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 14 of 28.
“Mr Speaker, Sir, very quickly, the test will be obvious and the results will also be obvious in the next elections.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the evidence was there in the last elections.”
“If he does not believe me, he can always take a poll, because I do not have to take a sample on this. I know that Singaporeans want the PAP to be in charge of Singapore. But at the same time we recognize that there are some Singaporeans who want an Opposition in Parliament as well. We recognize that as far back as 1984. Hence the introduction of this non-constituency MP provision in our Constitution and in our Parliamentary Elections Act. I do not assume that the PAP will always be in power 100 years from now, or 200 years from now. I do not assume that. But we do assume that Singaporeans want a mainstream party to be in charge of Singapore and that that mainstream party in all likelihood will occupy the majority number of seats in Parliament. If they occupy the full House less three, then there will be three Opposition MPs in Parliament. They do not need to activate the non-constituency MPs provision. But if that mainstream party fills up every seat in this House, then there will be no Opposition MP in Parliament. Then, the provision will be activated. Maybe 100 years from now, it is possible that another party could be in charge of Singapore and that party could be the mainstream party. If that is so, and if the PAP is unable to get back into Parliament, it will accept the offer of non-constituency MPs.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, everybody knows that Singaporeans want the PAP to be in charge of Singapore.”
“As to the second question by the Member for Ayer Rajah, he might not have remembered that the Constitution provides for six non-constituency MPs. But as this idea is a new one, the Parliamentary Elections Act provides for only three for a start. It can be increased to six, if necessary. There will be no need to amend the Constitution for this.”
“I do not agree with him at all. A non-constituency MP is not a second-class MP. If anything, he is a privileged MP. He does not look after the constituency and he can speak on any subject he likes in Parliament. Through his performance in Parliament, he can establish himself. The media are open to him. He can call press conferences. He will appear on "Today in Parliament" and if he is good and skilful, he can pose a threat to the PAP MP whom he narrowly defeated in the last election. That is provided he can show that he is better than the PAP MP whom he defeated. Indeed, if he can show that he is much better than the other PAP MPs, he will be able to take advantage of his position in Parliament to attract other good candidates to join him, or his party, and thereby try and capture more seats in subsequent elections. The non-constituency MP provision is not unique to Singapore in the sense that another country, Mauritius, has a similar provision. In Mauritius they too have a provision whereby the candidates who scored the highest percentage of votes in an election but who are not returned in the first round can enter Parliament. In their case, it is to allow for a racially-balanced slate of candidates in Parliament. In other words, in Mauritius, if the Parliament is not racially balanced, the candidate from the community which is not adequately represented in Parliament can be returned in a second round. This second-round entry into Parliament by no means make the Mauritian MP a second class MP. The Member for Potong Pasir has said sometime ago that looking after the Town Council should not be the job of a Member of Parliament. If he is so afraid of shouldering the responsibility, he can take up an NCMP seat in Parliament, if it is offered to him in the next election.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I am aware that the Member for Potong Pasir has said that the non-constituency MP is a second-class MP.”
“Dr Tan Cheng Bock: Sir, I would like to ask the First Deputy Prime Minister whether he agrees with the feeling of some Singaporeans that non-constituency MPs are actually second-class Members of Parliament. The other question is: if the Government is really serious about the very useful role that this non-constituency MPs will play in Parliament, then why is there provision for only three non-constituency MPs?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the non-constituency MP's seat was offered to Mr M.P.D. Nair of the Workers' Party and Mr Tan Chee Kien of the Singapore United Front in the last election. Both of them turned it down. But they represented only two Opposition parties. They cannot speak for all the other Opposition parties. The non-constituency MP (NCMP) provision is now a feature of our parliamentary system. It is part of our Constitution. The Constitution provides for six seats for Opposition Members. The need for this provision is even greater now. Why is that so? It is because we have introduced the Town Councils Act. After the general election, Town Councils will be established in every constituency in Singapore by stages. As I have stated earlier, Town Councils will, in a sense, compel the voters to examine the candidates more carefully because the candidates who are returned as Members of Parliament will have to look aftertheir constituencies. This may deprive those Singaporeans, who may not support the Government, of a voice in Parliament. But we are confident that when voters examine our candidates against Opposition candidates closely, and against the fact that the MPs are responsible for their constituencies, in all likelihood they will vote in our candidates. The NCMP provision will ensure that there will always be an Opposition in Parliament, regardless of the outcome of the results in a general election. This way, voters can always vote with the knowledge that there will be a good government to look after Singapore, plus MPs of integrity to look after their Town Councils and as well as Opposition MPs in Parliament to voice whatever dissent they may have.”
“Through the non-constituency MP provision, if fewer than three Opposition MPs are returned in a general election, the number of Opposition MPs will be topped up to three. In addition to the MPs elected in the constituencies, those Opposition candi- dates who polled the highest percentage votes will be declared non-constituency MPs. There will always be at least three MPs from the Opposition to voice dissent in Parliament.”
“At the same time, it knows that some Singaporeans, in particular the younger ones, want to see the Opposition represented in Parliament. They believe that Opposition MPs can check the PAP, ask Ministers questions which Government MPs do not dare to ask, and voice their discontentment about Government policies which they do not like. This desire is understandable. It should be accommodated and not over-ridden. The Government believes the presence of Opposition MPs in Parliament since 1981 has been a valuable education for Singaporeans. In answering questions and attacks from the Opposition, the Government can show that it is able to justify its policies against objections and that it has nothing to hide. After watching Opposition MPs in action on television, Singaporeans can learn the limits of what a Parliamentary Opposition can do. The Town Council legislation requires MPs of HDB constituencies to look after the administration of their housing estates. This will make voters more careful to vote for candidates, PAP or Opposition, in whom they have confidence in running their constituencies well. A vote for the Opposition cannot simply be a protest vote. It is a vote for an Opposition candidate who will be the voter's MP and also his Town Councillor. If an Opposition candidate is elected, he will run the Town Council. In other words, the voter will have to live with his choice in a very personal and immediate way, because the person he voted in will run his estate. Of course, this means that the Opposition political parties will try to field better candidates for elections. And those which do not are less likely to win. I must point out that, any way, the law already provides for the electorate's desire of an Opposition in Parliament.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the Government is confident that Singa- poreans want the PAP to be in charge of Singapore.”
“To sum up, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, Town Councils will allow Singaporeans to participate actively in the management of their own affairs. They decentralize and speed up decision-making. They devolve authority from the HDB to the Member of Parliament and the Town Councillors. They remove uniformity and introduce individuality into each constituency. In addition, Town Councils will encourage voters to vote carefully and to examine and to assess their candidates critically. This will provide a ballast to our political system. MPs will now have a direct impact on their lives, at the constituency level, and not just through their performance in Parliament. These candidates must have at least the ability to chair Town Council meetings, to run Town Councils, to manage people, and the competence to manage the living environment of the constituents. If the objectives of the Town Councils Bill are realized, the Bill will be a major contribution to our system of parliamentary democracy. Like the GRCs, the Town Councils Bill is another significant step forward in evolving a political system that will work for Singapore. I commend this Bill to you. [Applause.] 12.27 pm”
“I concede this possibility. My response is: if this happens in the future, is it necessarily a loss for Singapore? If Opposition parties can grow and threaten the PAP in this way, it must be because they have proven themselves to be as good as the PAP. Many PAP MPs have come and gone. We all should come and go. And if the PAP itself should one day become infirm and incompetent, the whole PAP Government should go. Our primary responsibility is to ensure that there are always dedicated, honourable men and women in Parliament to look after the interests of Singapore. We are not interested in being here just for the sake of being here. We owe our people the responsibility to ensure that there will always be good men and women in Parliament to look after their interests. If we succeed in this, it does not really matter which party is in charge. Town councils will encourage the voters to look at their candidates more critically, more carefully. They will favour competent, dedicated and trustworthy men and women. This alone is sufficient reason to support the Bill. Political parties are supposed to put up such dedicated and honourable men and women for election by the voters. If they do, the voters have a choice. It will be a choice between two or three good candidates for Parliament. Then parliamentary democracy will work. If they do not, voters are given a Hobson's choice, then parliamentary democracy must fail. We believe that the Town Councils Bill will get voters to demand better quality candidates of the political parties. If Opposition parties begin to field good candidates, they will have as good a chance of winning elections as the PAP. Then we may have the beginning of a two-party system in Singapore.”
“He could not plant a tree. With Town Councils, he will have his chance to plant his tree, to prove himself, provided he wins the next elections. And if he proves himself, his party may be able to convince other constituencies to vote for it at subsequent elections. In fact, this was what some PAP MPs feared. They were concerned with the possibility that Opposition parties will win some seats, prove themselves, and from there fan out to other constituencies in subsequent elections. They will be able to do so if they can prove to the constituents that they can run the Town Councils as well as the PAP Town Councils.”
“He will doubtless blame that his hands are tied, and put the blame on the Government. He will blame his lack of success on the Government.”
“If a new party finds itself unexpectedly in government, it would be like an aspiring pilot taking over an SIA jumbo jet in mid-air before he has flown solo in a Cessna. This cannot be in the interest of passengers in the jumbo. If any party aspires to displace the PAP government, its first step must be to try and acquire some experience in running Town Councils. Town Councils are the Cessnas of our political system. In the interest of Singapore, any party which wants to form the government should prove itself first in Town Councils. On election night in 1984, when the Member for Potong Pasir was elected, he said that he would make Potong Pasir a model constituency. I have not read that he has succeeded.”
“If we use the 1984 general elections as the benchmark, the status quo will be upset when only 13% of the electorate free-ride. I do not know the views of the Member for Potong Pasir on Town Councils. But he should welcome this Bill. It adds stability to the political system, but more important for him, it also benefits Opposition parties. The more power and responsibility MPs are given at the constituency level, the more the Opposition parties can demonstrate to voters that they are worthy of trust and are ready to take on greater responsibilities. Mr Chiam's authority is now limited in Potong Pasir. With Town Councils he will have more authority plus the opportunity to demonstrate his ability. That was how the PAP came to power - contesting the City Councils in December 1957 and going on to win the general elections in 1959. This is also how many French politicians make their way to Parliament, by getting themselves elected as Town Councillors. Town Councils provide a stepping stone for political parties without any track record to demonstrate to voters that it can manage the country. If a party can manage Town Councils well, it will prove its competence in at least one area - good administration which is the prerequisite of any government. In Britain, one of the problems which the Labour Party now faces in winning elections is that its Front Bench contains few members with ministerial experience. The British Labour Party has been in power many times before this. Even then, their present lack of experienced men, men who have been in government before, causes voters to hesitate. How much bigger the problem must be for a new party in Singapore.”
“Certainly, if the voters cannot even trust a party to run their constituency, they will surely not want that party to form the government. They may be right or wrong in their choice, but at least they will vote in accordance with their belief that their constituency and national interests are better served with a particular candidate or a particular party. At present, MPs have no direct responsibility for their constituencies. They are not directly responsible for the welfare of the voters in their constituencies. The Government is. It is, therefore, quite safe for voters to cast their votes for a candidate they would never pick to manage their constituency. For example, some voters who want a PAP Government also want to see some Opposition MPs. They may vote for an Opposition candidate and depend on the PAP to look after their constituency because they expect other constituencies to return PAP candidates in sufficient numbers to form the government. This phenomenon is sometimes called "the free-rider" problem, or the have-your-cake-and-eat-it syndrome. If everyone free-rides, Singaporeans may end up with a government nobody really wanted. This free-riding problem is serious because not everyone need to think the same way for the unwanted result to happen. At any one time, some 25% to 30% of the electorate will vote against the Government, any government for that matter. These are the anti-estab- lishment, disaffected votes. They will vote against any government. All it takes to upset the status quo is for an additional 20% to 25% of the electorate to free-ride, ie, voting opposition and hoping other constituencies will vote for the PAP for the government.”
“But this political stability can be threatened by sudden temporary swings in national mood. If there are such swings, the PAP can be out of power. If that happens, political instability will result because no alternative leadership has emerged which can effectively govern Singapore. In Singapore, except for a few constituencies like Tanglin, Chua Chu Kang and Joo Chiat, all our constituencies are microcosms of Singapore. They are all HDB estates, and every estate has about the same racial and socio-economic composition. That is because we have taken care to have a mix of flat types and of different races in all our new towns, and are upgrading the older ones to do likewise and to be likewise. There are no slums or pockets of despair anywhere in Singapore. We have no farm vote, which supports the status quo. We have no Upper House, no Senators to absorb the backlash of unpopular policies. There are no inherently safe seats for one party or other. Any temporary swing in national mood will affect all constituencies simultaneously. Town Councils should provide this missing stabilizer to trim sudden, temporary drastic swings. With Town Councils, it will matter more to the voter who his MP is. His MP will head the Town Council which looks after his living environment. Because of this, voters will have a stronger incentive to vote carefully and sincerely, ie, for the person and the party who they think they can depend on to manage their constituency and look after the country as well, whether it is the PAP, the SDP or the Workers' Party. If they have confidence that the candidate can look after their constituency, they are more likely to have confidence that the candidate's party can form the next government of Singapore.”
“Because of these arrangements, although the opposition Japan Socialist Party, Komeito, and others, often do well in the cities, they have no hope of forming the government. The Japanese pay a cost though for this arrangement. This cost is high food prices as a result of price supports for farm products. But the benefit is more than 30 years of stable government, and many more years of such stability to come. In the United States, the Senate was explicitly constituted to balance the short term interest and concerns of the House of Representatives. Representatives must get elected every two years, senators only once in every six years. So two years election in the House of Representatives, six years in the Senate. Representatives are highly susceptible to popular pressure, the senators much less so. Senators do not have to worry so closely about their day-to-day popularity. So they can take a longer viewpoint of issues of national interest and support correct but unpopular policies, if necessary. Furthermore, Senators' re-elections are staggered. Every two years, only one-third of the Senate is up for re-election. As a result, it is impossible for a sudden, temporary change in popular mood to overwhelm both the House and the Senate simultaneously, and cause political chaos. Singapore's political system enjoys none of these sources of stability. In Britain, stability comes from the traditional support for either the Labour or Conservative Party. In Japan, it comes from the farm votes. In the US, it comes from the different timing in electing Congressmen. In Singapore, it is the PAP which provides the political stability. There is no other party at present which can effectively govern Singapore.”
“Let me give you examples from Britain, Japan and the United States. In Britain, although there are more than two political parties, political stability comes essentially from the presence of two major parties, which can take over from one another to form the government. Also, the country is divided into richer and poorer constituencies, and many of the constituencies are safe seats for either the Labour Party or the Conservative Party. They return MPs from the same party, election after election, for decades. Cities like Glasgow or Liverpool are permanently Labour. Well-off rural areas like those in Cambridgeshire are permanently Tory. British elections are therefore really fought in a relatively small number of seats, the marginal seats, or marginal wards, and not throughout the whole country, because certain areas will vote Labour or Tory traditionally. In these wards, the balance of strength of the parties is almost even, and a small shift in the percentage of votes can change the MP, or the government. But while the government may change because of this shift in loyalty in the marginal wards, the British Parliament itself retains a certain degree of political stability. In Japan, the farm vote provides the stability. Farmers vote solidly for the LDP because the LDP looks after their interests. The Japanese keep their rural constituencies much smaller than urban ones, in terms of voters, about one-third the size of the urban constituencies. The farmers therefore have political influence out of proportion to their numbers. One urban constituency is roughly equal to three rural constituencies. And it is in the rural constituencies where the votes are for the LDP.”
“Town councils not only give power to the MP in his constituency but also strengthen the position of the many grassroots leaders who become Town Councillors. They will now have the authority to decide on how they want their constituencies to be managed. When grassroots leaders must weigh the consequences of their decisions and not just the attractiveness of their requests, their perspective changes very quickly. They consider trade-offs between one project and another. They worry about where to find the funds to pay for their ideas. They are concerned about how to present their decisions to the residents so that they can get the residents to cooperate with them. They defend decisions made with more conviction, because these were their own decisions and they know why they were taken. Today's Singaporeans want to be involved in decision-making, especially decisions which affect them directly. They want room to express their views and to participate. It is a good thing that they want to do so. We encourage them. Town Councils will be the mechanism to provide a new generation of Singaporeans with the opportunity to participate in the social and physical management of their own housing estates. Three Town Councils have been running in Ang Mo Kio for nearly two years. The acid test is this. Would any one of them, any one of the three, prefer to hand back their power to the HDB and go back to the status quo ante? I have asked the three Chairmen and the MPs concerned. None of them want to give it up. Now I shall move on to discuss how Town Councils enhance the stability of our political system. Every democratic political system needs ballast to prevent it from being overturned by temporary swings in popular opinion.”
“So the Member for Potong Pasir supports this point.”
“Another amendment introduced is that leases of land or flats not exceeding seven years or assignments of such leases, where accompanied by actual possession from the date of the lease or assignment, need not be registered under the Act. Where parts of lands have become vested in Government for public purposes, the Bill now empowers the Registrar of Deeds to finalize registration of deeds of parts of lands affected which would be useful to the owners of lands affected without having to wait for completion of survey. The Bill also provides that printouts of information stored in a computer maintained by the Registrar of Deeds will be receivable in evidence in a court of law. Sir, finally, I would like to say that, in the drafting of this Bill, the representatives of the Law Society were consulted and their views taken into account. Sir, I beg to move. Question put, and agreed to. Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House. The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. - [Prof. Jayakumar.] Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed. TOWN COUNCILS BILL Order for Second Reading read.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, what the Member for Potong Pasir is quarrelling is, in fact, not the formula but the quantum, that is, the 8%, not the formula itself. I have asked the Member whether the increase in deposit from $1,500 to $4,000 will prevent him from standing in the coming elections. If it does, then I will find a solution for him. Does it? That is the crux of the matter. Does it really cripple anybody who believes strongly in democracy from standing for election? If it does not, I think the Member is just making a speech for the sake of making one. Question put, and agreed to. Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House. The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. - [Mr Goh Chok Tong.] Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed. REGISTRATION OF DEEDS BILL 11.34 am Order for Second Reading read. The Second Minister for Law (Prof. S. Jayakumar): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." Sir, I would describe this as a rather technical Bill which introduces changes so as to keep pace with advances in the building development and financial sectors. The mode of registration of deeds is being simplified to expedite registration of such deeds. For the better protection of purchasers and mortgagees of units in large developments under construction, the life of a caveat will be five years in place of the existing six-month period. The Bill allows the certification of deeds which were executed abroad in countries where there is no notary public.”
“Or nine days' publicity, or what have you. For some people, I think it will be worth the price. Bear in mind that we are talking of deposits. We are not thinking of a sum which will be given to the Government or forfeited unless of course the candidate cannot obtain one-eighth of the votes cast in a constituency. It is a deposit. May I ask the Member for Potong Pasir whether he has any difficulty in finding $4,000 in the coming elections? Does it make it more difficult for SDP to find candidates? He is looking for an excuse for his inability to find candidates to field in 81 constituencies.”
“We have to make a distinction between the quantum of deposit and the purpose of the Bill, and this Bill will make it unnecessary for the Returning Officer or for the Elections Office to periodically remind itself what should be the correct quantum because that is now pegged to the MP's monthly allowance. As to why we chose 8%, I have given the reason in my speech and that was to make right an anomaly, and that anomaly was the gap between the deposit and the MP's allowance. As the Member for Potong Pasir himself has just said, we should discourage frivolous candidates in elections. One hundred candidates per constituency in Britain - I do not believe he got the number correct, but that was his figure. And indeed if you drop your deposit to a small sum, we may attract not hundreds but perhaps scores of candidates who think that standing for elections is like buying a lottery. You put in a dollar and if you are lucky you may be returned. Even if you are not returned as an MP, the two weeks' publicity for a lawyer, I think, is worth it.”
“The Member for Potong Pasir has got to make a distinction between the quantum of deposit and the purpose of the Bill. We could very well not come to this House and increase the deposit to $4,000, then there will be no Bill presented to this House. He has got to understand the purpose of the Bill which, as I explained, was to simplify a procedure which means that there is no need for periodic reviews and there will be no oversight as there was in 1984 when the deposit should have been increased to match the MP's allowance. Suppose, for the sake of argument, the Bill stipulates 2% of the MP's allowances instead of 8%, and that is roughly equivalent to $1,500. Would the Member for Potong Pasir oppose the Bill? [Pause.] Do you get the point? In other words, I use $1,500 to compute the percentage. Would you then object to the formula?”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, we all know that elections are coming and therefore we have to make speeches that will win us some votes.”
“We shall then be abused again. We have to register a point of principle: no foreigners can interfere in our domestic politics. My colleagues and I value our relationships with the US, but we treasure our independence even more. [Applause.]”
“Can Hendrickson, Snyder and Lambertson rescue us if Singapore go down the drain? Many people have felt that the Government has over-reacted, the Member for Ayer Rajah amongst them. But someone also told me that Singapore's reaction is too mild. Had Hendrickson been exposed in a neighbouring country, American flags would have been burnt and the US embassy stoned. So our reaction is very subdued. In my view, this controlled rage and quiet indignation, is a good sign for US-Singapore relationship. In February this year, when the US withdrew the GSP from Singapore, you remember the NTUC held a rally. Workers demonstrated. Some used quite strident, anti-American, language. The Prime Minister was worried at the intemperate language used. He expressed his concern in a letter to Cabinet, and I quote him: 'Once we have worked the ground, it is very difficult to sway them back to view Americans as friends.' In other words, in our protest, remember that we should not sway the ground in such a way that we begin to regard Americans as our enemy. I shared the Prime Minister's concern. I had, in fact, earlier advised the NTUC to confine its rally to the Singapore Conference Hall. The NTUC wanted to organize a big rally at the Padang and then march or have a foot procession, all the way to the US embassy. But because I shared the Prime Minister's concern (we did not discuss) I advised the NTUC to hold its rally indoors. Otherwise, the Prime Minister would have sent his Cabinet colleagues a stiffer note. This time, we cannot but express our indignation over the interference in our internal politics. Even then, it is subdued. To hush up the whole scandal would have been impossible and unwise. We would be taken for granted. It would be mistaken as a sign of weakness, a sign of docility.”
“For we must assume that Hendrikson's successors will mount another quiet operation against us, 5, 10, 15 years from now. Since this unhappy episode, I have asked how we can safeguard ourselves. The answer comes down to a vigilant ISD, and a more manageable number of diplomatic staff in the foreign embassies. I have looked at the staff strength of the various embassies in Singapore - USA, UK, Japan, Australia, Indonesia, Thailand, Malaysia, Canada, France, USSR and FRG. The US embassy has 22 diplomatic staff and 44 home-based, non-diplomatic, staff, a total of 66. The Soviet embassy, in sharp contrast, is allowed only 8 diplomatic staff and 18 home-based, non-diplomatic, staff, a total of 26, or one-third of the Americans. If American diplomats behave as if they have a missionary right to roam all over Singapore, including off-limit areas, whether such behaviour is official US State Department policy or not, then we have no choice but to cut down their diplomatic staff strength. Otherwise, it will be impossible for us to patrol and keep interfering diplomats off the forbidden areas. This will be unpleasant but it may be the only way to preserve good relations with the US in the long run. Conclusion We have long regarded the United States as a good friend, a close friend, whose strategic interests we share. If the US understands our sensitivity and respects our wish to be ourselves, we can remain close friends. The Singapore Government is answerable to Singaporeans. We have to account for our actions every four or five years in free and secret elections. Foreigners are not accountable for their actions. When they interfere in Singapore and things go wrong, they are not accountable. We are. They do not stand for elections in Singapore. We do.”
“We can easily expose this hypocrisy by asking them this simple question. If Francis Seow were running as a US presidential candidate, would you puff him up or would you puncture him? Remember what they did to Gary Hart and Senator Joe Biden? Senator Biden was laughed out of the US presidential race for plagiarism as a university law student. Yet the Asian Wall Street Journal did not seem embarrassed even after learning that Francis Seow's article on "Singapore's Closing Society" was not written by him. If the offshore press continue to actively engage in our domestic politics and try to sway the ground before the next general elections against the Government, we shall counter them. We see little reason to accord them the privilege of stationing correspondents here to interfere in Singapore's domestic politics. Confidence in US shaken I cannot pretend that our confidence in the US State Department has not been shaken by the adventures of Hendrickson, Snyder and Lambertson. It will be a lie if I say that our relations are as good as ever, that our confidence in the US State Department has not been shaken. We had a good steady relationship with the US. Why they want to upset this relationship is something which I cannot understand. We find it most worrying that the US government should insist that they have done nothing wrong and that the activities of Hendrickson were within the normal duties of a diplomat. Perhaps it is standard practice to deny such diplomatic transgressions. But if cultivating and nurturing disaffected elements to oppose an elected government is legitimate activity for American diplomats, then we had better take care, and so will other governments.”
“Foreign press, human rights groups The Western press and the so-called human rights groups have not understood this reason for our outrage, this reason for our wanting to maintain very high standards for Parliament. They were accessories of Hendrickson in building up Francis Seow as a "great human rights champion of oppressed Singaporeans". Out of nowhere, Francis Seow became a "leading dissident", a "sharp critic", a "prominent lawyer", a "human rights champion". He was invariably referred to by the offshore press as a former Solicitor-General, and a former President of the Law Society, both highly honourable professions. They never told their readers why Francis Seow resigned from the Civil Service, why he was disciplined three times by the Law Society, what the Chief Justice said of him and why he was disqualified as President of the Law Society, and why Patrick Seong refused to share the same political bed with him. They dressed him up in fine clothing. They were dressing up a wolf in sheep's clothing. The Bangkok Post, Hong Kong papers, the Far Eastern Economic Review, the Asian Wall Street Journal, Asiaweek, they all painted him up as a leading opposition figure in Singapore. They were campaigning for him, building him up as a great figure to save Singapore from tyranny. These papers were and still are participating actively in our domestic politics. They are active participants, not neutral observers. Like Hendrickson, they are interfering in our domestic politics and trying to shape its course. Francis Seow has such a dubious reputation that even Patrick Seong was afraid to associate with him. Yet, the offshore press and the human rights groups were puffing him up into a Singapore leader, a glorious knight in shining armour.”
“No, there are other attributes that we look for. Important attributes like integrity, reliability, moral standards, motivation for wanting to be an MP, and whether he has done things for others without expectation of personal gain. We studied the life history of our candidates and checked with their friends. That is how thorough we are. The ability, character and moral standing of the Ministers and the MPs are at least equal to, if not better than, the top executives in the corporations, in the private sector, or in the media. And where they have not measured up, they are dropped, as MPs know. Where they have broken the rules, they are punished. This is how we maintain standards. This is why the people of Singapore do not despise their political leaders. This is why they do not despise their MPs. We have to maintain standards. If not, a Parliament of able and moral men, who look after the interests of the people, will degenerate into a Parliament of immoral and opportunistic men whose concerns are themselves, or worse, their outside masters. Once Parliament is not filled with upright men, or "Jun zi" ( ), or what Confucius called "Xiao ren" ( ), "mean men", the whole system of government, and then the whole society, must disintegrate. I remember when I visited London in September 1986, this question was asked of me by an official of the Conservative Party. I visited their Central Office. He asked me, "What is the social standing of politicians in your country?" I told him, "Very high" and said, "What's yours?" His reply was, "Politicians are right at the bottom." Then he corrected himself and said, "No. Journalists are below them." He was referring to Western journalists.”
“It is this extrapolation of consequences which upsets us, not just the impropriety of interfering in our domestic politics. Once you press the button you set in motion a chain of events. And can you foresee the consequences? I feel strongly on this point about Jun zi being in Parliament because I believe that that is the way for us to govern Singapore, for us to hold the place together. I have now been in politics for 12 years. I have worked with the Prime Minister and his Old Guard colleagues, Dr Goh Keng Swee, Dr Toh Chin Chye, S. Rajaratnam, E.W. Barker, Ong Pang Boon and Lim Kim San, to identify and recruit candidates for the PAP, and to help them get elected into Parliament. I ran the by-elections in 1979. I was Chairman of the General Elections Committee for the PAP in 1980 and also in 1984. From 1980, I searched, sieved, and sat in at all the interviews of all new candidates for Parliament. Amongst the PAP MPs here, I think I am not wrong in saying that I have the deepest inside knowledge of how PAP Members of Parliament were spotted by the Prime Minister, by the Old Guard leaders, how they were scrutinized and assessed for their social commitments, their character and, finally, how they were selected to stand for elections for the PAP. I nominated some Members of Parliament myself - the Members of Parliament for Ayer Rajah, Kebun Baru, Eunos, the Minister for Trade and Industry, the Minister for Community Development. I was involved in their nominations, in their being assessed by the Committee of the PAP and in their final selection. And I would like to think I played a part in getting them elected into Parliament. We did not just look for ability in our MPs, an important point worth making, because people believe that we look only for ability in our MPs.”
“We believe that leaders must be men of ability and integrity, committed to the public good. If I may quote in Mandarin from Confucius "Zheng zhe zheng ye, zi shuai yi zheng, shu gan bu zheng" ( ) "To govern is to set things right. If you begin by setting yourself right, who will dare to deviate from the right?" Singaporeans expect their Prime Minister, and indeed any Minister, any MP, to be a superior man, a man of ability and integrity who can set things right and ensure good government. He must be a "Jun zi", a Confucian gentleman. American politics is totally different from ours. The brightest and the best do not get, as a rule, elected into government. As a rule, they do not run for elected office. They make their mark in the private corporations, and the best make it to the top. The Fortune magazine regularly publishes the top 500 companies in the United States, and the best and the brightest in America make it to these top 500 corporations in the US. Those Americans who run for elections need a strong stomach for physically gruelling election campaigns more than anything else. So what you need in the US is a strong stomach because if you do not have a strong stomach, you cannot survive the months, and even years, of campaigning. And the winners are those who are telegenic, who are skilled communicators, never mind if they are helped by ghost writers or wordsmiths who can craft beautiful phrases to fit the headlines. So when Hendrickson picked Francis Seow as a potential leader of the Opposition, he was pressing a button that could have upset and dismantled the carefully built-up moral standards of our Parliament, the high standards of leadership which have held and still hold Singapore together.”
“This quote comes from his new book "Infinite In all Directions", which was reviewed by the International Herald Tribune (30th April 1988). And according to the reviewer, Dr Dyson is a "theoretical physicist, at Princeton's august Institute for Advanced Study, veteran defence consultant and, neuron for neuron, one of the most formidably provocative minds in American life". To say that the American Constitution "is designed to be operated by crooks" is perhaps a colourful exaggeration. But it does underline the American view of poli- tics and government, and also underline their view of politicians. Reading American magazines and newspapers, I get the impression that Americans generally believe that no one should be entrusted with wide powers because sooner or later he is bound to abuse them. So they place great faith in checks and balances - minimum of powers to the elected President, and the maximum of controls of the Executive by Congress and the Supreme Court, and the media. So the media take it upon themselves to scrutinize and monitor the President and his staff in order to detect and expose wrongdoings. But we are not America. The Singapore system, like the British, entrusts the Executive, the Prime Minister and the Cabinet, with a range of wide discretionary powers, for example, the right to detain drug traffickers and gang rapists under the Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Act. The British system of Cabinet government with a majority in Parliament (because to be in Parliament you must have a majority) means strong government. On this constitutional framework, Singaporeans have superimposed the ideal political leader as a Confucian gentleman, a Jun zi ( ), someone who is upright, morally beyond reproach, someone people can trust.”
“US concern over human rights in the Soviet Union, which President Reagan once referred to as the "Evil Empire", has not prevented him from holding four summits with General Secretary Gorbachev, or Nancy Reagan from holding hands with Raisa Gorbachev. The Soviet government knows that they can ignore US sermons about human rights and religious freedom, and despite this the US will have no alternative but to continue to do business with the Soviet Union. The US knows this too. In interfering in Singapore's affairs, Hendrickson must have believed that we were more pliable, and that, like the Mafia Godfather, we have to do his bidding. But he forgot that Singapore is neither a client state of the United States nor an ally who cannot break away. We are a friend, a close friend of United States, I would like to believe. But if this closeness means that the US officials feel that they have a right to select and support Singaporeans they fancy as the leaders of the Opposition to work against us, then we shall keep our distance from them. We can move into a more neutral and a non-aligned posture. Systems of Government Perhaps there is a reason for what I see as an inherent American suspicion of government and why they believe in multi-party politics. The American Constitution, and here I am quoting one Dr Freeman Dyson: 'The American Constitution is designed to be operated by crooks, just as the British constitution is designed to be operated by gentlemen.' I can tell you that the Foreign Minister was most unhappy that I should be quoting this. He advised me, I think at least two times, not to say this, that it would annoy the Americans. But this is not necessarily my view. I am just quoting from a very distinguished American.”
“Dr Kirk added, and I quote him: 'It is much to be desired that the recovery of order and justice and freedom be advanced throughout the world; we should be thankful, in this rough time, for small mercies. But international politics, like domestic politics, is the art of the possible. To demand that other countries swiftly attain the liberal ideal is to expect what they cannot possibly accomplish; in some cases, it is to expect them to work their own destruction.' That means, in some cases, when you force your ideal on them, you get them to work for their own destruction. 'Also this is a demand often disingenuous, sometimes hypocritical. The United States supports by gigantic loans the murderous despot who rules Zaire, because now and again he may serve our turn in Africa; but our diplomats do not trouble themselves to inquire keenly into his enforcement of "human rights". Our State Department sedulously refrains from any words that might annoy the masters of Yugoslavia, where any hope of regaining some degree of civil liberty has been blasted as thoroughly as in Poland; for Yugoslavia is a bulwark of sorts against the Soviet Union. We reserve our sermons concerning human rights for such allies and client states as could not or would not break with the United States under any circumstances.' I do not necessarily agree with Dr Russell Kirk's assessments of the countries which he has named, but I have no doubt that Americans apply double standards when it comes to human rights. Human rights groups like Asiawatch kick up no fuss over Middle Eastern countries where adulterers are stoned to death and where the right hands of thieves are chopped off in accordance with Islamic Law because these countries produce oil which America needs. Double standards!”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the Member has to read the statement that I made in its context. I was referring to the kind of Opposition that would be returned to Parliament, I was referring to scallywags, charlatans and opportunists who could be returned to Parliament. If such a person was returned to Parliament by the electorate, my concern was that it would have meant that the electorate was unable to make a distinction between an honourable man and a dishonourable man for Parliament. If the electorate were to do so and so prove that they were unable to make that important distinction, then I fear for the worst. My view still holds.”
“May I be allowed to clarify that statement?”
“Goh Chok Tong Wan Hussin bin Hj Zoohri Goh Choon Kang Wan Soon Bee Heng Chiang Meng Wang Kai Yuen Ho Kah Leong Wong, Aline K. Ho Tat Kin Wong Kan Seng Hu Tsu Tau, Richard Wong Kwei Cheong Ibrahim Othman Yap Giau Cheng, Eugene Jayakumar, S. Yatiman Yusof Jek Yeun Thong Yeo Choo Kok Koh Lam Son Yeo Ning Hong Koh Lip Lin Yeo Toon Chia Lai Tha Chai Yu-Foo Yee Shoon Lau Teik Soon Zulkifli bin Mohammed Lee Boon Yang Lee Hsien Loong No Lee Yiok Seng Lee Yock Suan Nil Lim Boon Heng Lim Chee Onn Abstention Ng Kah Ting Ong Pang Boon Nil Ong Teng Cheong”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Third time." This Bill to amend the Constitution, like the Bill to amend the Parliamentary Elections Act, seeks to enact new provisions to ensure the representation of the Malay and Indian and other minority communities in Parliament. This House has just passed the Parliamentary Elections (Amendment) Bill. The points made in the debate on the Parliamentary Elections (Amendment) Bill apply to this Bill. The amendments made by the Select Committee to this Bill are similar to those made to the Parliamentary Elections (Amendment) Bill. I suggest, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, we consider the Third Reading of this Bill without repeating the debate. Sir, I beg to move. Mr Deputy Speaker: The Question is, "That the Bill be now read a Third time." A Division will be taken to ascertain that the Third Reading of the Bill is supported by the votes of not less than two-thirds of the total number of Members of Parliament, which is 53 Members, pursuant to Article 5(2) of the Constitution. Ring the Division Bells. Question put, "That the Bill be now read a Third time." Division taken: Ayes, 67; Noes, Nil; Abstentions, Nil. Ayes Ayes (cont.) Abbas Abu Amin Othman bin Haron Eusofe Abdullah Tarmugi Ow Chin Hock Ahmad Mattar Phua Bah Lee Ang Kok Peng Sia Khoon Seong Barker, E.W. Sidek bin Saniff Beng Kian Lam, Arthur Tan Cheng Bock Chai Chong Yii Tan, Dixie Chandra Das, S. Tan, Augustine H.H. Chen, Bernard Tan Keng Yam, Tony Cheong Yuen Chee, Eric Tan Soo Khoon Chew Heng Ching Tan Tee Yong, Philip Chin Harn Tong Tang Guan Seng Chng Hee Kok Tang See Chim Ch'ng Jit Koon Tay Eng Soon Dhanabalan, S. Teo Chong Tee Goh Chee Wee Vasoo, S.”
“Swiss democracy, based on a federal system, works because of the spirit, not because of the formal arrangements or formal institutions. Observed Vernon Bogdanor, the author of the article, I quote: 'It is impossible now to understand Swiss federation by looking at the constitutional framework alone. Moreover, institutional mechanisms must be understood and analysed in terms of the often informal arrangements characteristic of Swiss political culture.' Switzerland enjoys a high degree of consensus about the fundamentals of social and economic life. The Swiss search for agreement, not differences. Again, to quote from the author: 'The essence of citizenship is the search for agreement, with decisions being made, not by majority rule, but through different pluralities.' Search for agreement, not search for differences. The change to our Constitution and Parliamentary Elections Act to provide for election of MPs on a team basis is putting into place an institutional mechanism to ensure a multi-racial Parliament. On its own, it will notensure success in building up or strengthening our multi-racial society. It is a formal institutional arrangement. For us to succeed, we must have the same spirit as the Swiss to search for consensus, to work through informal as much as formal arrangements, to make every citizen, whichever community, he belongs to, feel that he is a Singaporean. Question put, and agreed to. Bill accordingly read a Third time and passed. CONSTITUTION OF THE REPUBLIC OF SINGAPORE (AMENDMENT) BILL (As reported from Select Committee) Order for Third Reading read.”
“But the Westminster Model has less to offer to a plural society, one divided by language, ethnicity, religion or race; it thus has little relevance to the problem of how to secure democracy in Northern Ireland, Cyprus, Belgium, Sri Lanka, South Africa - or Switzerland.' Do you remember the poignant letter from President Jayewardene, which I read out to this House sometime in January? After years of dealing with the problem of civil strife in Sri Lanka, the President came to the same conclusion as the Swiss - that the Westminster Model of democracy based on majority rule by a majority community cannot work in a plural society. We are a plural society comprising people of different ethnicity, religion, race and language. We are in this sense like Northern Ireland, Cyprus, Sri Lanka and Switzerland. We will be wise to learn from the experience of other plural societies, the successful as well as the less successful societies. The GRC proposal is our institutional mechanism to ensure that the minority communities are able to share power with the majority community. But more important than this formal arrangement, this formal institutional change which we are making to our Constitution and Parliamentary Elections Act is the spirit behind it. A constitution, declared Charles de Gaulle, in his press conference on 31st January 1964 "consists of a conception (esprit), institutions and their application". Three parts - the conception or the spirit, institutions and their application. The conception is the spirit in which a country organizes its political authority so as to combine freedom with order. You want freedom, you want order, you have got to have a constitution with the required spirit to allow you to achieve this - combination of freedom with order.”
“The author added: 'Swiss nationality cannot be linguistic, religious or racial; it must, rather, be founded on a subjective political fact - the feeling of belonging to a single Swiss nation. Thus Swiss nationality depends upon competitive co -existence between groups, and is not compatible with the dominance of any single linguistic or religious group.' Contrast the success of the Swiss example with the failure of examples in Northern Ireland, Sri Lanka. There the respective Protestant and Sinhalese majorities tried to use their political dominance, derived from their numerical strength, to impose their will on the respective minority communities. The result is violence, strife, partition. The GRC proposal of electing three MPs from at least two different communities as a team recognizes and accepts that there are differences between us, even though we are all Singaporeans. These are differences which even over time will not disappear because each community does not want it to disappear. Each community wants to retain its own ethnic identity. The author made a point that the Westminster Model of democracy based on majority rule is not suited for a society divided by ethnic differences. To quote him again: 'Switzerland has carried to the limit its departure from the Westminster Model view of democracy as majority rule. Such a Model may be appropriate in a society in which the main cleavages are based on class or other socio-economic factors, so that there can be a fairly regular alternation of power, or at least the prospect of such alternation.”
“It is the spirit behind the constitution that is important, the informal arrangements, not as in the case of Cyprus, the formal arrangement of power sharing between Greeks and Turks. Switzerland has a population of 6(r) million. It has four linguistic groups - German, spoken by nearly three-quarters of Swiss citizens; French, spoken by one-fifth; Italian spoken by 4.5%; and Romanche, by just under 1%. So four distinct linguistic groups. The population is more or less equally divided between two main religious groups - Protestant and Catholic. So like Singapore, it is confronted with the problem of building a nation out of disparate groups. We all know that Switzerland is a peaceful country, politically stable. But it has not always been so. Before the First World War, Switzerland was torn by religious and linguistic tensions - wars between Protestants and Catholics, between German Swiss and French Swiss. And it was indeed the existence of such tensions which drove them to seek solutions to their problems based on the acceptance of their differences. To quote from the article: 'The Swiss Confederation is based upon the cantons, upon territory - it is a territorial state, not, as with Belgium, a state based on language; nor, as with the Irish Republic, a state based upon religion. It is a state based upon the acceptance and entrenchment of differences, not upon a melting-pot conception of pluralism, which seeks to ignore them.' When the Protestants defeated the Catholics in 1847 in a religious war, they did not push the Catholics down the mountain side. They established a constitution which eventually gave the defeated Catholics equal weight.”
“The Member for Potong Pasir has got to decide whether we use the Swiss model or the American model because the two models are different. One is the so-called melting pot model. The other one accepts the differences between communities. I think his suggestion that we follow the Swiss model is correct. I have also, before this, done some in-depth research into the Swiss model. The spirit in which the Swiss organized their political affairs applies to us in Singapore. Since we last discussed the GRC proposal in this House to provide for election of MPs on a team basis, the more we discuss the more convinced I am that we are on the right track. Soon after our debate in January, the Swiss Ambassador sent our Prime Minister an article on "Federalism in Switzerland". It is written by Vernon Bogdanor, a Fellow and Senior Tutor of Brasenose College, Oxford. The experience of the Swiss, as analysed by the author in the article, reinforces our conviction of the soundness of our GRC proposal. The author made three illuminating points which are relevant to Singapore. One, Switzerland succeeds as a politically stable country because it is a state based upon the acceptance of differences between ethnic groups. Acceptance of differences, not a melting pot idea. If you are a Malay, we accept you as a Malay. If you are an Indian we accept you as an Indian. If you are a German Swiss, the French Swiss accepts him as a German Swiss. Two, in a plural society divided by language, ethnicity, religion or race, the Westminster Model view of democracy of majority rule has to be modified. Three, in a plural society, it is the spirit of the constitution, the informal arrangements, the political culture, that will make or break the society, not the formal institutions.”