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 16 of 28.
“Did the American investors ask for an assurance that the PAP would be in power before they would invest. They did not ask for an assurance in that particular manner.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, before I answer the question, on the supplementary question phrased in the form of a long speech by the Member for Potong Pasir, there will be a referendum if the people feel the need for a referendum.”
“Contain your patience. When the proposal is published in the form of a White Paper and should the Member for Anson ask for it at that time, supported by the Member for Potong Pasir -”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I am afraid the Member for Potong Pasir shares with the Member for Anson in not recalling a matter which was debated here last year. The answer given last year was that a referendum is very expensive but if the need for a referendum is there and the Members for Potong Pasir and Anson press for it and we feel that there is a need for it, it will be put to the people.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, when the proposal is published as a White Paper, the public is welcomed to discuss it and the Members of Parliament from both sides of the House can convene public meetings to discuss the paper.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I just said that the Member for Anson is very long on questions and very short on memory. The Prime Minister has said last year, and I repeat, that the proposal will be published as a White Paper and submitted to Parliament and, of course, Parliament will discuss this.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the Member for Anson is long on questions and short on memory. The matter was discussed sometime last year when he questioned the Prime Minister on this issue. The Prime Minister then said that it would take about two years for the details to be refined into a workable proposal to be formulated in a White Paper and submitted to the House. So please wait. It will take about two years from last year.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, first the question of distinction between the Member for Anson speaking to a foreign audience and the First Deputy Prime Minister speaking to an American audience. The distinction is this. He has double standards. I do not have double standards. But that is not the important point of the debate this morning. I referred to areas related to financial reserves. I did not go beyond what the Prime Minister has said on this issue in Singapore. We are concerned with the protection of financial reserves. How we protect these financial reserves is a question that is being studied by the Auditor-General, Accountant-General and the Permanent Secretaries who have to refine the plan to make it workable. Hence I used the words "areas related to financial reserves". The matter has been discussed in Singapore. I did not raise anything new in Boston. I was merely projecting ourselves into the future for the Americans who have an interest in the future of Singapore. I did not go into areas which the Member for Anson, in his own mind, thought I had gone into.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I thought the Member for Anson has jumped up to apologize to me for having not read my speech carefully. Instead he has taken issue with the Straits Times and me for not having corrected the wrong reporting. The Member for Anson should have read my speech which was also published in the same issue of the Straits Times. My speech was also telecast. So he owes me an apology rather than the other way round. Why did I go to Boston to make a speech on a matter which concerns Singaporeans? The Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy organizes conferences on ASEAN. Last year it was a conference on Singapore, the year before it was on Indonesia. It was a seminar wherein other speakers were also invited. I thought the main interest of the audience would be the political future of Singapore and I therefore delivered a speech on a matter which I believe was of great interest to the audience. Is there anything wrong with a Minister making a speech which concerns Singaporeans in a country outside Singapore? The Member for Anson himself went to Penang to talk on human rights, and he was in Jakarta to talk about the plight of the foreign workers in Singapore. Is he not contradicting himself when he asked me that question?”
“(b) Various pensions and allowances as applicable, including: (i) Widow's pension. (ii) Child(ren)'s pension. (iii) Dependent's pension for mother (or father if the mother is deceased). (iv) Education Allowance for dependent children. The provisions for cases of permanent disablement are: (a) Lump sum payment. (b) Pension and various allowances as applicable, including: (i) Disability pension. (ii) Allowance for constant attention. (iii) Treatment allowance. (iv) Education allowance for dependent children. The quantum of payment depends on the degree of permanent disablement, defined in the SAF Pensions Regulations on the same lines as in the Workmen's Compensation Act. Free medical and rehabilitative treatment and equipment for the disabled serviceman are provided,even after release from SAF service. Lump sum compensations for the 54 cases of death in 1981-85 ranged from $15,000 to $52,000. This includes 10 cases involving National Servicemen, whose families were each paid $45,000. Lump sum compensations for the 4 cases of 100% disablement ranged from $45,000 to $ 60,000. This includes 2 National Servicemen,who were each paid $60,000 and another who was paid $45,000. LOWER SHOP RENTALS UNDER RESETTLEMENT SCHEME 5. Mr S. Vasoo asked the Minister for National Development whether his Ministry will consider lowering the rentals of shops allocated under the resettlement scheme.”
“Deaths There were 54 deaths in SAF training and work mishaps over the last five years, from 1981 to September 1985. Injuries Over the period 1981 to September 1985, 782 SAF personnel incurred various degrees of permanent disablement arising from training and work mishaps. Annual figures are: 1981 - - 87 1982 - - 191 1983 - - 213 1984 - - 187 1985 (up to Sep 85) - 104 ----- 782 ===== The figure for 1981 differs from that of 22 stated in a Written Answer to the Member for Anson on 31 Aug 82. The earlier figure was confined to National Servicemen. Also it covered only those cases where the degree of disablement had been settled by 31 Aug 82. Injuries take some time to stabilise before a final determination of degree of disablement may be made. Of the 782 cases in 1981-85, only 4 involve 100% permanent disablement. 95% of the 547 cases which have been settled involve less than 30% permanent disablement. Please see table below: Degree of Permanent Disablement _____________________________________________________________ |Up to 10%|11-30%|31-50%|51-70%|71-90%|100%|Total ____________|_________|______|______|______|______|____|_____ No. of Cases| 361 | 158 | 19 | 3 | 2 | 4 | 547 ____________|_________|______|______|______|______|____|_____ % of Total | 66.0% | 28.9%| 3.5%| 0.5%| 0.4%| 0.7| 100% ____________|_________|______|______|______|______|____|_____ Compensation As several hundred cases are involved, it would be more meaningful to list out the compensation provisions and give an indication of the amounts of compensation paid, than to list each case individually. Compensation benefits are specified in detail in the SAF Pensions Regulation, 1978. In summary, the provisions for death cases are: (a) Lump sum payment.”
“My Ministry's policy is not to disclose information which jeopardises essential defence interests. This includes arms sales. This non-disclosure is the established parliamentary practice of many countries, including the United Kingdom. Non-disclosure stipulations are the norm in arms sales agreements. In the same way, when MINDEF buys arms from overseas, it insists on non-disclosure of the details of the procurements. The sale of arms by MINDEF-controlled companies is subject to strict supervision by my Ministry. Every sale is carefully assessed for its political and security implications. It would be neither prudent nor responsible to disclose details of such sales. COMPENSATION FOR DEATHS AND INJURIES IN THE ARMED FORCES 4. Mr J.B. Jeyaretnam asked the First Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Defence if he will give (i) the number of deaths in the Armed Forces over the last five years; (ii) the number of cases in which members of the Armed Forces have suffered injuries giving the figures for each year; and (iii) finally in each case what compensation or pension was paid.”
“In September 1985, a representative of the Swediah Government informed my Ministry that his Government was investigating a Swedish company's involvement in any possible irregular re-exports of arms by it via Singapore; and that because of the investigation, his Government imposed a restriction on the Swedish company's export of arms. The Swedish representative requested for a written confirmation from my Ministry that the arms supplied by the Swedish company, pursuant to two procurement contracts in 1979 and 1981, were for the exclusive use of the Singapore Armed Forces and had not been exported to any third country. As this was in fact the case, my Ministry gave the confirmation. My Ministry was informed on the 22nd October 1985 by the Swedish Ambassador that his Government has since lifted the restriction on the export of military equipment to Singapore. My Ministry is satisfied that no person or entity within the jurisdiction of my Ministry has breached any Singapore laws or policies in this matter. ARMS EXPORT 3. Mr J.B. Jeyaretnam asked the First Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Defence if he will give the names of the countries to which arms are exported from Singapore and say what arms are exported in the case of each country.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I think the Member for Anson is getting frivolous. Does he want me to list all the young officers in the SAF for Members of the House? It would be wasting our time. SEPARATE HDB SHOP RENTALS FOR RESETTLEMENT CASES 5. Mrs Yu-Foo Yee Shoon asked the Minister for National Development whether he will consider having a separate system of Housing and Development Board shop rentals for resettled farmers and shopowners who, despite the discounts granted by the Board, are still finding it difficult to pay their present rentals based on the tender system, in order to alleviate their problem.”
“And if truth has been missing in any articles printed by any publication, it is my duty to point it out to Members of the House. As to the specific question, I thought I have answered loud and clear. It is our policy to send young civil servants to such conferences so that they would benefit from the exposure. Other officers were, of course, considered. Some were sent earlier - in 1980, 1981, 1982, 1983, 1984 and 1985. Other officers were considered and one was selected.”
“Sir, I do not hold a brief for The Star. But I do hold a brief for honesty and truth. Some hon. Members: Hear, hear!”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the claim is as stated in the article: that he is a bright, young citizen in the public service of Singapore. And it is our policy to send our bright, young, civil servants to attend international conferences. It is to expose them and to acquaint them with international matters so that they will be better officers. Whether they are in the SAF or in the Administrative Service, it does not matter. That is the policy. If the Member for Anson is a gentleman, he should, in fact, print in the next issue of the Hammer an apology to The Star.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, had the Member for Anson been honest with the members of the public in reproducing an article from The Star in the Hammer, he would have got the reason for the officer's attendance at the conference. The Hammer of August 1985 reproduced an article by courtesy of The Star in which only two paragraphs, out of three paragraphs, were printed. I thought the ending in the article was quite abrupt. So I asked for the original of the extract from The Star and, true enough, one paragraph was missing. Had this paragraph been published, I think he would have known the reason for the officer's attendance. I will read to the Member the missing paragraph. It says: 'The Singapore Government makes it a practice to send its bright young citizens to conferences of this nature to acquaint themselves with international matters.' I think the Member has not been honest in his publication. An hon. Member: Hear, hear!”
“Sir, only one SAF officer was nominated to participate in the conference as a member of the Singapore delegation.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the answer is no. Perhaps the hon. Member for Anson could enlighten me if he has got evidence of any such instances.”
“Together with the 26th July package, the Government is injecting a total of $850 million into the economy. The Government will do whatever it can to pull the economy out of the present slump. But let me caution here - we cannot go on cutting taxes. We have got to be prudent in cuffing taxes because we must never end up having a deficit budget. That is why I prefer not to decide today on a proposal to reduce either in whole or in part the 10% tax on PUB bills. I prefer to take some time to look into this matter to see whether we can justify a reduction here because, I emphasize, we must not run into a deficit for the budget. We have always managed the economy on budget surpluses and we must continue to do so. It may take two or three years for us to get out of the present slump. I think we can swing the economy around provided we work together soberly and responsibly. Thank you, Sir. [Applause].”
“The Government has decided to reduce the diesel tax to one-sixth of the original amount, ie, taxi drivers are required to pay only a token sum of $1,100. I would like to stress that the ultimate objective is still to impose a full diesel tax but this will be done only when economic conditions allow it. On 26th July, the Government announced a 30% property tax rebate for owner-occupied industrial and commercial properties for three half-year periods beginning from 1st July 1985. The Government has decided to extend the 30% rebate to owners of let-out industrial and commercial properties as well. The rationale is that these properties can also be considered as factors of production. As far as possible, industrial and commercial properties should be treated similarly, provided part or all tax concession is passed through to the tenants. We expect that in practice tenants will enjoy at least half of the rebate. The 30% rebate will also be extended to HDB, JTC and URA. In turn, they will pass on the rebate to tenants in the form of lower charges. Owners of vacant land or land under development will also enjoy a similar rebate. The rebate will help to ease the cash flow for developers and give them more time to complete their developments. These tax concessions are spelt out in greater detail in a Statement by the Ministry of Finance. May I ask the Clerk of Parliament now to circulate to Members a copy of this statement. (Cols. 487 - 488) [Copies of statement circulated to Members.] statement - STATEMENT BY THE MINISTRY OF FINANCE (Cols. 487 - 488) These tax cuts mean a total revenue loss of $400 million, The tax concessions which I have just announced will result in a revenue reduction for Government of $400 million.”
“The Government is, therefore, reducing the ad valorem tax back to 50%. [Applause]. But due to the difference in the exchange rates, the expump price of petrol will be slightly higher than it was before March 1985. There will be a difference in the pump price but this is due purely to differences in exchange rates. The lower price of petrol will, we believe, help businessmen and motorists to reduce transport costs. In the long run, however, the problem of road congestion because of too many cars and too few roads remains with us. The overall policy of the Government which is to tackle this problem firmly therefore cannot be altered. Should car growth and usage increase significantly, the Government may have to return to the higher level of petrol duty. While looking at petrol duty, the Minister for Finance has also decided to abolish the duty presently imposed on fuel oil. This will help the bunker trade. In the 1985 Budget statement, it was announced that the diesel tax of $6,600 on taxis would be imposed from 1st October 1985. The aim, as you all know, was to remove a long-standing subsidy for taxis. Private diesel cars pay a diesel tax. Public buses also pay a diesel tax. It is an ano- maly not to impose a diesel tax on taxis. Taxis should, therefore, pay the same tax as private vehicles for use of public roads. This principle remains valid today despite the recession. However, since the recession has affected the earnings of taxi drivers in the last few months and there have been requests that the Government either reduce the amount of diesel tax or scrap it altogether, we shall do something to the diesel tax.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, for the record, since the Member for Anson has asked those two questions which he thought I have not answered, he could submit them in the form of Questions for Oral Answer and he will get the answers. Sir, parliamentary democracy is about the free-play of ideas. I asked the Member for Anson whether we have in any way prevented him from ventilating his ideas. I have not got an answer to that.”
“I cannot speak when you are standing up. Mr Jeyaretnam resumed his seat.”
“The Member for Anson has not answered a simple question which I asked. Can I just repeat it?”
“Today the Member of Parliament does not have the right to do so.”
“Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir. And I am much obliged to the Member for Anson. Had the Member for Anson listened carefully to my concluding remark, he would not have any cause to complain further. At the moment, as I have explained, constituencies are not part of a separate estate which is different from the Government. They are part of the bigger responsibility of Government. But in the future it is indeed our intention to hand over some of these responsibilities and authority to the Member of Parliament and the Member of Parliament can then invite the Senior Executive Officer of the HDB to follow him.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I thank the Member for Anson for giving way for me to seek a point of clarification. Where have we prevented the Member for Anson, or any Opposition Parties for that matter, from coming out with their ideas? Where have we prevented this free-play of ideas? I thought I have dwelt at length on this, that we welcome the free-play of ideas and that we have plenty of opportunities for this freeplay of ideas. We are looking for their ideas.”
“Point of clarification, if I may. Mr Jeyaretnam resumed his seat.”
“They are practical questions which concern the lives of Singaporeans, your future. It is up to our people to decide who and how they want these serious problems, which we are concerned with, to be resolved. [Applause] 3.25pm”
“Recycling, yes. If that is a possible solution, I think the Member for Potong Pasir can suggest how we can recycle water. I think we do not just dismiss this. We will listen to all positive suggestions as to how we can resolve this problem. Members of Parliament want to have greater say in the way they manage their constituencies. At the moment, it is our responsibility as a Government to govern, to look after the estate management, the cleanliness, the environment, in the constituencies. But we are looking into legislation to see how some of this authority and responsibility can be handed over to Members of Parliament. It will take some time before we can finalize the legislation. But it is our intention to hand over partial authority and partial responsibility for the running of constituencies to the MPs. If the people decide to choose an Opposition MP, then the Opposition MP would have the same responsibility, same authority, the same fair means as other PAP MPs in looking after their constituencies. So are we worried? Are we obstructing the growth of parliamentary democracy when we are doing all this? These are the directions in which we are moving, to hand over some responsibility and authority to Members of Parliament. Then the people will decide who should look after them. That is the essence of parliamentary democracy, the right to govern Singapore through the ability of a Party to assemble a credible team with a credible programme to run Singapore. At the moment, constituencies are not parcelled out so that MPs have some of these rights. But we are working on the legislation and when it is ready, we will discuss it in this House. The questions I have raised, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, are not theoretical questions.”
“It concerns us. I think we have got to work out some solutions. The second worry which we have is water. There is also an upper limit to our water resources. This upper limit is 250 million gallons a day, from our main source of water in Johore, the Johor River. There is this upper limit of 250 million gallons per day which we can draw from Johor River. We are now consuming water at the rate of 190 million gallons per day. There is only a gap of 60 million gallons per day left to go up to 250 million gallons per day from Johor River. The average growth rate for the last five years was 6% - that works out roughly to about 12 million gallons per day. If we do not succeed in checking this growth rate in our water consumption, in four to five years' time we will reach the upper limit of what we can draw from Johor River, which is our main source. Of course, we have domestic resources. Of course, there are some other rivers available in Johore. But the question remains, how do we conserve water? How do we slow down the rate of consumption of water?”
“At the rate which we are building low-cost housing for Singaporeans, 40,000 units per year, all available land for public housing will be exhausted, finished, in about 10 years. What happens thereafter? If you were a 15-year old boy or girl today, when you grow up in 10-15 years' time and you are ready to buy a home to start a family, would low-cost housing be available to you? Or would you have to buy a house from the market because the HDB is in no position to build more low-cost housing? If you inherit a home from your parents, then you are fortunate. But if there are three or four children in a family, and there is only one home to be inherited, then the other members of the family would have to buy a home from the market. The market price for HDB flats on the resale market at that time could be beyond your reach. So land will run out in about 10 years time. How do we resolve this fundamental; problem? Do we slow down the rate of construction? Do we reclaim more land? Is more land available for reclamation? Can we actually reclaim very much more land? This is a fundamental issue. And I wished, when I was listening to the Member for Potong Pasir, that he had tackled the Minister for National Development through a series of supplementary questions on this. But he did not. Again, he went back to his favourite allegation that the HDB was making huge profits from the people, that the sale price of HDB flats was above the construction cost. And he refused to recognize that the cost of a flat includes costs, other than construction costs. I think the Member for Potong Pasir should grow up and deal with the fundamentals seriously. And we invite Members of the Opposition to address their minds on this issue. It concerns not only them. It concerns Singaporeans.”
“The real issue concerns your lives, your future, your children, your home. How do we guarantee that your sons, when they come out of national service, will have decent jobs with decent incomes? How do we ensure that your daughters do not have to work outside Singapore as domestic maids? How do we ensure that your daughters, when they come home late at night after work or after the movies, can return home safely? The Member for Anson is against preventive detention under the Internal Security Act and the Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Act. If he were in charge in Singapore, would he release the criminals, the gangsters, the drug traffickers, the gang rapists, from detention? He has spoken up time and again against preventive detention. Will he do that? Will your daughters be safe returning home if these people are not detained under the Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Act? Singaporeans have grown up. They want us to talk to,them. They do not want us to talk down to them. I think that is correct. We should not talk down to Singaporeans. They are adults. We will treat them as adults. We will talk to them, exchange views. We have been getting white hair worrying about the future of Singapore, thinking long-term, and keeping these worries to ourselves. So I am pleased that Singaporeans want to participate as grown-ups in resolving these worries. Sir, I will bring them into confidence on two worries which are now occupying our minds, and I hope the Opposition Members too would worry about these two problems. The first worry is land. The Minister for National Development has told this House that land is finite in Singapore.”
“The press followed up with telephone calls to the president of Beri and indeed the president confirmed that that remark, which he admitted was too strong in the context of Singapore, was nevertheless arrived at after watching the way Singaporeans had voted. For the 1985 report, again they had used the words "rising social discontent" in Singapore. Why did they say that there was rising social discontent in Singapore? It is because they were watching the votes. Maybe there are reasons for the way the votes have swung away from the PAP, but people outside watch the votes carefully. What is the meaning behind the swing in votes? Is it a reflection of rising social discontent? The middle-income people are unable to have their expectations met? Is there grave dissatisfaction over distribution of wealth or over other issues? How are all these translated? So the investors watch the votes carefully. This particular company has seen it fit to use the terms "growing social unrest" and "rising social discontent" in the reports which are read by investors whom we are trying to attract to Singapore. Let me sum up. The real issue facing Singapore today is not the growth of the Opposition, that we have discriminated against the Opposition, that we have obstructed them. We have not. Where have we obstructed the growth of Opposition in Singapore? Have we silenced them? The programme, "Today in Parliament", is not a silent movie. The Members came through the living room loud and clear. So have we silenced them? Anyway, is that the real issue facing us - that Singapore must have an Opposition in Parliament in order for democracy to survive, to develop? Or is democracy about free elections, honest elections, which political Parties can participate freely?”
“He has succeeded in convincing only Anson to support him and he barely succeeded. He must not vent his frustrations on us. He must not blame us for his inability to grow. If his complaints are about community centres, classrooms, tree-planting, Schools' Council, then I say the Opposition will never grow. If the Opposition wishes to grow, it must convince the people that it can look after their interests better. How do we, for example, alleviate the sufferings of workers who are being retrenched? How do we ensure that jobs are being created? In my May Day address, I quoted from this American firm, Beri (Business Environment Risk Information), on the quality of our workforce and our political stability. But I noted with concern the phrase "growing social unrest". There was no explanation as to why they have observed that there was this growing social unrest in Singapore. So I asked the question: was it because of the loss of Anson? This report was done in March/ April 1984, before the general elections. I was thinking aloud. What prompted them to note that there was underlying growing social unrest? To me, terms such as this are very important because it will frighten away investors. Investors read the report. They are not familiar with Singapore. When they read that there is growing social unrest, are they going to sink millions of dollars in Singapore to create jobs for you? The investment will take years before they can churn out sufficient profits to pay them back. So are they going to come to Singapore to create jobs? I was concerned. I asked the question.”
“- 1976 programme. It should interest the House to know what was written on defence. If I may quote: 'The Party is of the view that in the present day context of relations between nations, the present expenditure on defence is wasteful and unnecessary.' Then on National Service: 'On National Service, whilst the Party can and does see the advantages of getting our youths together to make them conscious of their duties to society and to build them into a cohesive whole, the Party believes that the present system is wasteful of the one resource the country has which is our young people. The Party believes that the system can be altered to advantage by channelling the energies of our youth into compulsory community service after the basic military training to inculcate the quality of and need for discipline.' So after three months, the Party would channel the youths to compulsory community service and you expect to have a good Army with our young men trained only for three months. Perhaps I could quote one more paragraph from this section on defence, the last paragraph: 'The Party, however, sees the need for being ready at all times to meet any threat to the society from within or without and the Party believes that it will be in the main from within. The Party therefore advocates the maintenance of an efficient regular army to meet any threat to our society and to help in the maintenance of peace.' So there is this conflict. The threat is from within and he wants to have a regular Army to meet this threat from within, I think we deserve some clarification from the Member for Anson later on. I can appreciate the disappointments of the Member for Anson. He has been building up the Workers' Party for over 12 years.”
“Perhaps he was going to challenge me on my misquoting him or misleading members of the public. I have here his -”
“I have only one hour. I do not have much time. I suggest the Member, who will have another hour, rebut me later on. Mr Jeyaretnam: All right.”
“Let me give one example when you do so. Take defence. The Member for Anson comes to this House and tells us, four or five times, that he was never against defence. A mere repetition that you are not against defence does not convince people that you are not against defence. A person can swear 10 times that, "I am honest. I am honest." But unless he proves that he is an honest man, people are not going to believe him. Why do I say that I have doubts about his sincerity in defending Singapore? Because only last year, before the elections, we were altercating, we were arguing publicly, about the high level of defence expenditure, about the need to purchase the Hawkeye to defend Singapore. The Member for Anson boasted that he would make that an election issue. But did he make defence an election issue? He beat a hasty retreat. We met him head-on. So he beat a hasty retreat. Why was that? Because we were occupying high ground. There were no votes there for him. I think the Member for Anson, if he has indeed changed his point of view about defence, should come out openly and say so, that "I was wrong. My concept of National Service was wrong. My concept of National Service as a community service was wrong. I am now for the present format of National Service. And I can give you the following ideas to improve." Mr Jeyaretnam rose -”
“That is precisely the point. Constitutional struggle means free play of ideas, competition of ideas, and for one party to unseat the other Party from government. Therefore, it is not the constitutional duty of the Government to help them to succeed. The Member for Anson in his election speech at Fullerton Square talked about the golden age. Come 1988, God willing, he would be in government. I am paraphrasing him but I think that is the essence of what he said to the people. And I believe the Member for Potong Pasir harbours the same ambition that, come 1988, he would also be in a position to present enough candidates to form the Government. I believe he is going to speak to the NUS students sometime in July on the foundations of an alternative government. He must, if he wishes to succeed, not just talk about the foundations of an alternative government, but come out with ideas to persuade the people that he, in fact, has got a program me to present to the people. Our duty, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, is not to help the Opposition. Our duty is to our people. How do we build up our own team, a Government that can better serve the people? I would go one step further. If the Opposition Members spout views that are detrimental to the interests of Singapore, which are dangerous to our foundations, to our very survival, I think it is our duty as a Party, and as a Government, to campaign against that and to debunk their ideas.”
“They are invited to do so and only when we are convinced that they can help us to run their constituencies better. In a sense, the advisers are like telephone operators of an exchange. They put the calls through, both ways, from the people to the Government, from the Government to the people. The telephone operators of a telephone exchange network are very important. We have to be sure that they will put the calls through. If they do not, the people will suffer. How do we know what are the needs of the people? How do we know what are their problems? So we need advisers who can put these calls through both ways, from the people to the Government and from our Government to our people. We do not believe that the Member for Anson and the Member for Potong Pasir will work for the success of Government's social policies. When I made that speech in the dialogue session with the grassroots leaders about an enlightened attitude to the Opposition, I was in fact signalling to the Opposition the kind of opposition which I would personally, or we as a Government, would like to have in Singapore - an Opposition that is constructive, that has credible men around them, that has got alternative views, programmes, which we can compete in. That is the kind of Opposition which we would like to see in Singapore. But having said that, I am not going to add that it is our duty to help them to grow, more so, if they harbour ambition to topple us.”
“A 3-room flat. Also for $5, I believe, because that is the 3-room flat available in the HDB block. If they want additional office space, tender for shop premises, like any PAP MPs. When a person is elected an MP, he is not automatically appointed as an adviser to the Residents' Committees, the Citizens' Consultative Committees or the Community Centres. These grassroots organizations are set up by the Government to help in implementing certain Government policies, particularly long-term social policies, like the Speak Mandarin Campaign or Courtesy Campaign. These are social policies which the advisers and the grassroots organizations are enlisted to assist. The establishment of these grassroots organizations is not provided for under our Constitution. It is not part of our Constitution. They are not matters provided for in the Constitution. They are part and parcel of Government. They are not part and parcel of Party politics. They do not depend on the Members of Parliament for their functioning. When Members of Parliament are appointed to these grassroots organizations, they are so appointed by the Prime Minister in his capacity as Prime Minister only when he is satisfied that the MPs functioning as advisers will help to implement Government policies or campaigns. If the MPs do not share the same commitment or the same convictions as the Government, they would not be appointed as advisers. This applies also to PAP MPs. If any PAP MP here does not wish to promote the Courtesy Campaign or Speak Mandarin Campaign, because he does not agree with these social campaigns, he will not be appointed as an adviser to these grassroots organizations. The MPs cannot demand that they be appointed as advisers.”
“For that reason, the HDB has found it to their advantage to provide offices for PAP MPs. And, of course, having done so for the PAP MPs, they do not discriminate against the Opposition MPs. The Member for Anson has an office the size of a 4-room flat and he pays only $5. The Member for Potong Pasir will get his office very soon.”
“Neither do they have the right to demand that we offer them the facilities of the community centres to hold classes. The People's Association and the Government have a responsibility to the people to ensure that classes run in community centres meet with minimum professional standards. They are run by competent people. We just cannot allow any MP who wants to use the CCs to apply and run their own education classes. Children and old people should not be made political footballs. Do not involve them as political footballs - hold classes for them just to advance our own political interests. Think of their interest and think of the minimum standards that we must ensure that they receive. Why do we need to have a permit for a rally? The Member for Anson has used that to suggest that there is no freedom of speech in Singapore, that each time he wants to hold a rally, a public meeting, he must apply for a police permit. There are good reasons for this. There are mass organizations like religious and cultural organizations. Singapore is a multi-racial society. The need for a permit springs from our early history of riots and revolutions. Malaysia, too, has a similar requirement. So we are not unique in asking for a permit to hold rallies. And political Parties can hold their rallies any time provided they are held indoors or in a stadium, to avoid inconveniencing the public. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the HDB does not have to provide an office for the MPs. It is not under any obligation to provide offices for MPs. That HDB has chosen to do so to PAP MPs is because they have found the PAP MPs helpful to the HDB. The PAP MPs hold "meet-the-people" sessions regularly, They promote good neighbourliness. They help the HDB to look after the housing estates better.”
“Parliamentary democracy is not about Schools Council, tree planting, use of CCs, and whether the Government has discriminated against Opposition MPs in the use of these facilities. It is our responsibility to ensure that the education system is well run. We have a Schools Council to help us to implement our policies better. We do not allow Opposition MPs to go messing around in the Schools Council or to visit schools. They have no right to demand a seat on the Schools Council. If they have an opposing view, please, have your forums, please raise your views in Parliament. Whether we invite an MP, be it an Opposition MP or a PAP MP to visit schools or to sit on the Schools Council, or other councils of other Ministries, is a prerogative of the Ministers in charge. And they will do so if they are convinced that the MPs can contribute to the Ministry's work. We cannot allow a Member of Parliament to plant a tree whenever and wherever he likes, unless it is in his own property, in his own home. HDB estates are public properties. No MP is free to take a changkul to dig a hole and plant a tree any time he feels like it, whether it is a shrub or an exotic tree given to him by an ardent supporter of his. HDB land is public property. No MP is allowed to dig a hole on public property unless the authority allows it. If he wants to plant a tree, please take part when we have our Tree Planting Campaign. In fact, the Opposition MPs can participate in our campaigns, like the Productivity Campaign, Speak Mandarin Campaign, Courtesy Campaign, if they believe in them. They are free to participate. But we cannot demand that they should participate. We have no right to demand that they participate in our campaigns.”
“So go ahead. Hold your rally. Tell Singaporeans what your views are, what programmes you have to make their life better. There is no silencing of the Opposition. If we wish to silence the Opposition, would we allow SBC to telecast the proceedings? All the years that the PAP has been in this House, with all the seats belonging to the Party, we have not telecast the proceedings. We have not made use of the SBC. Do not believe that we are worried about the views of the Opposition. Free play of ideas. That is what we have been encouraging and that is what the Opposition Members should in fact come out with. What are their ideas to make life better for people. How would they look after your sons, your daughters, and your future. Parliamentary democracy is about free elections held regularly - a Party which contests and earns the right to govern in Singapore. It is our responsibility to govern Singapore, having been returned by the people. The Member for Anson understands that very well, that the Government's responsibility is to govern. That is why he has been suggesting that Parliament should have parliamentary committees, whereby he can also participate, because he knows that it is the responsibility of the Government to gov- ern. He wants to have a share in the Government through parliamentary committees. Parliament can comprise Opposition Members. Their responsibility in Parliament is to probe, to ask questions, to come out with alternative programmes to the Government's. They are not in this House to govern. That is why I share the concern of my colleague, the Minister for Home Affairs, when he brought out the article written by Mr Philip Lee. I, too, know Mr Philip Lee. But I think he has missed the point completely.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, they are actually two separate issues. First, on the education of children from poor families. No child in Singapore is prevented from attending school simply because he is unable to pay. Nobody in Singapore is denied an education, just because he is poor. A child coming from a poor familiy can apply to the school for free textbooks and for other financial assistance. So education should not be confused with this cash grant scheme of $10,000 to help the family to improve their home environment. The cash grant will enable poor families to upgrade from congested old rental blocks to a better environment. And with a small family living in a better environment, the parents can devote greater attention to the children, give them more resources, and a better environment for the children to spend time on their studies. With the financial assistance given by the Education Ministry, they can hopefully proceed beyond PSLE, go on to the 'O' level, and for some of them, even to the Universities. HDB MULTI-STOREY CAR PARKS (Building of) 2.”
“Then he can be sure of winning the votes of the poor. But if he is unable to come out with any solution, then he should listen to us. Our means of reducing poverty in Singapore is through education, economic growth and a few specific programmes to help them, as I have mentioned. He has suggested giving child allowances to help children from poorer families to buy books for their education. It is not necessary for us to provide cash grants in the form of child allowances to such families. School fees are free. The miscellaneous charges are minimal. And any poor family can always apply to the Education Ministry for bursaries, for textbook grants. The schools have adequate facilities in the form of books, libraries, teaching aids, to help these children. There is no need for any special child allowances for these families. You cannot eradicate poverty by giving allowances, hand-outs to poor families, as proven in programmes elsewhere. In the United States, hand-outs create more poverty. They do not solve the problem of the poor.”