and Members of Parliament be disqualified from holding the position of Vice-President? Unfortunately, our political talent pool at the top is quite limited. If we exclude Ministers and Members of Parliament, I do not think we can find potential Vice-Presidential candidates in abundance. If we can find them, we should be able to find them to stand for elections in this House. The anomaly is also more apparent than real. It is an anomaly on the surface. Again I would use this football analogy. If the Vice-President becomes the President, or even if he is a Minister and he becomes the Acting President for the time being, his role changes. And the public can see that he now has a different role and he is expected to play the role of the President, not the Minister, when he becomes the Acting President. If the President has no full confidence in the Vice-President when he goes on long leave, well, he can always ensure that important Bills are passed before he goes away or he can leave instruction that the Bills should not be cleared without his permission. These are matters of detail which we can deliberate further when the specific is spelt out in the Bill. The Member for Tanah Merah, I think it is easier now to use the new form of address, Mr Ibrahim Othman, believes that the criteria for eligibility to be a President or Presidential candidate are too stringent. In my view, it is not stringent enough.”
“If you have an opportunistic President, I think your reserves will not be safe. This is the worst case scenario. But having an elected President, it is no worse than not doing anything at all. If you have two persons conniving, well, I think you cannot protect your reserves or your bank account. But it is a no-worse situation than not doing anything at all. Fourth scenario - A weak and/or opportunistic government and a strong benign President. This is the scenario in which we think sometime in the distant future it may be a possibility. And if it does not turn out to be the case, well, then we are lucky. Having an elected President again is not making matters worse. But should we end up with a weak and opportunistic government, we thank ourselves, we thank this House, for having changed the Constitution to allow a strong benign President to be elected who can block the reserves, who can block wrong appointments to the key positions in the various commissions. In fact, it is this possible scenario that prompts us to exercise our minds as to the best way to ensure that the two key assets are never squandered away. Now, some replies to specific points raised. The President should not be partisan. He should be above politics. This point was raised by several Members in this House. He should not belong to a political party. Our view is that the President can belong to a political party. But once he is elected as a President, he should rise above the political frays. It is not his job to engage the next government in political frays or battles, even though that government does not belong to his party. He should look after the interests of the nation in the two areas earmarked for him. Even if he belongs to a political party, it is not expected of him to play party politics.”
“Members are concerned that there could be conflict situations between the Prime Minister and the elected President. I see four possible scenarios in terms of relationship between the Government and the elected President or the kind of Government that we will have and the kind of elected President that we will have. First scenario - what I call the best case scenario. A competent, dedicated government and a strong benign President. Then no trouble at all. The competent government will not have to raid the reserves in order to run the government. If it need to use the reserves, that government should be able to put up a good case to justify the use of reserves. For example, to defend the Singapore dollar if there is a temporary run on the dollar, but not when there is mismanagement. The President being wise, benign, would not check a competent government because there is no need to. Second scenario - A competent, dedicated government and a weak opportunistic President. Then it is quite troublesome, or it can be troublesome, because your opportunistic President may want to interfere unnecessarily with the day-to-day running of the government, even though he does not have the right to do so or should not do so. But the problem should not arise if the Committee that vets eligible candidates for President does its job properly. Or it should be a minimal problem because not everyone can stand for election to be a President. Third scenario - a weak and/or opportunistic government together with a weak opportunistic President, and both belonging to the same party. Under that scenario, I think it is hopeless. It is hopeless because your opportunistic government will want to use the reserves. If it is weak, it will allow the reserves to be spent.”
“No need. HDB - I think we had better have a good board on HDB because if you do not have a good board on HDB your houses will not get built in the first place. Then what is going to happen to those applying for homes? I think maybe for HDB it is wise to ensure that all board members are approved by the elected President. My own view is this. For some of the boards we do not have to insist that all members need to have the approval of the elected President. But my own view is that it is wise for the Chairman to require, first, the nomination of the Government, and secondly, the concurrence of the President. I think it is a safeguard which costs us nothing. And it does not interfere with the executive decisions of the Prime Minister or the Government. So what else is left? Appointment of civil servants in the civil service? It does not come under the list. That is left to the Public Service Commission. In other words, there is no genuine reason for worrying about the so-called executive interference of the President. Perhaps Members of Parliament and also members of the public have been confused by public discussions. The professionals who met the Chairman of our Feedback Unit were under the impression that all key appointments, individual civil servants, individual officers in statutory boards, have to require the concurrence of the President. Such is the value of public discussion when one has not read the papers thoroughly or understood it. I think it has caused some confusion and I welcome the opportunity here to be able to explain them. It is not the intention of the proposal to have an elected President to approve each and every single appointment in the civil service.”
“Agreed. Telecoms? Some hon. Members: No need.”
“Maybe. Civil Aviation Authority of Singapore? Some hon. Members: No need.”
“Maybe. Point for debate. It may not be necessary. SBC? An hon. Member: No need.”
“It is your money. Yes. POSB - I am not so sure we need to have the President concurring to the appointment of Chairman and members of the POSB because if you have no faith in the Board of POSB you can take your money out. So maybe there is no need for us to insist on the full board being subject to the approval of the President. But I would still recommend that the Chairman should be. But this is a matter of detail which we can discuss when we deal with the specifics. Goverment Investment Company - Yes. Board of Commissioners of Currency - Yes. PSA? Some hon. Members: No need.”
“Auditor-General and Accountant-General - no quarrel. Chairman and members of the Monetary Authority of Singapore - no quarrel. For statutory boards, we can divide them into two categories. The statutory boards responsible for looking after our finances and the non-financial kind of statutory boards. Monetary Authority of Singapore - I think we all nod our heads. I think we should have a check and balance over here. Central Provident Fund Board - Some hon. Members: Yes”
“I think it is wiser to have Chairman and members, otherwise the Chairman can be outvoted by the members. I can see the Member for Bukit Batok nodding his head. Chairman and Members of the proposed Armed Forces Services Commission - I think it is wise for another person to approve the nominations. As of now, I can tell you I am most uncomfortable at the authority which I have as Minister for Defence. As the Second Minister explained this morning, I can appoint the Chief of Staff, Chief of General Staff, Air Force Commander, Navy Commander, Army Commander. I can promote, I can transfer, I can demote, without legally having to consult the Prime Minister. We have an Armed Forces Council comprising the Service Chiefs plus the senior staff of Mindef. That Armed Forces Council is chaired by the Minister for Defence. We have always run promotions on a most impartial basis. Recommendations are put up not by the Ministers because we think that should be left to peer rating and to careful appraisal by the professionals and the staff of Mindef. Then as Chairman, I have to decide whether the officers recommended are deserving of promotion or not. But I do not feel comfortable because the potential for abuse is there. It is very easy for a potential mischief maker who is a Defence Minister to build up the military behind him. I do not think we want that to happen. So on my own I have always sent the promotion list to the Prime Minister for his information, and also to the President. So we introduce a convention of check and balances even though there is no legal requirement to do so. But I would feel happier if there is an Armed Forces Service Commission comprising people from outside Mindef as well to ensure that politics do not get into promotions in the Singapore Armed Forces.”
“Yes, Mr Das agrees with this. Chairman and Members of the Presidential Council for Minority Rights - I think it is useful to have two bodies to nominate and concur. The Attorney-General - no quarrel over that. Chairman and Members of the Public Service Commission?”
“For example, Malays in the SAF - it was a sensitive issue but we decided that it could be brought out into the open as part of the process for our society to mature. And as our society matures and becomes more integrated, we can loosen up further. To do so too early will lead to anarchy and disintegration of our society. Even then, we have always to be sensitive to the feelings of our neighbours. We do not live in isolation. And for us to discuss internal politics, our discussion may impinge on the feelings of our neighbours. In the meantime, I prefer to involve concerned Singaporeans quietly and meaningfully in Town Councils and public committees, like the Advisory Councils and resource panels of GPCs. Through these committees, their views and ideas can be garnered and absorbed by the Government for the national good. This is the way I prefer to build consensus. My job is to forge consensus, not to encourage dissent. Question put, and agreed to. Resolved, That Parliament do now adjourn. Adjourned accordingly at Three minutes to One o'clock pm to a date to be fixed.”
“There are also major projects which the Government has to evaluate more thoroughly before implementing them. These require time. They require thought, careful deliberations before we decide upon them. For example, should we extend the MRT? Should we build a cultural and leisure complex for the performing arts? Should we set up a second university or allow private universities to be set up in Singapore? Should we widen the Johor Causeway or build a second link to Johor? All these are big decisions. They involve millions of dollars. Can we afford them? We can if we can ensure continued investments in Singapore. We can if we can ensure continued economic growth. But this itself hinges on political stability. I, therefore, agree with the Member for Changkat that we should not be distracted by extraneous events. We should press on with the job. Singapore is already a middle-class society in terms of income level and home ownership. It is not yet middle-class in terms of life-style or values. The desire to have more room for dissenting views to be heard publicly is part of the yearnings of a middle-class society. So is the desire for a more open, a more liberal political climate. The question we have to ask ourselves is this: Are we ready for it? To be freer requires a more mature, a more responsible people. Freedom cannot be absolute. It is relative and must be matched by maturity and responsibility. Are we sure that our society is so matured that we can publicly and freely discuss all issues, including sensitive issues? I do not think we are ready yet. But we can begin to discuss these issues as part of our maturing process and we have already started discussing these issues publicly.”
“They were initiated by people opposed to the Government, opposed to what we want to do for Singapore. Should we be more tolerant and liberal-minded and not arrest the young Singaporeans who conspired to upset our political stability in matters of national security? I believe in nipping the problem in the bud. It will be a dereliction of duty to let the conspiracy grow because then more young Singaporeans may have to be arrested. This will be painful and, therefore, we decided to move in earlier than later. But remember that the Marxist Conspiracy, the Hendrickson Affair, the Devan Nair White Paper - all these were not initiated by us. They were responses or actions forced upon the Government. We should not let these distractions sidetrack us from pursuing our goal of building a better Singapore, of achieving a more participative democracy. There are many big decisions to take. We want to involve Singaporeans in taking them. We have taken a big decision on ensuring that Parliament would always remain multi-racial. We have introduced the concept of Group Representation Constituencies or voting candidates in a general election on a team basis. This morning I tabled a White Paper on elected President. It is an important amendment to the Constitution and Singaporeans should be involved in understanding the change and debating the change before we finalize the Bill for Parliament. We can involve Singaporeans in more participation in public debates through the GPCs. After the General Election, in the next Parliament, I intend to allow GPCs to conduct public hearings similar to the way the US Congressional Committees hold public hearings on specific subjects of importance to the country.”
“By involving them in major decisions, they will understand the rationale behind our policies, and they will understand national policies better. And because they are involved in these major decisions facing the country, they will be more committed to their implementation. More than 1,000 members of the public directly participated in the deliberations of the Economic Committee and its sub-Committees. The National Agenda discussion involved thousands of Singaporeans in identifying the goals for the nation and the challenges facing us. The Feedback Unit, chaired by the Member for Ayer Rajah, played a particularly active role in the National Agenda discussion. The Unit also collates and analyses feedback from members of the public and send them to the Government for attention. We established Government Parliamentary Committees (GPCs) in Parliament. Each GPC has between 10 to 15 resource panel members from outside Parliament. So about 100 concerned Singaporeans are involved in parliamentary debate indirectly through their GPCs. We have recently set up Advisory Councils on specific subjects. These Councils will again involve more Singaporeans to draw up programmes for the nation. This way the programmes will not just be the product of civil servants and the Ministers, but they will be the product of Singaporeans who have something to contribute to the nation. Town Councils, which will be established after the general election, will further involve Singaporeans in decision-making at the constituency level. They will truly make Singapore a participative democracy. But, alas, our more open and participative style of government has been clouded by several events over the last 17 months. But remember that these events were not initiated by us.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I agree fully with the sentiments expressed by the Member for Changkat. Since May last year, the Government and indeed the whole nation have been sidetracked from our main goal of building consensus to achieve our vision of a developed, vibrant and creative society. I agree with her that we should press on with our job, that we should get back on track and that we should apply the full weight of Government to implement the goals as spelt out in the Agenda for Action. We have many big decisions to take and more work to do before we can achieve a more mature and participative democracy. Since the last general election, Members would know that we have moved quickly and decisively to build consensus amongst the people and to involve them in major decisions which the country has to take. In May 1985, we reversed the 'graduate mother' policy which has hurt the people and alienated them. In August 1986, we resolved the CPF withdrawal issue. Then in March 1987 we revised our population policy to reverse the declining fertility rate in our population. We helped more in the lower income group to own homes and we built more creches to help working mothers. In December 1984, 81% of our population owned the HDB flats they live in. In June 1988, the percentage has gone up to 86%, an increase of 5%. In December 1984, there were 50 creches; in June 1988, 146; number of places available to children has also gone up from 3,000 to nearly 9,000. We have introduced a more participative style of government. We recognize that younger Singaporeans want to contribute their ideas and energy to nation building. And we encourage them.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, we should not enter into a debate on this elected President at the moment because it is obviously unfair to Members of Parliament. They have not read the White Paper yet. The purpose of my Statement today is to alert the House that the White Paper which is being circulated deals with the principles of the proposal. We can have a full debate later on. BILLS INTRODUCED 12.01 pm SINGAPORE ACADEMY OF LAW BILL "to establish the Singapore Academy of Law and for matters connected therewith", presented by the Second Minister for Law (Prof. S. Jayakumar); read the First time; to be read a Second time on the next available sitting of Parliament, and to be printed. BANKRUPTCY (AMENDMENT) BILL "to amend the Bankruptcy Act (Chapter 20 of the 1985 Revised Edition)", presented by Prof. Jayakumar; read the First time; to be read a Second time on the next available sitting of Parliament, and to be printed. CARRIAGE BY AIR BILL "to give effect to the provisions of the Warsaw Convention concerning international carriage by air and the Convention as amended by the Hague Protocol and for purposes connected therewith", presented by the Minister for Communications and Information (Dr Yeo Ning Hong); read the First time; to be read a Second time on the next available sitting of Parliament, and to be printed. EMPLOYMENT (AMENDMENT) BILL "to amend the Employment Act (Chapter 91 of the 1985 Revised Edition)", presented by the Minister for Labour (Mr Lee Yock Suan); read the First time; to be read a Second time on the next available sitting of Parliament, and to be printed. PUBLIC SERVICE (MONTHLY VARIABLE COMPONENT AND NON-PENSIONABLE ANNUAL ALLOWANCE) BILL Order for Second Reading read.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the answers to the questions asked by the Member for Whampoa would be obvious when he reads the White Paper. I propose that we leave matters as they are now. With the White Paper which is now being circulated, we can have a fuller debate later on.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, it depends on when the general elections will be held. We have not yet decided on the date of the next general elections.”
“We also wanted to ensure that there would be minimum change to our existing parliamentary system where the Prime Minister and his Cabinet are in charge of the Government. The Auditor-General, Accountant-General, senior Permanent Secretaries and Chairmen and Chief Executive Officers of statutory boards were all consulted to ensure that the proposal was practical and workable. The objective of this White Paper is to set out the essential principles of the proposed constitutional changes, before a Bill (containing the details) is settled for First Reading. Members will have full opportunity to debate the proposal of an elected President with these withholding powers when the Bill is presented to Parliament.”
“Thirdly, the custodial role of the President does not mean that the Prime Minister and his Government are powerless to act if the President refuses to concur in these two areas. If the Prime Minister feels strongly that the President's non-concurrence is wrong, he can put the issue to the people and build up political pressure on the President, or he can campaign to get another person elected in the next election. In extremis, the Government can move to amend the Constitution to remove the blocking powers of the President, provided this is supported by the people in a referendum. What the safeguards mean is that any decisions concerning assets can be proceeded with, even if the President does not concur, but only after it has been raised as a major public issue and debated and supported by the people. The proposal means that no Government can surreptitiously dispose of the assets without the electorate being aware of it. This is why we have described the safeguard as a two-key mechanism: the Prime Minister and his Cabinet possessing one key, and the elected President, the other key. Both keys must be used before the reserves can be unlocked or the integrity of the public service dismantled. Members will remember that it was as long ago as April 1984 that the Prime Minister first referred to the need for such safeguards. He elaborated on it in his National Day Rally speech in August 1984. Cabinet Ministers had been discussing the proposals even earlier, since 1982. It has taken considerable time to finalize the proposals. It is an important change and we had to satisfy ourselves that the proposal was well balanced and workable.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the Government will today introduce a White Paper on "Constitutional Amendments to safeguard financial assets and the integrity of the public service". Members will receive their copies this morning. I wish to make a brief statement on this White Paper. The White Paper sets out the proposal for a President to be elected directly by the people in elections separately from Parliamentary elections. The President will not be an Executive President. He will only have a custodial role in two areas - safeguarding of our financial reserves and of the integrity of our public service. I do not propose to go into the details of the proposals or the rationale for the change as they are all set out in the document. However, I wish to draw the attention of Members to the following: Firstly, the Prime Minister and his Cabinet will continue to govern the nation under the Parliamentary system. But in two areas, the Government will need to get the President's concurrence before it can proceed. These are: (i) spending from reserves which it itself has not accumulated, and (ii) appointments to important positions in the public service including important statutory boards. Our financial reserves and the integrity of our public service are two key assets which we cannot afford to have eroded. Hence, the investing of an additional safeguard in the elected President. Secondly, while the President will have blocking powers in these two areas, he will not have any powers to initiate policies or to make executive decisions. Except for these two areas, he will have to act on the advice of the Cabinet, as is the case now. In other words, he will not be an Executive President.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the PAP has a large number of candidates and we have a choice as to who we want to field in Potong Pasir. And he knows who we are going to field in Potong Pasir. NEW POLICY ON HDB FLAT SELECTION 4. Mr Chng Hee Kok asked the Minister for National Development how many applicants for the Housing and Development Board flats have failed to make a third and final selection of a flat since the implementation of the Board's policy to restrict opportunities for selection of new flats to three.”
“There was more than one MP in Parliament. But seriously, Sir, my own sense is that some Singaporeans want to have an Opposition in Parliament. I may be wrong. The Member for Whampoa may be right that my assumption was wrong.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I was not sure whether the Member for Whampoa was referring to the Member for Potong Pasir.”