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 15 of 28.
“We are not proposing a concept whereby Malays vote for Malays, Chinese for Chinese, Indians for Indians. The Cyprus constitution which the Member for Potong Pasir cited is similar to the proposal by PKMS - a proposal which he himself has rejected, and that is, a constitution which allows voters to vote along communal lines. So this fine distinction between the Cyprus situation and ours must be understood. If you do not understand this, you may think that maybe we are making a mistake. We are entrenching racialism in our Constitution and we will end up the way of Cyprus which the Member for Potong Pasir feared. No such thing. We will not end up the way of Cyprus because we are getting the communities to come together, to accommodate one another, and for the leaders to stand together as a team. Next, he advised us to look at the USA model, melting pot, where Americans of different races, religions, cultures get together and somehow through the melting pot an American citizen emerges. I do not quite understand the meaning of "melting pot" because watching the current elections in the US for the next President, it is quite clear that Jesse Jackson has got no chance of winning and becoming the next President. His support came from predominantly black areas. Of course, some whites supported him but it is clear that his support came mainly from areas which are predominantly black. If you study the pattern in other parts of the United States, as the Member for Jalan Kayu pointed out, race has not been blurred. So even in the United States, this melting pot concept is only an airy- fairy ideal. When it comes down to real politics, race plays a very important part, and it still does in the US. He then advised us to follow the Swiss model.”
“If you refer to his Second Reading speech, which I did last night, you will find that it was exactly the same speech which he made. The same points were made in January. He has not advanced his arguments further. No new arguments and no new data to back old arguments. He cited again the example of Cyprus to warn us that we are falling into the trap of institutionalizing racialism through the GRC proposal. The Member is less than honest. He is telling us half-truths because he has not told this House that the Cyprus Constitution provided for a system where the Greek Cypriots voted for Greek Cypriots and the Turks for the Turks. When the British gave independence to Cyprus, that was the arrangement for power sharing. The Greek Cypriots and the Turk Cypriots fought it out and they finally agreed on a constitution which distributed power in accordance with the proportion in the population. Not only were seats in Parliament distributed as per the constitution but seats in civil service, in jobs, and right down to broadcasting. I referred to the constitution when I was working on my Second Reading speech. The bargaining went down to details. In broadcasting, the number of hours for broadcast in Greek, in Turkish, was spelt out in the constitution. But that was necessary because they could not agree otherwise on how to share power. But in 1963, the Greeks, because they are in the majority (forming about 70% of the population) decided to change things in their favour - what I call "tyranny of the majority over the minority". The Turkish Cypriots rioted and that led to intervention by the Turks. Far from institutionalizing racialism in our Constitution, we are trying to institutionalize multi-racialism.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, first, I thank the Members of Parliament for their contributions. The PAP Members of Parliament who spoke supported the Bill. They have not raised any substantive points of disagreement or queries for me to answer. They all support the spirit behind the amendments of the GRC proposal as well as the mechanism of the GRC proposal. The Member for Bo Wen raised three questions which I would like to reply. One, if the population changes in terms of its composiiton, whether there will be changes to the formula for distributing the seats amongst the Malays and Indians and other minority communities. The answer must be yes. But, as I said in my speech, I do not expect that the population composition will change to any significant extent over the next 20 years. So the formula which we have will remain stable for about 20 years. Thereafter, maybe a revision is in order and, of course, Parliament at that point of time has got to debate and see how the allocation will be changed. Would the GRCs be spread across the whole of Singapore? This is a matter for the Elections Department to decide. I would expect the answer to be so. I would not expect GRCs to be concentrated in one area of Singapore, say, for example, the eastern part of Singapore. I would expect them to be distributed throughout Singapore - GRCs in the east, GRCs in the west, north, south, central. Who decides on the allocation between Malays and the other communities of GRCs? The President decides. But the President would have, in this case, to take the advice of the Government on which GRCs will be for Malays and which GRCs for Indians and other minority communities. The Member for Potong Pasir, true to form, opposed the Bill.”
“The Committee has received a total of 99 representations from the members of the public. This is a record number, I believe, of submissions made before any Select Committee of our Parliament. In view of the large number of submissions, and the possibility that a few of the Select Committee Members may be away from Singapore, I propose to add a few of my younger Cabinet colleagues to the Select Committee. They will help the Select Committee weigh all submissions carefully and thoroughly. I propose, first, that the Leader of the House, Mr Wong Kan Seng, be included. Next, I propose that the Second Minister for Law, Prof. S. Jayakumar, the Minister for Trade and Industry, BG Lee Hsien Loong, the Minister of State for National Development, Dr Lee Boon Yang, be also included in the Select Committee to assist the Committee in its deliberations. Question put, and agreed to. Resolved, That Prof. S. Jayakumar, Mr Wong Kan Seng, BG Lee Hsien Loong and Dr Lee Boon Yang be added to the Select Committee on the Parliamentary Elections (Amendment) Bill (Bill No. 23/87), and the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore (Amendment No. 2) Bill (Bill No. 24/87). ADJOURNMENT TO A LATER DAY (Motion) Resolved, "That at its rising today, Parliament do stand adjourn to Friday, 4th March, 1988." - [Mr Wong Kan Seng]. ADJOURNMENT MOTION”
“It is useful for us to think through this before we set up the committee because, as I said, unless we are very clear as to what it is we are capable of achieving, we should not give false hopes to the people who may be affected. Sir, I would like to thank all Members for their contribution to the debate on the Agenda for Action. Now that Parliament, from the speeches made by MPs, has fully endorsed the Agenda for Action, we are ready for the next step which is a Programme of Action, and you will see us coming out with such programmes and implementing them in a matter of months. [Applause]. Question put, and agreed to. Resolved, That this House adopts the Goals and Challenges contained in the Agenda for Action and presented to Parliament as a Green Paper (Paper Misc. 2 of 1988) as the basis for nation building and Government policy. SELECT COMMITTEE ON THE PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS (AMENDMENT) BILL AND THE CONSTITUTION OF THE REPUBLIC OF SINGAPORE (AMENDMENT NO. 2) BILL (Increase in Membership) The First Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Defence (Mr Goh Chok Tong): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, That Prof. S. Jayakumar, Mr Wong Kan Seng, BG Lee Hsien Loong and Dr Lee Boon Yang be added to the Select Committee on the Parliamentary Elections (Amendment) Bill (Bill No. 23/87), and the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore (Amendment No. 2) Bill (Bill No. 24/87). Sir, on 12th January 1988, I referred the Parliamentary Elections (Amendment) Bill and the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore (Amendment No. 2) Bill to a Select Committee. This House approved the nine Members I named for the Select Committee. Of these 9 Members, only three are Cabinet Ministers. The Select Committee invited the public to submit their views by 15th February, 1988.”
“And that formula will be followed. The formula is to give every Singaporean every opportunity to advance himself through education, a job and self-reliance. That formula has allowed us to successfully increase the number of home owners in Singapore. It has allowed many of us to be here in Parliament. I know for a fact that the Member for Kebun Baru came from a rather humble background, but that formula has allowed him to go beyond that lower income group. The same formula applies to me. I used to live in a wooden house where some 20 people would queue up for one bathroom. My son now lives in a house where he has his own bathroom. So we have to look for the reasons why people still remain where they are. It does not mean that we should not pay specific attention to that group. As I said, our approach now is to be sectoral instead of generalized. I would be happy to reflect on the Member's suggestion as to how we can structure a committee to look into the needs of the lowest income group. I would define the lowest income group as that group which is still unable to own homes. Then the picture is definite. Then we know whom we are talking about. "Poor" means different things to different people. A five-roomer occupant can claim he is poor if he is compared to a Singaporean who lives in a bungalow. We can confine our interest to one particular group, the 20% or so Singaporeans who have not yet own their own homes. How can we get them to own their own homes? How can we improve the educational level of their children? How can we convince them that the way to break out of the poverty trap is not to have more children than they can afford?”
“This way, programmes that we would formulate would be more national in character and we can be more sure that different points of view are debated and taken into account before we implement them. The subject matters fall very much within one Ministry - the Ministry for Community Development. Hence, the idea of having one council headed by a different Minister. Otherwise all resources would have to come from a particular Ministry and that would be too narrow a base for us to come out with national programmes to advance our goals as spelt out in our Agenda for Action. The Culture and the Arts Council will be chaired by the Second Deputy Prime Minister; Sports and Recreation by Mr Dhanabalan, the Minister for Foreign Affairs and National Development; Family and Community Life by the Minister for Community Development; Youth by BG Lee, Minister for Trade and Industry; the Advisory Council for the Disabled will be chaired by Dr Tony Tan, Minister for Education; and the Council for the Aged, the elderly, will be headed by Prof. S. Jayakumar, Minister for Home Affairs. The Member for Kebun Baru suggested that we should have another council to focus on the needs of the lower income group. I had thought of that council before we decided on the six. The reason why I did not announce the formation of this council was that I do not want to give any false hopes or expectations to the people. The very name of a Council for the Poor, I think, will raise a lot of expectations. Unless we are clear as to what our programmes are and unless we are sure that we can come up with meaningful programmes to advance the interests of the poor in a way in which we have not done up to now, I would hesitate to form a committee. Our formula for eradicating poverty has worked.”
“In other words, in each housing estate you would find Chinese, Malays and Indians, more or less reflecting their population proportion. He supported this policy. But he has observed that because we allow owners to sell off their flats, there is a tendency for some blocks to be attracting more members from a particular community. He was, I believe, referring to the 3-room blocks of HDB flats where, because of our resale policy, more and more Malays are moving in. I detect that he was concerned that this might lead to an over-representation of a particular community within a block. And he asked what our policy on this was. I think the basic policy of wanting to have a fair mix of population in each housing estate and within each block remains. The question is how do we implement this? Over here, I would look to the Malay Members of Parliament for suggestions as to how best we could implement this policy, how to persuade the people that it is in our interest that each block of flats and each housing estate, has a fair mix of Singaporeans. Now that Parliament has debated the Green Paper and given its unanimous approval, the next step is for us to prepare the programmes to implement our goals, our vision. I propose to adopt a sectoral approach instead of a generalised approach. In other words, focus on specific subjects and plan programmes accordingly to advance the interests within that particular sector. I have announced earlier at the PAP Convention that we intend to form six advisory councils. The idea is to have members outside Government represented on the councils so that policies and programmes as formulated by civil servants, by the Government, can be assessed by others outside the Government.”
“Last year, the total number of marriages increased by 17% over 1986. That is healthy. The number of births increased by 14% over 1986, from 38,380 babies to about 44,000 babies. That is positive. You might recall seeing an article in the Straits Times of a young couple holding a large number of stuffed toys, teddy bears, and proudly proclaiming that they would not be having any babies. They are happier with teddy bears. If all Singaporeans take that attitude, we will end up with more teddy bears than people in Singapore and that would be the end of Singapore. I do not propose to answer every point that has been brought up by Members of Parliament. Many of the points concern details which I will leave to the appropriate Minister to answer during the Budget session. I would like, however, to comment on one or two points raised by some Members. The Member for Kampong Ubi suggested that Government should show more support for Mendaki in its effort to raise the educational level of the Malay community. Yes, of course, I think we would support Mendaki as much as we can. I would suggest that Mendaki should also explore other areas like the drug problem facing the Malay community. Mendaki should try and recruit more members into its management committee so that they can focus their minds on, not just educational, drug addiction problems, but also other social problems which the Malay community may face or is facing even now. The Member for Kolam Ayer asked what would be the policy of the Government with regard to the settlement of the various communities in housing estates. He understood that the policy was to spread the different communities over the different housing estates in Singapore so that each housing estate would be a fair representation of Singapore.”
“I feel quite strongly that in order for us to carry out Vision, we have got to be able to mobilize our people to recognize that we do face a very serious problem, ie, if we do not reproduce ourselves, the vitality that is present in this place will be sapped away. You can still feel the vitality now, but 25 years from now if we do not succeed in increasing the population fertility rate, then this place would not be the same as it is today. Last year, we came out with this new population policy to encourage Singaporeans to have three children and more if they can afford it. There is, however, a danger that this policy may be misunderstood by some people - that it means that instead of "Have three and more if you can afford it", it means "Have more". The danger of over-population is far more serious than the danger of under-population. It is not a policy of encouraging everybody just to have more babies, which is why we had this stop-at-two policy some years ago. We have to take into account our resources within the family, as well as the resources within the country, the capacity to support ourselves before we have more and more babies. There is no contradiction in terms. You want to have more babies to improve your fertility rate but that should not be translated into just "having more babies. It is "Have more if you can afford it". It is important that I make this point. Otherwise, very quickly we may have to reverse the policy because everybody is having more children whether or not he can afford it. The policy which we have announced seems to be producing some results. But at this stage I am unable to say whether it is the result of our new policy or whether it is because the policy coincides with the year of the Dragon and the year of the Rabbit.”
“I made that point to counter the Member for Potong Pasir's argument that Singaporeans are rational, that they would not go on riot. I am telling the Member that had it not been for the vigilance of the ISD there could have been a racial skirmish. And maybe if conditions had not been created for the races to live in harmony, that incident could have erupted into something more serious. The Member made another point that Singaporeans can now do many things for themselves. They can run their own companies like Nixdorf. I think he lacks a sense of reality. Nixdorf is a German company and it is successful. You have to bear in mind that it is formed by people coming from a continent comprising more than 300 million people. We only have 2(r) million Singaporeans. Do you think Singaporeans can just create a Nixdorf? We can do things ourselves? We should be grateful that we are able to attract companies like Nixdorf Singapore. Nixdorf, well known as it is, is in no way a giant as compared to IBM and Fujitsu. And you want these multi-national companies to be out of Singapore, these multi-nationals be kept away, so that Singaporeans can do things for themselves? We have to have a sense of proportion, a sense of reality. There are certain things which we can do but there are many things which we cannot do. And if we cannot run a multi-national company like Nixdorf, at least we can train ourselves to have the necessary skills to work in such companies and thereby improve ourselves. Now may I touch on another note, that is, the population policy.”
“Another the event happened only last year, but the Member for Potong Pasir seems to have forgotten that had it not been for the vigilance of the Police, the Internal Security Department, there could have been some racial skirmishes. The Internal Security Department arrested four Muslims who were out to create racial riots. I am surprised that within a matter of nine months, the Member for Parliament has forgotten this incident. And it is timely that we should remind Singaporeans from time to time that such possibility of disorder can erupt any time. Four Muslims - one, who was a Fire and Security Officer, who was dismissed from the Police Force; another, a Police Constable attached to Tanglin Police Station; the third a driver, and the fourth a student. The information for this conspiracy by the four Muslims came from members of the Malay community themselves. Have we not reached a stage where there was mutual trust and confidence, where there was accommodation between members of the Malay community and the other races, that information would not had been forthcoming. And that is the position which we want to achieve under our Agenda for Action - to create a multi-racial society whereby there is mutual trust and confidence amongst the various members of the different communities. But in our pursuit of the goals in our Agenda for Action, we have to be vigilant to ensure that no such group will on the quiet work to disrupt the harmony in our society. By all means speak up but do not burrow yourself underground, hide yourself behind legal associations, and plan to create mischief. Because if we do discover that mischief is being planned, we would have to take very stern action against them.”
“When we arrested the people who were involved in the Marxist conspiracy, the interview given by one of them proved our point - that they were using the Law Society for a purpose outside the legitimate interests of the profession and the Society. I have here the transcript of the TV telecast given by Tang Fong Har. She was making the point on how they had moved into the Law Society and using the Law Society for a purpose outside the Law Society. I quote: 'And we talked practically nothing, except the 1984 General Elections. [She was referring to her conversation with one Paul Lim.] And Paul Lim is a very excitable person. He gesticulates a lot. He made many points and he was in favour, he stressed, he emphasized that it is important that perhaps there is a need for more effective opposition.' And Paul Lim encouraged Tang Fong Har to move into the Law Society and to turn the Law Society more effectively for their purpose. To quote Tang Fong Har again: 'I could not recall whether it was at the same discussion or subsequently at another discussion, but Paul Lim specifically talked to Soh Lung and myself about our work in the Law Society.' And later on, she went on to say that: 'It would be good to have lawyers, be discussive about things outside, issues outside the legal profession. But as far as I could recall, he did not specifically suggest any project.' Would you expect the Government not to react to the Law Society when it transgressed its rightful path? Surely any government must be vigilant in its preservation of law and order, in ensuring that members of profession stick to their charter.”
“Now, he took exception with the Government for the way it handled the Law Society. I think if members of the Law Society were to repeat their past actions, and that is, to stray away from its legitimate right of presenting views on Bills, the Government will again have to take them through the same course of action. There is no restriction on anybody who wants to speak up in Singapore. Honourable people with honourable intentions and honourable views do not have to fear speaking up in public, criticizing the Government, if they think they have got a point of view. But we cannot allow anyone just to merrily throw stones at the Government. We reserve the right to reply. This point must be clear to the Member for Potong Pasir and to all Singaporeans - that the Government insists on the right of reply, whether stones are thrown at the Government by local Singaporeans or by foreigners. You have the right to speak; we have the right to reply. It is not the fear of speaking up that prevents them from speaking up. It is the fear of the way the Government will reply to them, in the process humiliating them perhaps, when we show them up to be people with no serious views, no serious arguments against our point of view, people who are unable to back up their criticism. And the same applies to our reaction to the Law Society when they took on the Government - that we were trying to stifle dissent when we moved the Newspaper and Printing Presses (Amendment) Act in this House. We asked for the right to reply and in the process, some of them were hurt.”
“Please desist from repeating your smear.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I thought he was going to challenge me on a very important point. When a Member comes into this House and merrily say that the Government has no credibility to implement the Agenda for Action when that Government has won every election since 1959 and has built, by his own acknowledgement, a modern Singapore, you say that is not a smear against the Government?”
“We know because I send members from Marine Parade to your forums from time to time. And if we do not do so, I think your audience would have been smaller! He made another smear against the Government - that people in Singapore fear to speak up.”
“How would he explain the homes which we have built for the people, the MRT, the beautiful city, and the fact that he can have a successful practice in law in Singapore? Lack of credibility? Be realistic and do not come to this House just to smear, and hoping that he can in the process gain some disaffected votes. He said that the Government, if it believes in democracy, should hold by-elections in Anson and Geylang West. Now, where does it state in the law that a by-election has to be held at all? There are now two seats vacant and I am giving the Member for Potong Pasir advance notice that soon 79 seats will be vacant in this House. He should make good use of the time, the notice which I am giving him, to look for good candidates, if he can get them, to meet us in the General Elections in all 79 seats. He might claim that he would not be able to do so because we have de-politicized Singaporeans. Have we in any way stopped the Member for Potong Pasir should he wish to call mass rallies to politicize the people? Has he not been holding forums to meet our points? Of course, we know that his forum has not been very well attended. I believe maybe about 100-150 people attended. Mr Chiam See Tong: Why don't you attend and find out?”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, this document, the Agenda for Action, is a very important document because it will form the basis for future government policy. I have therefore tabled it in Parliament to enable all MPs to have a chance to debate and to endorse the Goals and Challenges, as spelt out in the document. I am pleased to note that every Member of Parliament in this House fully endorses the Agenda for Action, including the Member for Potong Pasir. He has said openly that he agrees with the contents of the document, though he may disagree in other aspects, such as the implementation of ideas in the document. I take it that he agrees with every word as contained in the document because in his speech he has not singled out a single phrase or a single word in which he may not agree with. I therefore would expect him, if he is sincere and honest, when we come to vote on the motion that he would vote in support of the motion. I had hoped that the Member for Potong Pasir would not have followed the steps of the former Member for Anson, and that is to come to this House and make smears against the Government, not backed by evidence. He said that the Government lacked credibility because I refused to tell him when would be the date of the next General Elections. He wanted to know and he was pressing as to when the Prime Minister would retire as Prime Minister. Of course he got no answer from me so he said we were not open enough, and that the Government lacked credibility. Now, if the Government lacks credibility, how would the Member explain that this party has won every General Election since 1959 and each time with more than 50% of the votes?”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I think we should not allow the Member for Potong Pasir to launch another speech on the same issue. I shall reply to his question on credibility later on.”
“Relationship with Constitution (Amendment) Bill Sir, the provisions of this Bill are closely related to the provisions in the Constitution (Amendment) Bill which is next on the Order Paper. Much of what I say on this Bill will therefore also be relevant to the Constitution (Amendment) Bill. To avoid having a repetitious debate later, I would urge Members who wish to speak on the concept of GRCs and multi-racial Parlia- ment to make their substantive points in this debate on this Bill. As the Bill is politically important, I intend to refer the Bill to a Select Committee. Sir, I beg to move. [Applause.] Question proposed.”
“Questions to ask yourselves The questions you have to ask yourselves, and answer, when debating this Bill are: (1) Do you believe in taking steps to encourage the practice of moderate, multi- racial politics and to discourage the practice of extreme, communal politics in Singapore? (2) If you do, should we not take precautionary steps to ensure that Parliament will always remain multi-racial? (3) If your anser is "yes" to both questions, can you think of a better alternative than Team MPs in Group Representation Constituencies to achieve these two objectives? Better alternative than GRCs? GRCs stand for multi-racialism. If any of you have a better suggestion to achieve this objective, we are ready to listen. We have always been prepared to hear you out. That is why we discussed the concept of Team MPs publicly for about a year before introducing this Bill in Parliament. The Issue The issue before us is not GRCs per se. It is whether we should entrench in our Constitution the right for all communities - Chinese, Malay, Indians and Others - to be always represented in Parliament. The GRC is only a means to an end. It is the best means we can think of. It is democratic. You retain the right to elect the government you want. You still have your one vote. You still choose the MPs you want to represent you except, in the case of the GRCs, you elect a group of three MPs. All three MPs in the group will serve you, and not just one of them. Whichever group of MPs you vote in, whether it is the PAP's or the Opposition party's, the result is a multi-racial Parliament; always. Your democratic right remains intact. Singapore's future is safeguarded.”
“If they fail to agree, the decision will be made by ballot. (c) If there is a tie between candidates in two GRCs, the decision as to who among them will occupy non-constituency seats will be made by ballot. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, before I conclude, let me reiterate the objectives of this Bill. This Bill seeks to institutionalize the practice of multi-racial politics by requiring all political parties to field multi-racial teams of candidates to contest in Group Representation Constituencies if they aspire to win power. This will at the same time ensure that Parliament will always be multi-racial in composition. It underlines the commitment of the Government to the building of a multi-racial society through representative and democratic government. Strengthen multi-racial framework of Parliament All multi-racial societies contain underlying forces which, if not wisely managed, will tear them apart. Loyalty to one's own community, to race, to one's religion and language is stronger than loyalty to the nation, particularly if that nation is a new one and has many races. Singapore is a beautiful, peaceful country, but the same primordial human emotions exist here as elsewhere in other multi-racial societies, like Sri Lanka, Lebanon, Fiji, Cyprus, Northern Ireland. For Singapore to remain a beautiful, peaceful country for many more generations, it is wise of us to strengthen the political framework before it is weakened by disillusionment, despondency and despair when one community finds itself thrown out of Parliament by the electoral system.”
“Clause 6 also requires any person who desires to contest as a candidate from the Malay or other minority community to apply to the appropriate committee for a certificate stating that he belongs to that particular community. The appropriate committee shall decide and its decision will be final. The members of the two committees shall be appointed by the President on the nomination of the Presidential Council for Minority Rights. They must also be members of their appropriate community. The purpose of this certification is, firstly, to ensure that the minority communities are properly represented by people who are accepted as members of their communities and, secondly, that there is no dispute over this point on Nomination Day. Clauses 10 to 15 spell out the procedure and conduct of an election in GRCs. Each voter in any GRC will have one vote. He votes for a group of candidates and not for the candidates in the group separately. The group of candidates receiving the highest number of votes will be declared elected. The three candidates in the group thus elected will serve as Members of Parliament for that GRC. Clauses 16 to 26 make consequential amendments to the Act arising from the introduction of the electoral system for group representation. Clause 17 provides for defeated candidates in a GRC to qualify for non-constituency seats: (a) If the highest percentage of votes among defeated candidates is from a GRC, all the three non-constituency seats will be occupied by the three candidates from the GRC. (b) If the second highest or third highest percentage is returned by candidates from a GRC, then the three candidates are to determine which of them should occupy the two or one non-constituency seats (as the case may be).”
“Clause 3 enables the President to declare a certain number of constituencies where Parliamentary elections will be held on a group basis. Such constituencies will be known as Group Representation Constituencies (GRCs). Each group will have three candidates and this clause allows the President to stipulate that one of the three candidates in every group shall be a person belonging to the Malay community, or a person belonging to any other minority community. This clause also limits the number of MPs to be returned by all GRCs to half the total number of MPs to be returned at a general election. In the next election, if the total number of MPs remains at 79, the number of GRCs will not exceed 13, or 39 MPs. There will be at least 40 seats where opposition parties which cannot field a team of multi-racial candidates can still contest. Such opposition parties are not shut out by this Bill. Clause 3 stipulates that no by-election will be held to fill any vacancy unless all the three members of that GRC have vacated their seats in Parliament. This is to ensure that no Member who has been elected under a GRC will be forced to vacate his seat through the departure of his team-mates, for whatever reason. Clause 6 requires all three candidates in a GRC to belong to the same political party, or if they are independent candidates, standing as a group, contesting under one common logo. This requirement is to ensure that each group of three candidates contesting in a GRC share generally the same political values and can work as a team to serve the constituents. It is to discourage marriages of convenience for the purpose of contesting in a GRC. Clause 6 also defines the phrase "person belonging to the Malay community".”
“For example, if a Chinese candidate were to go around campaiging talking about "that Indian man", that Indian man in his team would also loss electoral support. And the loss of support for that Indian man in his team would also affect him. Ther is therefore a vested interest to force candidates in the team to take a moderate multi-racial line in campaigning. This is a self-check mechanism in the GRC. Since GRCs will have a multi-racial team of candidates, this Bill, once passed, will require all parties to field a racially balanced slate of candidates if they want to win power. GRCs will produce almost half the number of MPs. Whichever party wants to win power in Singapore must contest in them. It cannot just contest in single-member constituencies. That will be an open admission of its failure to field a multi-racial team. Just like the Member for Potong Pasir who admitted just now that in the last elections, he could only field four candidates from one community. Any party intending to assume office must act and offer itself as an alternative government and must move into centre ground to win Malay votes, and Indian votes besides Chinese votes in order to capture power. A party which does not do so and contest only in the single-member constituencies is unlikely to be able to win power. It is unlikely that such a party fielding candidates from one or two communities only can sweep all the single-member constituency seats. This is the larger purpose of the Bill for Team MPs - to require all parties which aspire to form the government to enhance and practise multi-racial politics and policies. It is the philosophical underpinning for Team MPs. Details of the Bill Now, I shall deal with the details of the Bill.”
“Thus, if there are 13 such larger constituencies, at least 13 Members of Parliament will come from either the Malay community or another minority community. This way, GRCs overcome the problem of voters picking candidates only on their personal attributes and ignoring the larger need for a racially balanced slate of candidates in Parliament. Whichever group wins, whether it is the PAP's group or the Opposition's group, there will always be a multi-racial group. This way, voters can still vote on the basis of who can serve them best, and yet return a racially-balanced slate of candidates to Parliament. Multi-Racial Politics - Larger Objective of Bill This Bill also has a larger objective beyond merely guaranteeing that Parliament would always be multi-racial in character. It makes it necessary for all political parties to adopt a multi-racial approach in their competition for seats in Parliament if they hope to form the government. Constituencies to be contested by multi-racial teams of candidates will require political parties and their candidates to take a moderate, multi-racial approach when campaigning instead of a communal or racially extreme approach. Let me explain. In a GRC, one of the three candidates must come from the minority community. In other words, in a GRC, there will always be someone coming either from the Malay community, Indian or another minority community. There would be at least two ethnic groups in a team of three contesting in a GRC. In fact, it is possible to have a team comprising candidates coming from three ethnic groups. Each will provide a check on other. It will provide a check on another candidate who may be tempted to exploit communal sentiments in order to win votes.”
“Suppose there are no Malays in Parliament, how would we have discussed such issues like the participation of Malays in the SAF? Would non-Malay MPs be able to explain the issues to the Malays, and achieve understanding? Would such issues have remained only an amicable debate? Need for Multi-Racial Parliament We are all Singaporeans, but the fact remains that we are Singaporeans made up of many races. It is harmful for stability and harmony if one important racial community is not adequately represented in Parliament, where our laws are passed, where government policies are debated. That community is bound to feel aggrieved, resentful, and fustrated. And you cannot blame the community. Frustration will lead to communal distrust and distrust to friction. Eventually, sparks will fly. It would be a disaster for the Chinese community in Singapore if Singapore wakes up one day to find that we have an all-Chinese Parliament. Bill to establish GRCs This Bill seeks to prevent such an unhealthy situation from arising. It is the culmination of five years of discussion within the PAP leadership, including the Malay MPs. It is the best mechanism we can think of, amongst all proposals considered. It seeks to ensure that Parliament will always be multi-racial by requiring some constituencies to be contested on a group basis. These will be larger constituencies, each having about three times as many voters as single-member constituencies. They will be represented by three MPs each. Parties contesting in these constituencies or GRCs must put up a team of three candidates. Of the three candidates, one must come from either the Malay community or another minority community.”
“Because if the two Chinese candidates in each team are of about the same quality, then the Malay candidate will play a decisive part in determing which team wins an election. The Malay candidate helps the team to win, just as the team helps him to win. Events which reinforced our thinking Several events in 1987 also influenced our thinking and reinforced our conviction that we should introduce voting on a group basis in certain constituencies in Singapore. Two were external events, and one internal. (A) External First was the open war between the Tamils and the Singhalese in Sri Lanka, leading to intervention by Indian troops. The Tamils felt neglected, discriminated against and threatened. Parliamentary democracy, similar to ours, has not safeguarded their interests. They resorted to extra-Parliamentary means to protect their interests. Second was the military coup in Fiji mounted by Col Rabuka against an elected government. The native Fijian-based political party lost the general elections to the Indian-based party. The military, which is controlled by native Fijians, overthrew the newly-elected government because the Fijians, who are in the minority in Fiji, felt threatened by an Indian-dominated government. These two events highlighted one basic fact of a multi-racial society - that when a minority feels threatened, it will resort to all means, including non-constitutional means, to safeguard its interests. These were external lessons. (B) Internal There was also an internal event which brought home the reality that we are a multi-racial society. Do you remember how the Malays and Muslims reacted over the visit of President Herzog? Do you remember how they reacted when Lee Hsien Loong brought up the subject of Malays in the SAF?”
“One is to give residents more authority, more responsibility, to manage their own housing estates; the other is to ensure that Parliament would always be multi-racial. But though the two concepts are different, they are compatible. After an election three MPs, although they are voted in separately, can get together to form a town council. Also, after an election, a group of MPs, three in this case, in a Group Representation Constituency, can also form a town council. Thus, though the two concepts are different, they can be worked together. That was how Group Representation Constituencies, each about the size of three single-member constituencies and each to be served by a team of three MPs, came to replace twin constituencies. Group Strength and Decisive Role of Malay Candidates With group representation, candidates will contest for election on their strength as a group. Each one of them has to be an asset and no one can be a liability. Whether a candidate is a Chinese, a Malay, or an Indian, he cannot be a weak candidate. Because if he is, he is going to pull down the whole team. The quality of the Malay candidate in the group of three can be decisive. This is so where the non Malay candidates in the two contending teams are of about the same quality and of about the same value to the electorate. Then, the quality of the Malay candidate will decide which team will win the election, particularly if in the constituency there are 20 to 30% Malays. At present, we all know that the Opposition is unlikely to be able to field non-Malay candidates of the calibre of the PAP's Chinese candidates. But we do not make the assumption that they cannot do so in future. When they do, then the quality of the Malay candidate becomes decisive.”
“Even when all the candidates are of the same race and speak the same language, their dialect group or where they come from plays a part in their electoral support. Look at the recent Presidential elections in Korea. The three main candidates drew their main support from their native province. So we have to find a way to induce all serious political parties to field candidates from the Malay and Other Minorities. This way, whether the PAP loses a seat or wins a seat, there will be an adequate number of Malays and members of the other minority communities in Parliament. Paradoxical as it may seem, to ensure that multi-racialism succeeds in Singapore, we have to openly recognize that race does play a part in politics. Acceptance of GRCs by Malay MPS In 1982 our Malay MPs rejected the idea of twin constituencies. Their experience in 1984 changed their views. They now agree with group representation as a safeguard to ensure that Malay candidates, particularly first-time Malay candidates, will be returned in future elections in fair numbers. In 1982, the Indian MPs did not support the proposal of twin constituencies either. They now support group representation. They, both the Malay and Indian MPs recognize that the problem can get worse with more first-time voters joining the rank. Town Councils and GRCs Meanwhile, we were implementing three pilot schemes in Ang Mo Kio to test out the feasibility of forming town councils to manage public housing estates. From the experience gained, we decided that town councils are feasible and beneficial to the residents. We also concluded that an economic size for town councils to manage is a group of three constituencies. The town council proposal and the team MP proposal are two different concepts.”
“Tan Chee Kien, the former Chairman of the Singapore United Front, picked Kaki Bukit. Saidi Shariff was our MP before the general elections. Tan Chee Kien did not know that we were going to change Saidi Shariff for Chew Heng Ching. I am convinced that had we not changed our candidate in Kaki Bukit, and also in Telok Blangah, we would have lost the two seats. What the problem is Let me make clear what our fears are. We do not like to lose. Nobody likes to lose, but that is hardly the reason for introducing the concept of Team MPs. If opposition candidates defeat the PAP Chinese candidates, that is a loss, but there is no great problem. There is no trauma for the nation. There will still be many Chinese MPs in Parliament. But if they defeat the PAP Malay candidates, chances are the PAP Malay candidates would have lost to non-Malay candidates. Then a problem is created because there will be fewer and fewer Malay MPs. The PAP has gone out of its way to find and field good Malay candidates. It has succeeded, but only with great difficulty, because the pool of Malay professionals is so small. Opposition parties are under no obligation whatsoever to make the same effort. The SDP did not field a single candidate from the minority community in the last General Election. It is make-belief to pretend that race and language do not affect voter preferences. I am not saying that there are no other factors. There are other factors like a candidate's character, charisma and copetence. But race and language do influence boter preferences. It is not so elsewhere in the world, in Britain and United States, for example. Welsh candidates beat English candidates in Wales. And it is no secret that an Irish American stands a better chance of winning in Boston against all others.”
“The reason is simple. Because there is no Bill to that effect. Once we pass the Town Council Bill, then the Members of Parliament will clearly have their responsibility. And it is our intention that any future candidate understands fully what his responsibilities are.”
“At the moment, any Opposition cndidate can stand on the platform and talk about manhood or talk about PAP's fear of losing a by-election, because he can just talk. There is no other responsibility attached to his getting elected into Parliament. In any future election, it is our intention that the MP understands fully that he is responsible also for the well-being of his constituents. This Bill has taken some time for us to draft. We think it is a matter of two or three months before we come up with the final shape of the Bill and present it to Parliament, and we will take it from there. But we want to make it clear to any aspiring Members of Parliament: that in any election you contest hereafter, it is your responsibility not just to speak. It is your responsibility to back up your speech and your words with action. You must have that capability to run your constituency. If you cannot and you can persuade the voters to vote for you, so be it. You have an MP but also an MP who is responsible for your well-being in the constituency. This is an important change in the concept of parliamentary democracy, not just speeches but the ability to back up your words with action. As I said, this Bill is now in the final stages of drafting. Once the Bill is presented to Parliament, Town Councils are formed, we can talk about elections or by-elections.”
“It makes not the slightest difference to Government or to the PAP in this House. But the reason for not going ahead with the by-election this year was given by the Prime Minister in July and that was: we are contemplating introducing a Bill to form Town Councils. When Town Councils are formed after the Bill has been passed in Parliament, we envisage that certain constituencies will be grouped together so that the Members of Parliament can have a viable Town Council of three or four MPs banding together. It is possible that some boundaries will be re-delineated and it is also possible that some constituencies could be lost because, as you know, voters or the population have been shifting from the older constituencies into new towns. It is possible that Anson or Geylang West could be affected, either by a change in their boundary, delineation, or perhaps by the constituency being divided into parts which can be absorbed by the neighbouring constituencies. We do not know. It is very painful for any MP, whether he is a PAP MP or an Opposition MP, to have cultivated the grassroots only to lose them in the next election. It is for this reason that wethought it wise not to have a by-election until the Bill is presented to Parliament. Also, we have decided that any aspiring Member of Parliament should understand fully that it is our intention that when you win a seat in Parliament you are also vested with the responsibility of looking after the constituency. Take lift maintenance or cleanliness of the environment, for example. These are two fairly important responsibilities which we intend to pass on to the Members of Parliament, whether they are PAP Members of Parliament or Opposition Members of Parliament.”
“I am prepared to wager with any Member in this House that when we contest the next election, whether it is a by-election or the general election, that the Member for Potong Pasir or the SDP will not be there to contest against the PAP in Anson Constituency. I remember that when we had this by-election in October 1981, reading in the Straits Times about Mr Chiam rushing in to contest the election. Mr Chiam was leading the SDP. "We are going in, we are going in," said he. And he rushed into the Anson Nomination Centre. Then he bumped straight into Mr Jeyaretnam and very quickly chickened out. The SDP and the Workers' Party were contesting to be the first party to break the PAP's monopoly. And there you have a man, who says we are not man enough, rushing in into the Nomination Centre and chickening out very quickly. I do not think that spoke very well at that point of time for his manhood. I am prepared, as I said just now, to wager with him that at the next election in Anson Mr Chiam would not be man enough to stand there against the PAP. The PAP will be there, and we are telling him now that Mr Ng Pock Too will be there in Anson. We have declared who we want to field in Anson. Would you be man enough to contest against Mr Ng Pock Too in Anson, whether it is a by-election or in the general election? I am referring to Mr Chiam, Leader of the SDP, whether he is man enough to contest in that ward. The reason for not holding a by-election in Anson or Geylang West has been explained to the House, and this is a serious reason. It has nothing to do with the fear of a defeat. We can lose two seats in Anson and Geylang West. Actually, it is not two seats. It is only one seat because Anson was not ours. Let us say we lose one more seat.”
“It is because we have taken all threats of security seriously and precisely because we have not flinched from using the ISA against such threats that our standard of living has gone up 10 times. (I am quoting him.) Have we not been vigilant against such threats, you can bet your last dollar that your standard of living would not have gone up 10 times or more between 1950 and now. The Government will continue to take firm decisions promptly against anyone mad enough to think that they can plot, conspire and subvert Singapore. And I urge this House to support the Government whenever it takes prompt and firm action against anyone for engaging in activities which are prejudicial to the security of Singapore. [Applause]. EXEMPTED BUSINESS (Motion) Resolved, 'That the proceedings on the item under discussion be exempted at this day's sitting from the provisions of Standing Order No. 1.' - [Mr Wong Kan Seng]. 3.33 pm MARXIST CONSPIRACY (Detentions Under Internal Security Act) Debate resumed.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I think it is pointless pursuing the debate on this line. I suggest the Member for Potong Pasir await the presentation of the Bill to Parliament, should we decide to proceed with the concept of team MPs. Then we can have a full debate at the proper time, including the need for a referendum. Once you understand the concept, you can debate it with much more clarity than today. [Mr Deputy Speaker in the Chair] 20TH ASEAN MINISTERIAL MEETING (Achievements) 2. Mr S. Chandra Das asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs what were the main achievements of the 20th ASEAN Ministerial Meeting that was held in Singapore in June 1987, particularly with reference to economic relations within ASEAN and dialogue partners.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, a referendum is a very costly affair to hold and we should not just hold a referendum on any matter. Where an issue impinges significantly on the life of Singaporeans and on the future of the nation, then perhaps we should go for a referendum. But this is not an issue of such magnitude. It should be clear to Members of this House that when legislation of such a grave magnitude is presented, one has got to go to referendum. As I explained earlier, it will be clear to this House when we present the legislation that the proposed amendment would not in any way affect the right of members of the public or the electors to choose the MPs they want. There is no fundamental change to the system of Parliamentary elections.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, there is nothing to prevent the Opposition MP from presenting his views while discussion is underway outside Parliament. And, of course, when discussion takes place in Parliament, we expect the Opposition MP to contribute his views on this matter.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the Member for Potong Pasir has not understood my answer. As I explained just now, this question was premature. I was answering his point on the need for a referendum on the concept of team MPs. I do not think we should stray into a debate on the concept of team MPs because discussions are still underway amongst PAP MPs, amongst ourselves and members of the public, and no legislation has been put forward to this House yet for a debate. His point of view can be argued in this House when legislation is presented to this House. But for today, I have answered his question on the need of a referendum on this particular concept. Mr Chiam See Tong: There are two supplementary questions. This is of national interest. You say discussions are going on. Will you include the Opposition in your discussions?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the Member for Potong Pasir is wrong. The PAP has a mandate to amend the Constitution except for Part III of the Constitution, because it has two-thirds, or more than two-thirds, of the number of representatives in Parliament. The only situation when we need to go for a referendum is clearly spelt out in the Constitution, and that is under Part III, Protection of the Sovereignty of the Republic of Singapore. That section in the Constitution spells out clearly that a referendum is required where it is proposed to surrender or transfer, wholly or in part, the sovereignty of the Republic of Singapore as an independent nation; or where it is proposed to relinquish control over the SAF or the Police Force. Sir, whilst the concept of team MPs was not on our election platform in the last elections, it is not of the same magnitude that requires a referendum, even though an amendment to the Constitution is required.”
“He also expressed his government's desire for a dialogue between the two Governments to jointly clarify the matter. The Singapore Government agreed to consider any specific proposals from the Swedish Government. Since then, the two Governments have been in consultation to resolve the matter. GRADUATES FROM THE COLLEGE OF PHYSICAL EDUCATION 2. Mr S. Chandra Das asked the Minister for Education (a) how many trainees have graduated from the College of Physical Education since its establishment; (b) how are the graduates deployed in schools, junior colleges and pre-university centres; (c) what percentage of their time is taken up on PE activities as opposed to the teaching of academic subjects; and (d) whether he has any plans to expand the intake of trainees in the College.”
“Nobel Industrier, the Swedish company which owns Bofors, the arms manufacturer, issued a communique on 30th March, 1987 which stated that several countries - Austria, Italy, the Netherlands, Singapore, Switzerland and the United Kingdom - had been involved in the illegal shipment of Bofors products to countries embargoed by Sweden. The Swedish Ministry of Foreign Affairs announced on 1st April, 1987, through a press release, that the Swedish Government would no longer consider any matters concerning export of defence materials to Singapore. Since then, the Swedish Government has clarified that export licences which had already been issued remained valid even though shipments might not have taken place. However, new applications for export licences would not be processed. It is MINDEF's policy to have alternative sources for defence materials to the maximum extent possible. Nevertheless, sudden restrictions in supply of defence materials, particularly when there are already standing contracts, must necessarily affect the equipping of the SAF in the short run. The ability of suppliers to effect delivery on time is always a critical consideration. Besides equipment performance and cost-effectiveness, MINDEF's procurement policy must now take greater account of how unpredictable the governments of the suppliers are likely to be in their policy on arms exports. The action of the Swedish Government on 1st April, 1987 was sudden and unexpected. Only on 30th March, 1987 the Swedish Ambassador had informed our Ministry of Foreign Affairs that the Swedish Government was not making allegations against the Singapore Government and was not blaming the Singapore Government for any non-compliance over End-User Certificates.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, we shall see when we hold a by-election whether the Member for Potong Pasir will be there, especially in Anson. USE OF GOVERNMENT MACHINERY BY RULING PARTY 3. Mr Chiam See Tong asked the Prime Minister to what extent an issue is considered national in nature to warrant the use of Government machinery by the ruling Party. The Second Minister for Defence (Services)(BG Lee Hsien Loong) (for the Prime Minister): Mr Speaker, Sir, I am answering on behalf of the Prime Minister. It is the responsibility of any Government to set the National Agenda, to formulate policies in the national interest, to mobilize support for these policies and to develop a consensus among the population on the way forward for Singapore. To say that these policies will have the support and the endorsement of the People's Action Party is to state the obvious. Any government which does not make full use of all the means at its disposal to achieve national goals is in dereliction of its duty.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, we believe in democracy and we hold elections regularly. We will decide when to hold the by-election in accordance with the Constitution. It is not a moot point. It is in the Constitution as to when the Government can decide to hold a by-election. If I may repeat, we will come to that decision in the latter half of this year.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, there is no delay. As I have explained just now, under the Constitution there is no requirement to hold a by-election within a specific time and the Government will so decide in the latter half of this year. Mr Chiam See Tong: Sir, the question of whether or not there is a legal need to hold a by-election is certainly a moot point. If no time frame is given, then it must be held within a reasonable time. And as I have already stated, "within reasonable time" would be three months when it was first vacated on December 14th.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I suggest the Member for Potong Pasir raise the subject with the Prime Minister later on. He will be making a statement. So there will be ample time for questions after he has made the statement. VACANT LOT ADJACENT TO UPPER EAST COAST ROAD/BEDOK ESTATE (Development plans) 2. Encik Ibrahim Othman asked the Minister for National Development what are the development plans for the vacant lot adjacent to the Housing and Development Board flats at Upper East Coast Road Estate bounded by Bedok South Road, Bedok South Avenue 3 and Upper East Coast Road.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the Prime Minister will be making a statement on this particular subject after Question Time. So I suggest the hon. Member raise the question later.”
“But they were very reassured that we are taking steps to ensure that there will be a stable government in Singapore in the 1990s. PENALTY ON PARKING WARDEN MR BALRAJOO 2. Mr J.B. Jeyaretnam asked the Minister for National Development why a penalty of $20 was imposed on Parking Enforcement Officer Mr. Balrajoo s/o Ragavan for reporting that motor vehicle EU 3803K had been found parked at Pine Grove Car Park on the 22nd of August 1985 at 1.31 a.m. without displaying any parking label authorizing the parking of the vehicle in the car park. The Minister for National Development (Mr Teh Cheang Wan): Mr Speaker, Sir, a penalty of $20 was imposed on Balrajoo s/o Ragavan by the HDB for his negligence in wrongly issuing a parking offence notice. This was done under HDB's disciplinary rules as provided in its Instruction Manual for parking wardens. These rules have been formulated to ensure that members of the public are not inconvenienced through negligence or abuse of authority by parking wardens. Most of HDB parking wardens are, however, performing well. In the last 12 months, there were only four other cases where similar penalties had to be imposed on parking wardens.”