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 18 of 28.
“And he voted for the amendment. I believe that before the General Election, during the campaign, he was talking about the role of a constructive Opposition, helping the Government to govern better. In his maiden speech, I think he has made it very clear that he is not going to be loyal to the ruling Party, which is the Government. So here, we have a clear statement that his role is, in fact, to bring down the ruling Party.”
“The difficulty is: would employers employ people after 55 if wage cost is high? Here, we can consider a suggestion that after 55, CPF contribution from both employers and employees can be reduced from the current 25%, both sides, to 15%. In other words, from the age of 55 to 60, CPF contributions could be at a lower rate, say 15%; and from 60 to 65 it could be further reduced to 5%. This way, we lower the wage cost for employers. But let me emphasize that I am just making a suggestion here. It is not a decision. It is part of our effort to throw out ideas for public discussion. Here is an idea which I am throwing out for Members and for fellow Singaporeans to think over to see whether we should or should not push back retirement age gradually over time. Mr Speaker, Sir, if indit amusing that the Member for Potong Pasir should from time to time challenge the credibility of the Government. The PAP has been returned in election after election from 1959. The people know what we can do. If they do not believe we have any credibility, they would not have returned the PAP again and again from 1959. But since we talk about credibility, perhaps the Member for Potong Pasir should stand in front of a mirror and examine his own credibility. On Friday last week when the Member for Anson, who is not here at this moment, moved an amendment to the motion, he supported the amendment. He was running with a hare. Three days later, he stood up to support the motion moved by the Member for Ayer Rajah. He has begun to hunt with the hounds. So in a matter of three days, he has outwardly changed sides. Yes, I think there is technicality. But he has supported the motion raised by the Member for Ayer Rajah. An hon. Member: He was converted.”
“I have not come to that. I am just saying that in Parliament, each time a dose of poison is fed to the people, he is being watched, and we can apply the antidote immediately. Outside, in the back lanes and the back alleys, in the car parks, doses and doses of half-truths, insinuations and distortions have been fed to the people. Would we pay back in cash or in instalments? The Prime Minister has already assured the people that we are not interested in delaying the withdrawal age of CPF funds which you have today and you can withdraw them in cash. As I have explained just now, you can, in fact, withdraw them in cash to invest in properties, even now. There is no need for us to belabour this point unless the Member for Potong Pasir thinks that it is necessary for me to make it even simpler. 3.43 pm [Mr Deputy Speaker in the Chair] The Member for Buona Vista has made a good suggestion, and that is, we should consider revising retirement age from 55 to 60, and later to 65. Here, I hope that Members in this House and the people will not misunderstand that this is an intention to delay the withdrawal age of CPF. I think it is a right thing for us to do to consider the possibility of increasing the age of retirement from 55 to 60 and later on to 65, but in stages. It should not be done overnight. It should be done in stages. This is important for younger Singaporeans, Singaporeans in their 40s today, Singaporeans who are below 40, because these Singaporeans will be the old Singaporeans of the future. After 55, when we can live till 75, what do we do with our time for 20 years? I think younger Singaporeans, people like me, have got to take a long view, 20-30 years down the road, and consider the possibility of increasing this retirement age.”
“May I ask the Member for Potong Pasir what does he think - whether it will be paid back in cash or in instalments? And why has he been telling the people that we are unable to pay? The question is that the Member for Potong Pasir has been poisoning the people's mind. That is why I personally welcome his presence in Parliament because here, when he tries to inject doses of poison into the people's mind, there are many eyes watching him.”
“National Service allowances were last revised on 1st September, 1983. Recruits now get $135 per month for the first three months. Later they receive $150 per month or more, depending on their vocation. With the annual increment, Privates receive $160 to $185 per month in their second year of National Service. Lance Corporals and Corporals get more. What National Servicemen receive are not wages in payment of services rendered. They are given National Service allowances meant to help defray incidental personal expenses not already borne by the Singapore Armed Forces. The SAF provides free of charge items like food, accommodation and uniforms. National Service is the contribution of male Singaporeans to the peace and security of the nation. While we do not expect them to be out of pocket because of it, they will have to bear with more austere living conditions. For National Servicemen in real financial hardship, the SAF provides unmarried soldiers an interest-free loan of up to $200 per month, while married soldiers can get an additional grant of up to $150 per month. MINDEF will review National Service allowances at regular intervals. PROPERTY MARKET 2. Maj Fong Sip Chee asked the Minister for National Development (1) if it is the Government's policy to intervene with the market forces in the property market in Singapore; and (2) if he agrees that statements made by Government ministers will affect property prices one way or the other and, if so, if there was any statement made as such.”
“These observations apply particularly to flying training and operations. The margins for error are finer, the consequences of mistakes are graver, and the risks are ever present. Yet we cannot stop flying. We must fly, but with competent pilots, in well maintained aircraft. Our pilot selection and training procedures are rigorous, and are constantly being improved. Only the best become fighter pilots. After they have been trained, they are required to maintain their skills at a high standard, so that they do not unwittingly hazard their aircraft or their lives in the air. Even the best pilots in the world can only fly safely if their aircraft are airworthy. The engine, the avionics, the weapon systems on board an aircraft, all must be conscientiously and meticulously maintained. This is the responsibility of engineers, technicians and ground crew, the large support staff required to put one pilot in the air. We have kept abreast of maintenance practices in other air forces, and have modified our own procedures and inspection routines to make increasingly certain that when an aircraft takes off, it is serviceable. MINDEF constantly monitors the accident rates of the various types of RSAF aircraft for indications of possible safety problems. So far, the trends have been reassuring. MINDEF intends to keep it that way. ASSENT TO BILLS PASSED The following Bills, which were passed by Parliament on 20th November, 1984, were assented to by the President on the date stated: 26th November 1984 (i) Immigration (Amendment) Bill; (ii) Pensions (Amendment) Bill; (iii) Economic Expansion Incentives (Relief from Income Tax) (Amendment No. 2) Bill; and (iv) Merchant Shipping (Amendment) Bill.”
“Safety is always a major concern of the SAF. A good safety record is the product of a well run armed force. Competent commanders must design carefully conceived training programmes, to put troops through difficult missions in a graduated sequence. Demanding exercises must yield training value without endangering soldiers, and stringent monitoring must make sure everything goes as planned. Training safety is the hallmark of professionalism. The SAF has undertaken many specific measures to promote safety. Comprehensive training safety regulations are published, so that officers need not depend on experience and memory alone when conducting training. For certain units, such as airbases, and for all units during live firing exercises, safety officers are specifically nominated. They have no other responsibilities than to keep constant watch over the training troops. Their job is to stop any one from being carried away by the excitement of the moment, and doing something unsafe. In addition, the Services have inspectorate teams who monitor training activities, so that the headquarters staff will know quickly if anything is going wrong. If an accident does happen, prompt investigation and swift follow-up action ensure that any shortcomings revealed in our procedures and practices are put right. Such measures promote safety, but they cannot guarantee that accidents will never happen. When training for war, men and machines are pushed to the limits of their endurance. While the greatest care must be taken to see that they are not pushed accidentally beyond the limits, this must not be done at the expense of training standards. Realistic training must continue, because inadequately trained troops will suffer needless casualties in war. We cannot water down SAF training.”
“There are also medical and evacuation instructions which explain what should be done in case a serviceman is injured. These directives and instructions are strictly complied with. Whenever a serviceman is killed or seriously injured in service, the Armed Forces Council, chaired by the Minister of Defence, convenes a Board of Inquiry to investigate the matter. The Board is chaired by a senior officer from a different unit, or even from a different Ministry, who has nothing to do with the incident. It investigates not only the immediate cause of the death or injury, but also the training the serviceman was involved in, and whether remedial or disciplinary actions are called for. The Board reports directly to the Armed Forces Council, which follows up the case with the full resources of the Ministry of Defence. MERGER OF NEWSPAPER COMPANIES 9. Mr J.B. Jeyaretnam asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Minister for Culture whether the proposed merger of the newspaper publishing companies in Singapore was directed or initiated by the Government and, if not, whether the Government had any say in the proposed merger.”
“PTE Rajendran's death was the subject of Coroner's Inquiry No 2801/83. This was a public Inquiry under the law, All facts relevant and material to his death were before the State Coroner, who made his findings on 15th September, 1984. In addition, the Armed Forces Council convened a Board of Inquiry into the death of PTE V Rajendran. The law provides that the record of proceedings of a Board of Inquiry held pursuant to the Singapore Armed Forces Act, 1972, and Regulations made thereunder, are privileged. No person is entitled, as of right, to a copy of the record of proceedings of any Inquiry. Following British practice, the Ministry of Defence does not publish Board of Inquiry reports. Besides security objections in some cases, there could also be legal difficulties, because the witnesses appearing before a Board of Inquiry are not protected by the same rules of evidence which apply in the courts. Accordingly, it is inappropriate to make public the report and findings of the Board of Inquiry on the death of PTE V Rajendran. However, I recognize that the death of a serviceman, especially a national serviceman, is a matter of grave concern, not only to my Ministry, but also to the general public. I can therefore state that in the case of PTE Rajendran, the Board of Inquiry's findings were consistent with the Coroner's findings. In particular, both findings confirmed that the deceased died of bronchopneumonia, and that there had been no ill treatment. To ensure that no serviceman is exposed to unnecessary risk during his military service, the SAF has published training and safety directives, prescribing how training should be conducted, and what specific safety precautions must be taken.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, there is no need to set up a Committee to investigate what the First Deputy Prime Minister called "drivel". I would repeat what the First Deputy Prime Minister has said. If the Member for Anson seriously believes that there has been any wrong-doing in the promotion of any officer in the SAF, he should have the courage to state this outside the House and not suggest this within the House so that he could be protected from any libel suit against him.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I was going to make the same line of answer to the Member for Anson, and I am pleased that the First Deputy Prime Minister has stood up to do what I would have done.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, had the Member for Anson listened carefully to my reply, he would have learned that promotion in the SAF depends on merit amongst other things. As to how long the officer has served in a particular position, it is not relevant. The officer can be serving in a position for any number of years, but if he lacks the potential to manage bigger responsibilities, he will not be promoted. I suggest the Member for Anson secure a copy of the March 1982 Pointer where he will get all the answers to the open system which we run in the promotion of officers in the SAF.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, promotions in the Singapore Armed Forces are decided through a strictly defined set of procedures. The present procedures were published in the March 1982 issue of the Pointer, a publication for SAF officers. The factors considered in a promotion are performance on the job, potential for higher level appointments, character, and recommendations of superiors. The SAF has a system of regular annual promotion exercises. The process begins around February and ends in June. Promotions are effective from 1st July of the year in question. In the 1984 promotion exercise, the SAF Promotions Council recommended a number of promotions including Col Lee Hsien Loong. That recommendation together with others were accepted by the Minister. It was made irrespective of any contemplated resignation because the decision to promote is made purely on the basis of the officer's capacity to contribute to the SAF. Furthermore, unlike the situation in the civilian sector, SAF regulars who leave active service are still members of the SAF. As reservist officers or NCOs, they can expect to play as important a role or, if they upgrade themselves, even a greater role than when they were in active service.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the Dover Road Camp has been in use by SAF long before the HDB estate nearby was built. Nevertheless, Mindef has already begun construction of a new camp in Ayer Rajah to house the SAF units presently sited in Dover Road. The new camp will be completed by 1986, whereupon the Dover Road Camp will be released by Mindef for public housing. SMALL CLAIMS TRIBUNALS (Formation) 14. Mr Goh Chee Wee asked the Minister for Finance and Minister for Trade and Industry whether the Ministry of Trade and Industry is still pursuing the matter of forming a small claims court for the interest of the consumers. The Minister of State for Trade and Industry (Dr Wong Kwei Cheong) (for the Minister for Finance and Minister for Trade and Industry): Mr Speaker, Sir, the Government is proceeding with plans to set up the Small Claims Tribunals which will provide a simple and expeditious avenue for aggrieved consumers to seek re-dress from traders. The Attorney-General's Chambers and the Ministry of Trade and Industry have finalized the Bill. This will be introduced in Parliament shortly by the Minister for Law.”
“Wasteful, unnecessary. Reduce to what level? Mr Speaker, Sir, we are not convinced that the Member for Anson is serious about his claim that he was totally committed to the defence of Singapore. Some hon. Members: Hear, hear! Mr Jeyaretnam rose -”
“This objective was highlighted in another Utusan Melayu report on 14th August 1967. The then PKMS Chairman, Ahmad Haji Taff, supported this and he said that the NPS' aim to reunify Singapore with Malaysia was for the good of Singapore in the future. Who were the people behind the National Party of Singapore? I think the Member for Anson can tell us. He was its legal adviser. He was responsible for drafting its constitution. The NPS never got round to contesting any elections. It seemed the prime movers could not agree on who should be the secretary-general of the Party. When that became apparent to the Member for Anson, he and Murugason, the present CEC member of the Workers' Party, decided to team up with one Charlie Seow to form the People's United Front in May 1971 with the Member as Secretary-General and Charlie Seow as Assistant Secretary-General. A Party programme was drawn up which called for the scrapping of National Service and the reduction of Defence expenditure. It is the same theme. Scrap National Service, modify it, reduce Defence expenditure. The present level is too high. It is too high now. It was too high in 1976. It was too high in 1972. Later in June 1971, the Member for Anson became Secretary-General of the Workers' Party. His stand on Defence has been consistent - that we should scrap the present Defence expenditure, whatever that means, our present levels, wasteful, unnecessary, scrap it.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, a Swiss soldier was asked the same question by someone nearer Europe. Of course, it is not the Russian Navy but the Russian tanks. "If the Russian tanks were to roll through the passes in Switzerland, do you really believe you can take on the Russians?" The Swiss soldier replied, "Frankly, no, but I'll be here to fight and make sure that he is deterred from getting into Switzerland. And even if there are no Swiss left, it is worth the effort because they take over nothing." Mr Speaker, Sir, I think there is really no need for me to get into details. If the Member for Anson has been to the Netherlands, he will see that there are no floods in the Netherlands because the dykes are there. But if you remove the dykes, you are going to have floods in the Netherlands. The whole country will be flooded. The SAF is like a dam. Because there is a dam, you do not see the flood. When you remove the dam, then you will see the flood. But the policy of the Member for Anson is to prepare to build the dam only when the flood waters have engulfed us. I think he can preach that to his members in the Workers' Party but not to the rest of the Singaporeans. Really, my point, Sir, is that it is not the E-2C, it is not the National Service. The crux of the whole argument of the Member for Anson is whether he believes in the defence of Singapore basically. He says he believes in the defence of Singapore, but I am not persuaded. Sometime in 1967, a group of professionals, including lawyers and doctors, mooted the idea of forming the National Party of Singapore. News about this was first revealed in an Utusan Melayu article of 27th July 1967. One of the declared objectives of the National Party of Singapore was to work for the eventual reunification of Singapore with Malaysia.”
“They are doing the surveillance, I take it. What are you doing? Are you trying to tail in to the United States in our defence?”
“The Member for Anson has missed the point entirely. Why does the Defence expenditure appear high as a percentage of GDP, as a percentage of Government spending, as a per capita figure? It is because of our small population. To buy an aircraft is going to cost the same for us as for any of these countries listed here, and each of these countries which I have given here has a population bigger than Singapore. So we would expect that a bigger country, even though its per capita income is lower, would have a bigger GDP, a bigger government budget. So if you were to reduce security expenditure in this format, our expenditure would appear to be very high. The point is, are Singaporeans going hungry? Are Singaporeans out in the street, without homes to live in? Do they not have good medical facilities? Our Defence expenditure has not eaten into any of the economic and social requirements of our nation. In the interpretation of data, bearing in mind that we are small, that defence is lumpy because it costs the same for us to buy an aircraft, a boat, a ship or weapon system as it would for a larger country. Mr Jeyaretnam: Thank you, Sir. I am indebted to you. May I continue on the purchase of the E-2C planes? Sir, we know the capabilities, as I have said earlier, of the E-2C planes. But to what use are they going to be put? We were told that they were to keep an eye on shipping, ships that pass through the Straits of Malacca. We were not talking about aircraft at that time. We were talking about ships. Now, these planes had been in production since 1971 and the US Navy has got on order about 96 of these planes, I understand. By the end of 1982, 64 had been supplied to the US Navy. They are based on aircraft carriers. And you have the US Navy around this area.”
“New Zealand in 1981 was spending about 2.2% of its GDP/GNP on defence. Singapore (the figures were given by the Minister) is spending 5.6% of GDP/GNP on its defence. Then, if you look at other countries, which again the Minister mentioned, Switzerland, what do you find? Switzerland is spending 2.1% of its GDP/GNP on defence. Sweden is spending 3.1%. Then if you look at it as a percentage of government spending, you will find New Zealand is spending 6.2%. Sweden is spending 6.9%. Singapore is spending in 1982, according to this Table, 17%. Switzerland is spending more than Singapore. It is 21.4%, as a percentage of government spending. So you will find that if you take comparable countries - I have taken these countries because these are the countries that the Minister took for comparison. I am being fair to him. It is his choice. You will find that Singapore's spending is pretty high. It is much higher than New Zealand.”
“We still take the view - we do not know at the moment because we do not have the figures - that there is a case for pruning expenditure in the National Service, and I would not say anything more at the moment because it is a question of examining it properly to see whether the expenditure is absolutely necessary. I am not ashamed, far from it, of the Workers Party's stand on defence, and I would like to ask the Minister - he has produced all these utterances - in what way are any of the utterances either at the National Day rally or in the manifesto advocating the abandoning of Singapore's defence? In what way are we saying we should just lie down and let a foreign army just walk over us? Where did we say that? 4.00 pm Let me look at the case as presented by the Minister. He says that 27.9% of recurrent expenditure is not really very high, that it should not really be put against recurrent expenditure but should be put against total expenditure. But putting the Defence recurrent expenditure against total recurrent expenditure, you will get 27.92%. Now, the Minister has made comparisons of Singapore's expenditure with India. I did not intend to compare Singapore's defence expenditure with India. India has got, what is it, 1,000 million people now, or more than that? We have only got 2.5 million people. But what I wanted to compare is this. I asked him whether he had the figures, and he has got them here. I am grateful to him. In his statement to the press, he has selected New Zealand as the example. He said it is a small country with about the same population. Let us look at New Zealand. Let us not look at India. India has got problems with her neighbour, Pakistan, which perhaps complicates matters a little bit. Now, let us look at New Zealand.”
“You now support? Mr Jeyaretnam: So that is what we said in August 1983. We are asking the Government to make out a case and I shall, after this, deal with the Government's case as has been presented to this House. Then he referred to the National Day rally and I take it he refers to my speech at the National Day rally. Has he got the tape then? Has the ISD given him the tape? We were again talking about the purchase of the E-2C planes. I remember very clearly that what I was saying was the lack of consultation with the taxpayers, i.e. the spending of this vast sum of money without the electorate being sounded on this. But he picks up a phrase and he says "protest at build-up of arms". I want to know whether he has got the tape. Perhaps we might listen to it. Thirdly, the 1976 manifesto. Yes, we said we considered the present expenditure was wasteful and unnecessary and we said in 1976 that the threat, as we saw it, was more internal than external. Let me say this. In 1984,1 do not myself think there is any internal threat either, nor do I think there is an enemy banging at our doors from outside, an external threat. Then we come to the 1972 manifesto which he read out. The 1976 manifesto repeats largely what we said in 1972. I do not think that I need to dwell very much on what we said in 1972. One thing we did say in 1972 was that we proposed to examine the expenditure and the cost of National Service and whether there was any injustice or hardship caused by the administration of the National Service. What is wrong with that?”
“Let us go back further to 1972. Again, in his manifesto published in the Hammer, May 1972 issue, it was repeated and let me 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. We shall examine the present administration of national service with a view to removing all injustices and hardships resulting from the call-up. The Party will strive to maintain good friendly relations with our neighbours and will work towards effective regional defence arrangements.' I would like clarification from the Member whether the present administration of national service today, 1984, is unjust and whether it also incurs hardships for national servicemen, the reservists and the employers, and what does he have in mind if he had the opportunity to examine the administration of National Service and to reshape it. Sir, I think I have spoken enough. I believe the Member for Anson would like to have some words and I would suggest to the Member for Telok Blangah not to withdraw the amendment.”
“Martial law and the army. Let him have a go at this because I do not know what the true intent of the words is.”
“He would have maintained an efficient regular army to meet any threat to our society and to maintain peace. And mark you, he said that the threat would be from within. An hon. Member: Martial law.”
“There are many semantics and we have got to try and get to the bottom of what words actually mean. Do they mean what they say, or do they have a different meaning when we corner the speaker of the words? That is what we are interested in. I move on to the last paragraph under "Defence" and I quote: "The Party, however, sees the need for being ready at all times to meet any threat to the society from within or without." I would say, "Hear, hear!" "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." Who runs a regular army to maintain peace in the country? Internal security. Peace in the country is for the Police, not for the regular army, We are a little perplexed as to what the Member for Anson in 1976 had in mind assuming that he had won the elections and become the government of the day.”
“Let us not quibble over words. If it is "present level", say so.”
“Then say so. It is not "present level". It is "present expenditure is wasteful and unnecessary."”
“"The present expenditure on defence is wasteful and unnecessary". So what does that mean?”
“It is "expenditure on defence is wasteful and unnecessary."”
“That is our enemy. Does the Member for Anson honestly support National Service? I am interested to hear his views later on. His view of the threat assessment, whether he still supports the acquisition of the E-2Cs and whether he honestly supports National Service. I ask this because the Member has claimed that he was totally committed to the defence of Singapore as was the Workers Party. I think we should weigh his words carefully for what they are worth. Point one. In the Workers Party publication of Hammer, August 1983, which I have reduced to size, he argued for the cancellation of the Hawkeye system which we are purchasing, under the heading "Policeman for the region." He argued that our eyes should be gouged out so that we cannot see. If you cannot see, you will find it extremely difficult to defend yourself against anyone. Point two. At the Workers Party National Day rally on 7th August -last year, whilst touching on the same issue, he was inciting Singaporeans "to protest at any build-up of arms by the Singapore government." And he wanted to march in our National Day Parade. Of course, he would not want us to celebrate 25 years of nation building. Point three. Now we go back seven years, from 1983 to 1976. I go back to his Party's manifesto. Unfortunately, I have difficulty in reading it because the contents became a little blurred during the photocopying process. Under the section on "Defence" I 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.' This is in paragraph 1 from the manifesto on defence expenditure. It was not a criticism of the high level of expenditure and that the level should be reduced to a more appropriate level.”
“Is that the objective of the Member for Anson so that I will stumble into the trap and name 1 -2-3-4-5 as my enemy, and then we have an enemy? Defence expenditure will then be justified. But even if yoU justify Defence expenditure at that point of time, it is too late. The Member's defence doctrine is very simple. Forget defence till there is trouble. I am paraphrasing but I think that is the gist of his argument - forget about defence till there is trouble. If we do that, the consequence will be horrendous for us. Forget about defence and there will be trouble. When you go to bed at night, do you close the door and bolt it? I think the answer is, all of us do. We do not know who are the burglars. Whether or not there will be any burglar coming at night, we just close our doors for safety's sake. We do not know where are the robbers or who are the robbers, but if we wish to count our money,( think we will close the door and bolt it too. If you go around asking, "where are the robbers?" "Who are the robbers?" "Leave the door open and count your money", then when there is trouble you can forget about defence. It will be too late. No one buys life insurance after he is dead. If you worry about defence only when you can see trouble, no one will sell you life insurance. 3.45 pm But I do not intend to run away from his question: Who are your enemies? I know it is not right, Sir, to point a finger at any one because to do so, as I have explained just now, is to turn him into an enemy. But I do not run away from a direct question and I shall tell the House. Our enemies are those who try again and again, and again and again, to reduce our Defence expenditure - to zero. If they have their way, they will disband National Service and dismantle our Defence structure altogether.”
“Because by the time it is delivered in 1987, are we sure that it will not be obsolete? What does that mean? Does he mean that we should, in fact, wait to buy a better system? If that is so, then we are on the same wave length. You do a market research, you wait out one or two years, if necessary, in order to buy a better system. Was that what he was implying, that we have made a mistake in deciding now to buy an E2C, which could be obsolete in a few years' time? His point is on technical obsolescence, mind you. It is one that has been argued all the time whenever we are buying new weapons or even new capital equipment for companies. But I will tell him that, in fact, there is a better system than the E2C. If I were to follow the Member's argument, we should in fact not buy the E2C. We should be buying the AWACs. If you compare the E2C with the AWACs, the E2C is obsolete. Are you suggesting that we should buy the AWACs? Even if he is suggesting it, we will not do so. We cannot afford it. The AWACs is twice the cost of the E2C, and it is unnecessary for us to settle for such a sophisticated piece of eyes. Now we come to the sensitive ticklish question of, "where are the threats?" The Member takes a snapshot of Singapore when the sun is out and asks, "where is the rain? Who says it is going to rain. I do not see any dark clouds." He has no sense of history and no ability to visualize the future. His vision is as far as that of a bat. He knows very well that to name an enemy is to make an enemy out of him. If I were to point a finger at my good friend across the Floor, any one of them, and designate him as my enemy, he will be my enemy. Does the Member for Anson want Singapore to make an enemy out of a friend?”
“Not so long ago, in 1979, the House will recall that a Vietnamese-hijacked airplane flew into Singapore, escaping our radar detection until it was quite close to Singapore. What if it were a hostile airplane? What would have happened if in a hostile situation a hostile aircraft came this close before it was detected? Can we afford to have a leaky security umbrella so that when it rains you get wet? If our air defence is full of holes, what is the point of having National Service? What is the point of having a good Armed Forces and a good Navy? It is like laying an expensive carpet before you have put up the roof! The Member for Kebun Baru spelled out the scenario when Singapore was bombed during the Japanese Occupation. I would go one step further and try to recall what happened to Hamburg during World War 11, when Hamburg came under similar heavy air bombardment. In one night alone, 70,000 Germans died through direct effects of the bombing as well as through the after effects of fire or chaos. 70,000 dead Germans in one night. Hamburg at that time had a population of about 1.5 million people. So you can extrapolate very easily - what would have happened if this bombardment had carried on night after night for one week? To Germany, the loss of Hamburg would have meant the loss of only one city, but to Singapore if you lose 70,000 lives in one night and we lose the city of Singapore we lose the whole nation. So our situation is very different from other countries where, if they are caught with their pants down, they lose only one city. But if we are caught with our pants down, we lose everything. I suspect the Member for Anson wants us to be as blind as a helpless day-old mouse. He has also asked a question, in fact he has argued the other way: why buy the E2C?”
“Or should we, in fact, reduce our expenditure so as to save the $900, but for what purpose? I think even if it costs us $2,000 per head to protect the lives and properties of Singaporeans we will spend that sum of money. I move on to the E2C, whether the expenditure of $1 billion is necessary and whether there are cheaper ways to protect the lives and properties of Singaporeans. Sir, if I were born blind and if, through some medical miracle, I was offered a pair of artificial eyes which would enable me to see, I would sell off my furniture, my house, just to be able to buy that pair of artificial eyes. Because with the ability to see, I can read, I can acquire knowledge, I can move about, I can easily earn back what I have spent to give me sight. And that is what the E2C is about. It is a pair of sophisticated eyes in the sky. Unfortunately, it is also expensive - $1 billion for four aircraft for the whole system. Again, be very wary of looking at figures in isolation. Try to relate this $1 billion to per capita. Take 2.5 million lives, leaving aside all that belong to them. $1 billion for the system works out to S$400 per head. Again, is the life of a Singaporean worth less than $400? Do we not worry about a vulnerability that may cost us our lives and our whole country? The E2C will last us not just one year, it will last easily 20 years. Let us assume a 10-year life-span for the E2C; that works out to $40 per head. $40 to give you the security which you need when you go to bed at night; you do not have to worry, somebody else is doing the worrying for you, $40 per year. Is the Singaporean's life not worth at least $40 per year?”
“And the basic fact is Singapore has a very small population; therefore a smaller economy compared to a large country like India, even though India has a smaller per capita i"come. I think the arithmetic is obvious. I will leave the arguments on New Zealand to the Member later on. I will move on. Defence weapons cost the same to a poor country as well as to a rich country. There is no discount just because you are poor. So also an aircraft. In fact, I suspect the richer country will get the aircraft cheaper than the poorer country because it buys aircraft in abundance. There is a bulk discount. And if the Member for Anson were to argue that we are spending far too much on defence per capita my answer is, it is worth incurring $780 per head to protect each and every Singaporean in Singapore. In fact, this figure has gone higher this year. The figure this year will be close to $1,000, actually $900. Is the life of a Singaporean worth $9007 An hon. Member: More.”
“Yes, for New Zealand also. For Australia, India, Indonesia, Japan, Malaysia, New Zealand, Philippines, Singapore, South Korea, Thailand, Sweden, and Switzerland. This is published information taken from the Annual Reference Edition of the Pacific Defence Reporter The object of circulating this Table and to examine the data here is to take the Member for Anson through what I would call a proper assessment of information, and not picking one information and coming to a quick conclusion. Just compare, first, our Defence expenditure as a percentage of government spending with India. The figures are for 1982 because these are the figures available for these countries and not the 1983 figures. 17% for Singapore, 17.8% for India. We then look at the column expressing our Defence expenditure as a percentage of GDP/GNP, the size of your income, the annual income. For Singapore it is 5.6%, for India (the latest year available) it is 3.3%. Then look at the column on per capita expenditure. This is where, if one looks at a figure in isolation, one will be shocked at the high expenditure in Singapore on Defence - US$355 in 1982. In Singapore dollars, at S$2.2 to US$l, it works out to about $780. Look at India, only US$8. So if one looks at figures in isolation, per capita expenditure on Defence in Singapore as compared to India, one may well conclude that the Singapore Armed Forces, is way ahead of the Indian Armed Forces. But I will not dare make such a claim. Just look at the column on absolute expenditure whereby Singapore spent US$852 million in 1982 as compared to India's US$5,556 million. So when we interpret data, we must understand the basic fact.”
“But deterrence requires that we have and are known to have a good defence capability. Our defence doctrine is therefore to build up sufficient military, civil, social, economic and psychological strength to deter any threat against our vital interests. And should deterrence fail, to have the capacity to repel any aggression. We started off emphasizing military defence, first full-time national servicemen and then reservists, moved on last year to civil defence, and this year to total defence. Building up the Armed Forces is like a person learning martial arts, for example, karate. When that person acquires a black belt and people know that he has a black belt, he is unlikely to be bullied. And even if others take him on, he has got the wherewithal to defend himself. I know, Mr Speaker, Sir, that such a general answer would not satisfy the Member for Anson and I do not propose to duck the issue. I will come to his points one at a time. Looking at our Defence expenditure and relating it to just recurrent expenditure alone is not correct. He should relate this Defence expenditure to the total Government budget. For the coming year, the more correct figure is therefore 13.67% of our total budget. This appears to be high. But to view this percentage of 13.67% in isolation and to conclude that we should scale down our Defence expenditure is to betray an analytical perception that is as shallow as a saucepan. And I propose to give him more information, more data, and to circulate to Members of the House a Table (Cols. 1275 - 1276) on Defence expenditure for Singapore and several other countries plus two neutral countries, Sweden and Switzerland. Table - DEFENCE EXPENDITURES, 1982 (Cols. 1275 - 1276) [Copies of Table distributed to Members.]”
“So there are fewer and fewer premature school leavers available from the mainstream of our education system. So the SAF Boys' School has become a victim of the improvement in our national education system. For example, in 1982 and 1983, the intake was only about 140 boys compared to about 500 previously. There is an additional reason for closing down the SAF Boys' School, and that is, with our increasing emphasis on upgrading our NCOs' cadre to meet new challenges and higher responsibilities, including the necessity of training progressively better educated national servicemen, the SAF requires people who are better educated. I have covered the points of substance raised by my colleagues in Parliament. I shall now move on to the speech made by the Member for Anson. The Member raised three points. First, our Defence expenditure at 27.92% of our recurrent expenditure is too high. Second, the acquisition of E2C or Hawkeye at $1 billion is unnecessary, particularly as we do not see any immediate threats to our security. His third point is: reveal our enemies. Where are the threats? Who are the enemies? These are the three points which I will answer one at a time. He made one claim and, that is, he and the Workers' Party are totally committed to the defence of Singapore. I shall also examine this claim later on. But first, Mr Speaker, let me state briefly our Defence objective and philosophy. Our Defence objective is straight forward, and that is, national security and national survival. We are too small to be a threat to anyone but we must be able to stand up for ourselves should we be threatened. We see our security and prosperity as closely linked with that of Malaysia and our other ASEAN neighbours. All we want is to be left alone to progress and prosper in peace.”
“The Member for Kebun Baru would like to know the number of occasions the Republic of Singapore Air Force was involved in search and rescue missions and whether such services benefited the RSAF. In the last two years, the RSAF has on 14 occasions launched search and rescue missions at the request of civilian agencies. These missions resulted in 26 people being successfully evacuated by rescue helicopters to the Singapore General Hospital. The heli-evacuation conducted during the cable car incident of January 1983 in which 13 lives were saved was one such mission. The experiences derived from search and rescue operations help to reinforce the operational proficiency and skills of our pilots to conduct exacting missions in difficult situations. The RSAF search and rescue capability was primarily developed to meet the Air Force's own needs, both in peace time as well as in war. However, the facilities and resources are also used by the Department of Civil Aviation to meet Singapore's obligations under the Convention of International Civil Aviation to provide search and rescue within the Singapore search and rescue region. Now I move on to the last point raised by the Member for Pasir Panjang on why did we decide to close down the SAF Boys' School. The SAF Boys' School was established in 1975 with the primary purpose of producing potential NCOs for the SAF. Premature school leavers between the ages of 14 and 16 were recruited and trained to become tradesmen or combat NCOs in the SAF. As a result of changes in our national education system, almost every child is now provided with an opportunity to continue its education after PSLE to GCE normal level or 'N' level. And for those who are less academically inclined, they are streamed to VITB for vocational training.”
“Every effort is made by the SAF to rehabilitate drug abusers. Even where punitive punishment has been meted out against persistent drug abusers, they are accorded individual attention and treatment from counsellors from the SAF Counselling Centre which has a good record in tackling the drug problem in the SAF. 3.15 pm The Member for Nee Soon also touched on the peculiar procedure in SAF of requiring national servicemen who have fallen sick and seen private doctors to personally submit their medical certificates to the SAF units within 24 hours. This is, in fact, the directive but I have been told that officers exercise this flexibly. In other words, the sick national servicemen can report over the telephone and send the medical certificate to the unit through somebody else if they like. There is no requirement now for them to personally appear before the SAF medical officers. This also applies to servicemen at the Infantry Training School at Pulau Tekong. So the problem is one of too rigid an implementation. But in some non-routine cases where it is felt that monitoring is necessary, the medical officer may ask the servicemen concerned to report back to camp for review of the ailment and arrangement of suitable medical attention and follow-up. This refers to non-routine cases. This is necessary where the medical leave given is of long duration, more than one day, two days. In such cases, it is necessary for the unit medical officer to liaise with the doctor who issued the medical certificate to discuss the serviceman's illness and, if necessary, to work out a more detailed or appropriate treatment programme. Where it is not possible for the serviceman to return to camp, for example, if he is too ill, the medical officer will visit him at his home. Search and rescue.”
“As for welfare schemes, there are several such schemes which are available to the Regular officers, like housing loans, car loans, and so on. I do not think I need go into details of these schemes which are sufficiently attractive to the Regular officers and NCOs. What is the status of the drug problem in the SAF? This was asked by the Member for Nee Soon. The problem of drug abuse in the SAF has been well contained. That explains our silence, not the other way round. Evidence? The number of servicemen arrested for drug offences decreased from 631 cases in 1977 to only 109 cases last year, hard evidence that the problem is under control. The relapse rate for drug abuses has also dropped steadily over the last five years. In 1977, there were 90 cases of relapse. In 1983, only 34 cases. How have we done this? Again, we adopt a two-prong approach, soft and hard approaches. The soft approach comprises various educational an d publicity measures carried out from the very beginning when the servicemen are enlisted. The purpose of the programme is to educate them on the dangers of drug abuse. Counsellors from the SAF Counselling Centre assist unit officers in this educational effort. Servicemen who have taken drugs prior to their enlistment are encouraged to admit this fact to their superiors or medical officers. Disciplinary action will not be taken against self-confessed drug abusers. In addition to education and publicity, more direct preventive and containment measures are taken to discourage abuse in the SAF. Mass urine screening exercises are regularly conducted on a spot-check basis at unit level. Where abusers persist in their drug taking habit, punitive punishment follows. Even then the emphasis is on counselling and prevention.”
“Sixty-three regular officers and 28 regular NCOs were also sent overseas to attend specialized courses conducted by other armed forces so that they could learn from their experience and to ensure that in-breeding does not occur. To improve the quality of the officer cadre, the SAF revised the minimum educational requirement for its Regular recruits in 1981. Officers are required to have a minimum of two 'A' levels and two 'O' levels. To ensure that the SAF has its fair share of top talent, the SAF has scholarship schemes to sponsor good 'A' level students to the best universities overseas as well as to the NUS. Ten candidates were awarded the SAF Overseas Scholarship in 1982 and 12 in 1983 to study in Oxbridge and other good universities in the United Kingdom. Fourteen candidates were awarded scholarships to pursue both academic and military training in military academies in UK, Japan, West Germany and Australia. Another 20 National Service officers took up local scholarships to study in the NUS in 1983. There are several other management courses which we put our SAF officers and NCOs through. To ensure that the SAF is able to attract and retain a fair share of the requisite skills and talents, the terms and conditions of service are continually being reviewed to keep them competitive with those prevailing in the public sector as well as in the private sector. We have set up a Pay Research Unit recently to better organize research into salaries and service conditions. The salaries of SAF officers are presently being pegged at 20% above those in the Civil Service for candidates with similar abilities and capabilities. This is also in recognition of military life being more onerous and demanding.”
“Moving on to the question raised by the Member for Nee Soon on the quality of SAF officers and how we intend to upgrade the quality to meet new needs, this question was also touched on by the Member for Pasir Panjang when he spoke on the Regular officers. I will take both questions together. We need to do two things. The first thing is to recruit better and better qualified individuals who can become officers or NCOs. That is the first approach, to work out a scheme to attract better qualified people to join the SAF. Secondly, for those who are in the Regular service, we have to work out schemes to upgrade the quality of these officers and NCOs. Fundamental to the upgrading of the SAF officer cadre is our ability to identify those who have good potential and to groom them for key appointments. First, we have to identify them before we can groom them. The SAF has a Wrangler scheme which was started in February 1974 to achieve this. This scheme was revised in July 1981 to incorporate elements of the Shell appraisal scheme. The scheme is part of a wider personnel management system for assessing and developing SAF officers. Basic to the system is the SAF personnel management philosophy of developing human resources to the fullest of the individual's potential. That is the fundamental assumption in the management philosophy. Fitting the right man to the right job at the right time is not only good for the man, but it is also good for the SAF. Apart from the Wrangler development scheme, the SAF also runs advanced and specialized military courses to keep all its officers and NCOs updated and trained in modern weaponry and tactics. In FY 1983, a total of 1,083 regulars, 465 national servicemen and 589 reservists attended advanced level courses conducted by the SAF.”
“The respective Reserve Formation Headquarters also conducted briefings for their Reserve personnel. Mindef is happy to note that reservists have no problem accepting the logic for the extension from a 10-year Reserve cycle to 13 years. 3.00 pm What about the employers? Would this not inconvenience the employers even though most of the reservists understand the need for an extended reserve cycle? Mindef has also held meetings with employers to explain the rationale for increasing the Reserve cycle from 10 to 13 years. Mindef is also pleased to note that more and more employers are coming forward to express their support for their employees' involvement in Reserve in-camp training and for the need for total defence. In fact, if employers have been accustomed to the reservists going for in-camp training for the last 10 years, an additional three years will not pose any great inconvenience to the companies. A question was asked as to the criteria for enlistment into National Service. The Enlistment Act provides for all able-bodied citizens to render National Service. The contribution or the role he will play in the defence of Singapore will, however, to a larger extent, depend on the physical standard and educational attainment as well as the vocational requirements of National Service appointments. Those who satisfy the criteria for enlistment into full National Service, which I have touched on above, would serve in any one of the organizations which require full-time National Service, like the Singapore Armed Forces, Police National Service and so on. If the Member for Kaki Bukit knows of any particular able-bodied citizens who have not served National Service and who would like to do so, we would be pleased to get the names from him.”
“Simultaneously as we try to educate the public on the necessity of total defence, we have to also impart to them the concept that defence is a life-long commitment. It is not service in the SAF for two years or 21/2 years in National Service and 10 years in the Reserve and then you are free of any responsibility whatsoever to defend this place. So we have also to preach this concept of defence is everybody's business. Defence is a life-long commitment. In fact, the SAF Enlistment Act clearly stipulates that Reserve liability is up to the age of 50 for officers and 40 for other ranks. Although the ideal is to require all reservists in the SAF Reserve service to serve till the maximum age limit, there are many practical limitations which preclude this ideal, factors such as lack of training area, cost of training, shortage of regular staff, administration and logistic constraints. All these limitations require us to decide on a fixed cycle for reservist training. In the past it was 10 years. So why 13 years now? We have been projecting future intakes into the National Service based on current and projected birth rate which has come down drastically after we started family planning. Our falling birth rate has led to dwindling National Service resources which will be insufficient for us to generate the force required for our Reserve force. If we extend this by three more years, it gives us additional men and not just additional men but also trained men for three more years. Hence the need for us to extend the training cycle from 10 to 13 years. As soon as a decision to increase the 10-year training cycle to 13 years was made, briefings and discussions were held by Mindef and the SAF to keep Reservist officers informed of the new Reserve policy.”
“Public morale and confidence have to be boosted with the knowledge that a civilian population is organized to cope with emergencies even when the younger and physically more capable men are mobilized for SAF service. Hence, civil defence. Also, due to a lack of natural resources and a small population, our economy must be organized to withstand external pressures as well as internal pressures that can be brought about by the mobilization of men and equipment from the private sector. Hence, economic defence. As a multi-racial society, Singapore can be a fertile ground for mischievous elements to stir up problems on account of race, religion or culture. Hence, the need for social defence, the need to organize communities within housing estates, like RCs, CCCs, community centres and so on. But undergirding it all is the need for Singaporeans to be willing to stand up for themselves, Hence, psychological defence. Having spent many years to educate the general public concerning military defence, first, concerning fulltime national servicemen and then reservists, we feel that it is now time to cover the other potential weak spots in Singapore's security. Hence, the mass effort on civil defence starting last year, and greater effort this year to educate the public on total defence. Otherwise we, the Singaporeans, can be caught unawares and Singapore can go down without an aggressor even having to mount a military campaign against Singapore because we are not prepared psychologically, socially, and in the fields of economics and civil defence. I will now move on to explain briefly the rationale for extending the Reserve cycle from 10 to 13 years.”
“Sir, first, let me separate the substance from the form. I wish to recapitulate the points raised by my colleagues and information sought by them. They have raised eight points altogether: 1. Total defence. 2. Rationale for the extension of the Reserve cycle from 10 to 13 years. Would it not inconvenience the employers? 3. Criteria for enlistment into National Service. 4. What has been done by the SAF to improve the quality of its officers so that they could cope with the demands of a modern, technically sophisticated and professionally competent force, and questions on upgrading of permanent staff and the welfare schemes for regular officers. 5. What is the status of the drug problem in SAF? 6. Requirement to submit medical certificates within 24 hours. 7. Search and rescue. 8. SAF Boys' School. Let me deal with the first item, which is total defence. Why total defence, the question was asked. When Singapore became independent in 1965, the primary problem was getting a credible military defence capability quickly. The problem became most urgent when the British announced their pull-out East of Suez in 1967. So National Service was introduced in 1967 and the SAF was formed. It took many years for Singaporeans to accept National Service as a way of life. Three to four years ago the public education effort on Defence moved away from full-time National Service to concentrate on the role of reservists, particularly the fact that these are front-line fighting troops and that the better of them would have to be put to higher level of appointments in the Reserve. So we moved from National Service to concentrate on the reservists. But we all know that a military attack on Singapore is not the only means by which Singapore can fall to an aggressor.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I beg to report that the Committee of Supply has made further progress on the Main and Development Estimates for the financial year 1st April 1984 to 31st March 1985, and ask leave to sit again tomorrow.”
“Sir, appreciation will be shown to those who have served in the PDF-101. The exact form of appreciation will be left to the Chief of the General Staff. Of course, if the members of PDF-101 wish to form a volunteer association, we would be pleased to render this association the necessary moral support in the first place, and perhaps other forms of support later if they are required.”