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 3 of 28.
“We have attracted many MNCs to Singapore, created many jobs, and sold our products and services to the rest of the world. But these same forces of globalisation can also work against us. Globalisation is not just about exports. It is about producing goods and services wherever in the world it can be done most cheaply and efficiently. So when lower-cost players emerge, and we are not competitive, investments will flow into these places rather than to Singapore. The reorganisation of the global economy has been going on for some time. But the process has accelerated in recent years. Jobs are migrating from developed countries to developing countries faster than ever before. Singapore too has been affected. For example, Maxtor, a disk drive manufacturer, will be reducing its Singapore workforce once its China plant comes on-line in 2005. Maxtor will produce entry-level disk drives in the China plant, while keeping its production of high-capacity drives here. Maxtor's competitors, Seagate and Western Digital, have also reduced their presence in Singapore. Seagate has shifted its manufacture of low-end drives to China. Over the last five years, its Singapore workforce has been reduced from a high of 25,000 workers to 9,000 workers today. Western Digital shifted 2,500 jobs to Malaysia in 1998. It is not just blue-collar jobs that are moving offshore. White-collar jobs are also migrating to low-cost countries like the Philippines, Thailand and India. Our graduates and yuppies are feeling the heat. Last year, for the first time, more professionals, managers, executives and technicians (PMETs) were laid off, compared to production and related workers. PMETs form 43% of all local workers retrenched.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, from time to time, a nation comes to a crossroads. The people must then decide which road to take, to continue the journey. One road may lead them up to the sunny highlands. The other road may go deeper into the gloomy valley. Singapore is at such a crossroads. Down one road, the view is familiar. We see, as part of the landscape, our present policies and practices and our high wage and CPF systems. This is the easiest road to take. Politically too, it is the most convenient. But maintaining the status quo means carrying a heavy load of costs, and relying on outdated models of economic growth. This will weigh us down. We will descend into the gloomy valley. To take the second road, which leads to the highlands, we will have to shed some of our load, through wage and CPF reforms and other measures. We will then be able to travel lighter, and move more nimbly. But shedding our load will involve sacrifice and pain. We may have to adjust our aspirations and lifestyles. Moreover, there is no guarantee of success. How we progress will depend on what our competitors do, and the state of the world economy. This second road of reform and restructuring is unpaved and difficult to travel. It will be an uncomfortable journey, even painful at times. But I know that taking the first road will lead us deeper and deeper into gloom. This is why I want Singaporeans to come along with me on the road of reform and restructuring. On this road, we stand a much better chance of economic recovery and sustained growth. Why are we in this tough spot? The reason is globalisation. Products and services, capital, investments, companies and people are moving across borders more and more freely. Globalisation has benefited Singapore immensely.”
“Statutory Boards As of March 2003, out of a total of 630 directorships on all Statutory Boards, 566 (89.8%) are held by men and 64 (10.2%) by women. Major GLCs As of March 2003, out of the 593 directorships on major Temasek-linked companies, 534 (90.1%) are held by men, while 59 (9.9%) by women. Last year, out of 582 directorships, 526 (90.4%) were held by men, and 56 (9.6%) by women. This represents an increase of 5.4% for female directors and 1.5% for male directors. HOUSING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD UPGRADING PROGRAMME 2. Dr Jennifer Lee asked the Minister for National Development (a) what is the total number of HDB units that (i) have already completed the Main Upgrading Programme and (ii) do not have lift landings on every floor; and (b) what has been the percentage of (i) uptake for the Lift Upgrading Programme, and (ii) rejections citing unaffordability as a reason.”
“In April last year, this House passed legislation to provide for the implementation of electronic voting in Singapore for both the presidential and parliamentary elections. The Elections Department then proceeded to develop an electronic voting system. Members will recall seeing a demonstration of the prototype last year. However, the electronic voting system could not be completed in time for the General Elections held in November 2001. Given the pace of rapid technology changes, Elections Department is currently looking into developing another electronic voting system. If the system can be completed and certified for use in time, it will be implemented for voters in two SMCs at the next Presidential Election which is due to be held between 1st June and 31st August 2005. ECO-RECYCLING PARK 29. Ms Olivia Lum Ooi Lin asked the Minister for the Environment (a) if he will provide an update on the proposed pilot Eco-Recycling Park in Tuas; and (b) whether his Ministry plans for more schemes and programmes to encourage recycling companies to set up their facilities and invest in advanced technology and capital equipment there.”
“They will be pulled by where the opportunities beckon. What can we do to keep their hearts here so that, even if they leave to pursue their Global Dream, they will return one day to Singapore? If we can achieve these two goals - secure a constant flow of good people into the Government and anchor Singaporeans firmly to Singapore - then, Singapore will endure and prosper. [Applause.]”
“This orchestra analogy has relevance also to Singapore Inc, or to the whole of Singapore. In this case, the entire nation is the orchestra. The Government is the conductor, and the people are the musicians. As musicians, Singaporeans can play any instrument they like, which means they should feel free to speak up and offer their views and suggestions, even if they are contrary to Government policy. But do remember, whatever you do or say, at the end of the day, we must perform well enough as a team to deliver economic growth, social harmony, quality of life, and security for ourselves and our children. There will be many challenges for which there is no final solution where we can declare, "case closed". There are many problems which will remain with us for many years to come. And new challenges and problems will arise. We will simply have to persevere, constantly try creative and new approaches, and manage problems to the best of our ability. I am confident that we can get on top of these difficult challenges. We have recruited good people into the Government. Ng Eng Hen, Khaw Boon Wan and the new crop of MPs give me hope, that there are more able and committed Singaporeans out there who are willing to leave the comfort of the public gallery and the operating theatre, to serve the nation. We just have to find them and give them the reasons to step forward, whether it is to advance the Singapore Cause or to achieve their Singapore Dream. This - persuading Singaporeans that they should step forward to serve the nation - is itself a major challenge. As Khaw Boon Wan put it, the dream of younger Singaporeans nowadays is the Global Dream. They are well-educated, well-read and well-travelled. They are mobile. They can fit as well into New York, as they can in Singapore.”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker, Sir. As I said, we had won elections again and again. Also, in the last General Election, in the contested seats, the voters gave us 75 per cent of the vote. Why? Because they knew that Singapore faced several severe challenges - the economic recession, the terrorist threat and a less than benign regional environment. And the voters believed in our leadership. So we must not disappoint them. We must lead. Look for new solutions to old problems. Anticipate future problems and head them off. Explain issues in simple, clear terms to the people and mobilise them behind the Government. Running a Government is like conducting an orchestra. Every PAP MP is a member of this orchestra. Each MP has his own musical instrument. And there are many different musical instruments, eg, the piano, violin, cello, oboe, bass, drum, flute and so on, each providing a different sound. But they must produce beautiful music together. If we perform well, at the end of each electoral term, the voters will ask for an encore. If not, the orchestra will not be invited back to perform. Does this mean that the MPs must make similar speeches since we are members of the same Party? No. Each speech is like a different instrument, with its different sound and effect. But, taken together, all the speeches you have made and you will make, must sound like a grand orchestral performance. If you do not understand this, and you sing Jail House Rock with your electric guitar when others are playing Beethoven, you are out of order. The Whip must be used on you. This does not mean that you cannot gyrate to the music of Elvis Presley, but do it at an appropriate occasion, like at the end of Budget Debate party.”
“For this reason, we do not like to be referred to ourselves as "politicians" because this word "politicians" has acquired a negative connotation in many countries. We prefer the term "political leaders". Yes, a handful of Singaporeans are cynical and sceptical. But we should not generalise the attitudes of these few Singaporeans to the rest of the 3 million Singaporeans! Indeed, if the large majority of Singaporeans were cynical and sceptical of the Government, they would not have returned the PAP to power again and again in 10 General Elections after 1959. Some hon. Members: Hear, hear! Mr Speaker: Prime Minister, could I ask the Leader to move a suspension motion, please? TIME LIMIT FOR PRIME MINISTER'S SPEECH (Suspension of Standing Orders) With the consent of the Speaker and the general assent of Members present, Question put, and agreed to. Resolved, That the proceedings on the item under discussion be exempted from the provisions of Standing Order No. 45(8) in respect of the Prime Minister's speech. - [Mr Wong Kan Seng]. PRESIDENT'S ADDRESS (Debate on the Address) Debate resumed.”
“This then requires a hard choice to be made among a range of solutions, most of which are neither painless nor cost-free. This is where leadership comes in. Wang Kai Yuen is right. The people want the Government to lead. They want the Government to listen to feedback and to consult them too. But at the end of the day, they want a strong Government that will find solutions to their problems and give them hope for the future. However, several other MPs, including Tan Soo Khoon, feel that Singaporeans are cynical and sceptical about the Government. I do not agree. Cynicism and scepticism arise when the Government does not do what it says. But this is a Government that does exactly what it says. We have a reputation for being legalistic, clinical and precise, meaning also that we take very seriously our every word and commitment. We invest a great deal of effort into policy announcements, to make sure that they are correct, because we will abide by our every undertaking. Singaporeans know that when we state a policy, we will carry it through. When we consult the people for their feedback, we take their views seriously. It is practically not possible, of course, to acknowledge individually every contribution. Nor is it possible to accept every suggestion. But that does not mean that we are merely going through the motions. The views that are expressed influence our thinking and attitude, even if some do not get translated into specific actions. Politicians in Singapore have high standing with the people, unlike politicians in many other countries. We do not shoot off our mouths, making wild promises and baseless accusations. Every line we take is a carefully considered and deliberated policy.”
“I am heartened by the fact that numerous studies over the years show that most among our young desire to get married and have children. The majority say that the ideal number of children is three. But the figures show that many are only having two or less. Our focus should, therefore, be on them. Besides the Government, parents, friends, relatives, colleagues, employers, and community and religious organisations can and must do more to bring about the total social environment conducive to marriage and having children. Going back to Indranee's request to look into the housing needs of singles, yes, singles are an integral part of a family. The needs of young couples, however, are comparatively more immediate and necessary as they need new flats to start their family. Singles will be helped in their housing, but the priority will be for couples and family. And to the pragmatic Singaporeans who have postponed their marriage plans, I advise them to act fast. The timing is good now to get a choice flat to start a family. The Government has tried many ways and means to make it easier for couples to have a family. Any MP who comes up with an ingenious and a better solution to help our singles get married and our TFR increased, will get a bonus from me. Not the Baby Bonus, but a real bonus. Conclusion Mr Speaker, Sir, I have listened to and read carefully the speeches of the MPs. I have instructed the Ministers to follow up on their concerns and ideas. I myself have addressed this House on three critical challenges for Singapore. These are challenges for which there is no obvious solution. I wanted to inject a sense of reality into this week's debate. The world is a complex place, and often, there are no black or white answers.”
“I mean that the response to the package of measures has not been encouraging, and the fertility rates have continued to fall. I hope that this was because the economy took a downturn just as the measures were being introduced. I am told that couples are likely to delay or even abandon plans for children in times of economic uncertainty. We saw that phenomenon in the previous two recessions in 1986 and 1998. So, maybe, the response will be better as the economy improves. But I am not too hopeful. It will pick up somewhat, but the reason for declining marriages and births is more fundamental. We are experiencing a change in attitude towards marriage and family among the young. Surveys continue to show that our young place financial and career goals ahead of family formation. The Total Fertility Rate (TFR) for 2001 hit a historic low, the lowest on record, of 1.42 children per woman, way below the replacement rate of 2.1. The number of resident births in 2001 was about 40,000, a decline of 12.5% over 2000. This decline in our marriage and procreation rates is clearly a national problem. The implications are grave. We cannot let nature take its course, even though low fertility is common among developed countries. We need to act, as the implications of a continued sub-replacement TFR are severe for a small country like ours. We might not survive as a nation because of it. The Government is committed to creating a total social environment conducive to marriage and family formation. The Working Committee on Marriage and Procreation will be considering new measures. However, there is only so much that the Government can do. Ultimately, marrying and having children are personal decisions. It is up to Singaporeans to take advantage of the support provided by the Government.”
“The late President Yusof Ishak told the inaugural session of our Parliament on 8th December 1965: "Our survival as a people, distinct and separate from our neighbours in Southeast Asia, depends upon our patience and resolution in dealing with physically bigger and hence difficult neighbours, and upon our perseverance in seeking long-term solutions of finding a new balance of forces in this part of the world." This is still good advice. Declining Fertility Indranee Rajah said that the Government needed to look into the problem of housing for singles. I would say that the more pressing challenge that we have to look into is the rising number of singles. Since we first highlighted the problem some years back, it has become more acute. The singlehood rate for resident males aged 40-44 rose from 11.6 per hundred in 1995, to 15.0 per hundred in 2001. That is for males. The singlehood rate for resident females in the same age group increased from 12.5 per hundred, to 14.0 per hundred. For males, most of the singles were those with secondary and below education, whereas graduate females continued to be the biggest "single" group across all ages. This inability or unwillingness on the part of Singaporeans to get hitched, is seriously contributing to our falling fertility problem. So two years ago, the Government put in place a package of marriage and procreation measures. We introduced the Baby Bonus, Third Child Maternity Leave, more and better childcare centres, family-friendly work practices, easier home ownership, public education and more opportunities for singles to socialise. But more than nine months after we started giving out the Baby Bonus in April last year, I have not received any bonus myself! I do not mean the Baby Bonus.”
“Even more so, given our shared and broken history together, and the different ways in which our societies are organised. Co-operation Singaporeans must therefore view the inevitable ups and downs in our relationship with Malaysia with a certain calm and balance. We should not be complacent when things go well. Neither should we get excited when things turn sour. We need patience, stamina and a long-term view. We will stand firm on fundamentals, but must be broad-minded enough to accommodate Malaysia's interests where our own national interests are not diminished. We must not give up the prospect of achieving a win-win relationship with Malaysia. We can and we must co-operate with each other. Our two economies are strongly inter-dependent. Malaysia was Singapore's top trading partner last year. We were Malaysia's second largest export destination and third largest import source. Singapore was also Malaysia's fourth largest foreign investor in terms of total value of approved projects. So, co-operation would bring us greater benefit, certainly more than being at each other's throat. This is not to say that there would be no competition between us. Rivalry between our two countries will always be strong. In some instances, we will be fighting for the same piece of cake. But generally, I believe that the economic pie is growing and is big enough for the two of us. Neither country would do well without the other. It is a symbiotic relationship which we have not fully exploited.”
“Lt-Gen Zaini Mohd Said, the former Malaysian Army Field Commander, wrote a commentary in Mingguan Malaysia just two months ago when media criticisms against us on water were at their zenith. He pointed out that water was a security issue that could lead to armed conflict. He reminded Malaysians that the Singapore military was stronger and more sophisticated. And although Malaysia had its own means of responding, Zaini concluded that both sides would be losers if it came to armed conflict. It is not healthy to always have a Damocles' sword hanging over our heads. It breeds mistrust and suspicion, and does not make for a productive relationship. It may be better for bilateral relations if we start to move a little away from our reliance on Malaysia for water. This is doable if we have to do it. We have already called a tender for a 30mgd desalination plant. We have been operating a plant to produce NEWater (reclaimed water) using membrane technology for two years now. And we intend to build more such NEWater plants. The cost of these alternative sources of water is not all that prohibitive either. We want to have good, stable relations with Malaysia for the long term and for mutual benefit. We shall play our part to achieve this. Malaysia has written to us with their latest proposal on the bilateral package. We shall send them our reply, stating our position, some time next week. But I do not want to leave Singaporeans with the impression that if we remove this issue of water from bilateral relations, or if we manage to wrap up the bilateral package, then there will be no more disputes between Singapore and Malaysia forever. There will always be the occasional squabble, because we are geographically close.”
“I do not want our relations with Malaysia to be always strained by this issue. It is not healthy for our two countries to be always locked in dispute. It is unwise to allow this one issue to sour bilateral relations at all levels and on all fronts. It prevents us from co-operating in strategic areas of mutual benefit. The long-term interests of our two countries might be better served if we can remove this constant thorn in our bilateral relations. The sensitivity of this water issue goes back to the Separation. On 9th August 1965, the very day of our independence, Tunku Abdul Rahman told the British High Commissioner in Malaya: "If Singapore's foreign policy is prejudicial to Malaysia's interests, we could always bring pressure to bear on them by threatening to turn off the water in Johor." Time has not changed this perception that water is to be used as a leverage against Singapore. In an article entitled "Water as a Factor in International Relations" published in the November 2000 issue of Strategi, a journal of the Malaysia Armed Forces College, a Lt-Col Azmy Yahya wrote: "Malaysia should take full advantage of water as a strategic weapon to counter Singapore's military advantage over Malaysia." Noting that "without water, Singapore may not survive", Azmy said that apart from the ability to disrupt the water supply to Singapore, Malaysia also had the capability to pollute the supply with either chemical or biological weapons. He argued that Malaysia had the right to defend itself through all means. Fortunately, though, there are others with a more realistic sense of the situation.”
“But we were prepared to consider an increase in the price of existing water within the bilateral package and as a gesture of goodwill to help conclude a deal. I bring up this point because at the height of the furore over water, certain comments by the Malaysian media troubled us. They seemed to suggest that Malaysia should unilaterally amend the terms of the existing Water Agreements, if resolution could not be reached on a new price for existing water. For example, a New Straits Times editorial of 30th January commented: "By (Singapore) suggesting that these (water) agreements continue to apply by default because the Johor state government failed to re-negotiate the price structure after 25 years in 1986 and 1987, it is simply playing hard to get." The same editorial suggested that the issue of water be viewed as a business transaction - agree to a price, seal the deal, or part with no hard feelings and look elsewhere for water. In other words, if Singapore does not agree to Malaysia's price for water, we would have to look elsewhere for water because Malaysia would stop its supply to us. But it is not so simple. Both sides can walk away from the negotiations on a new water agreement if we cannot reach an agreement. However, both sides have to honour the existing 1961 and 1962 Water Agreements. As I mentioned earlier, these two agreements were confirmed and guaranteed by both governments in the 1965 Separation Agreement, also known as the Independence of Singapore Agreement. Any breach of the Water Agreements would also call into question the Separation Agreement, and undermine our very existence. This is totally unacceptable. I think it is high time we explored a different approach to water supply from Malaysia.”
“We have been accused by a Malaysian newspaper of raking in huge profits of RM600 million annually, by selling the water we get from Johor at 3 sen per thousand gallons, to ships which call at Singapore. Water sold to ships calling at our ports does attract high tariffs, but this is only because we do not want to encourage this kind of demand. We sell only a small quantity of water to ships, about 1 million gallons per day, which is less than 1% of Singapore's total water demand. The revenue Singapore gets from this sale, I wish, was near the RM600 million figure, but it is not. Last year, Singapore's gross revenue from our sale of water to ships totalled about RM40 million. The key unhappiness, however, is in the current price of 3 sen that we are paying for raw water. As part of the deal on the bilateral package, which we are still negotiating, we had offered to increase this 3 sen for raw water that was agreed between Singapore and Malaysia in the 1961 and 1962 Water Agreements. In addition, we had been prepared to vary the Points of Agreement (POA) on Malayan Railway Land, and offer Malaysia additional plots of land for joint development. All these concessions that Singapore had offered under the bilateral package must be taken into account when considering the price Singapore is willing to pay for water under a new agreement. But for Singapore, this issue goes beyond money. The 1961 and 1962 Water Agreements are international treaties, legally binding on Singapore and Malaysia. They are guaranteed by both governments in the 1965 Separation Agreement and cannot be varied except as provided for within the Agreements, or by mutual consent.”
“Guat Kwang said that his union leader friend was worried about travelling to Malaysia. I know of others who had cancelled their plans to spend the recent school holidays in Malaysia. Land Reclamation Take land reclamation as an example of flame-stoking. There have been so many allegations on so many fronts, and also many inconsistencies and inaccuracies in their media reports. I do not wish to delve into detail on this issue, as Mah Bow Tan has already done so. But I do wish to point out that our land reclamation policy is not new or secret. Singapore is a small country. We reclaim land because we need land and for no other reason. We have been doing so since the 1960s. In 1991, a set of comprehensive land-use plans, including those pertaining to long-term reclamation, was approved by the Government and put on public record. This was the Concept Plan of 1991, which was recently reviewed, updated and re-issued as Concept Plan 2001. This is a publicly available document. We do take Malaysia's concerns seriously. This is why DPM Lee Hsien Loong told the Malaysian leaders during his visit to KL, that if Malaysia had concerns about our reclamation works, it could put them down in a note and Singapore would study them. Water Water is another complicated issue between our two countries. In fact, it has been a constant source of tension since our independence. The picture that has been recently painted in the Malaysian media is one of an arrogant, selfish Singapore profiteering from our purchase of raw water from Johor. As in the land reclamation issue, this picture is skewed to arouse feelings and resentment against Singapore. Let me give you an example.”
“Six of the 13 Jemaah Islamiyah members being held in Singapore had links with the Moro Islamic Liberation Front, while the two who were arrested and then released had visited Moro Islamic Liberation Front camps in the past. Jemaah Islamiyah may also have Thai connections. In January this year, a Singaporean Jemaah Islamiyah fugitive, who is still on the run, Mas Selamat Kastari, and four others were believed to have fled to Thailand. Kastari was suspected to be planning to hijack an aircraft from Indonesia, Malaysia or Thailand, and crash it into Changi Airport. So you see, it is not just Al-Qaeda we are concerned with. It is Islamic radicalism and militancy in our region. The Al-Qaeda terrorists are primarily against the Americans. Their targets are Americans. The radical groups in our region have a different regional agenda. The two have combined forces. Relations with Malaysia Several MPs have spoken on our relations with Malaysia. Yeo Guat Kwang said that one union leader could not understand why the Malaysians were so angry with Singapore. In recent months, hardly a week went by without the Malaysian media playing up one bilateral issue or another: water, `tudung', land reclamation, and even Vivian's playful remark about "wild animals". Now it is Ravindran's turn to fall victim. Tomorrow will be Ong Ah Heng's. I asked some young Singaporeans what they thought of all these attacks on Singapore. They said that they were immune to them. In other words, there is no effect on them whatsoever. But unfortunately, when the Malaysian media carries factually incorrect or one-sided reports, or inflammatory comments, they also stoke the flames of the Malaysian people. They sour relations at the people level.”
“Malaysia's Al-Ma'unah wants to set up an Islamic state in Malaysia. Laskar Jihad and the Islamic Defenders Front want an Islamic state in Indonesia. Abu Sayyaf and the Moro Islamic Liberation Front want to form an independent Muslim state in the Muslim enclave of Mindanao in southern Philippines, while Barisan Revolusi Nasional and Gerakan Mujahiddin Islam Pattani want to do so in southern Thailand. Although these militant groups have objectives that are domestically driven, some of them already have operational links with one another as well as with Al-Qaeda. For example, both Kumpulan Mujahideen Malaysia and the Indonesian Mujahidin Council subscribe to the goal of uniting the global Islamic community, which is what Al-Qaeda advocates. These are not bogeyman tales to frighten children. Nor have we exaggerated the extent of the problem. There is overwhelming evidence to suggest that the militant groups in our region have extensive and well-developed networks. The Singapore Jemaah Islamiyah is part of a much larger regional terrorist network spanning Indonesia, Malaysia, and the Philippines. Singapore Jemaah Islamiyah members have identified Abu Bakar Baasyir and Abu Jibril as among those responsible for the establishment and operation of the Singapore Jemaah Islamiyah. Abu Jibril has been implicated in crimes committed by the Kumpulan Mujahideen Malaysia, while Abu Bakar Baasyir and another Indonesian Mujahidin Council leader, Hambali, are said to be behind the movement to establish an Islamic state comprising Indonesia, Malaysia and southern Philippines.”
“His counterpart in Muhammadiyah, Syafii Maarif, said that if the authorities were afraid to take stern measures against the radicals, that would pave the way for the birth of another Taliban nation. In Malaysia too, moderate Muslims - "the silent majority" - are being urged to speak up, to balance extremist views on Islam. The Executive Director of Sisters-in-Islam recently called on middle-class Malaysian Muslims, especially those who had been quiet so far, to voice out their moderate views, instead of allowing the radicals and extremists to dominate. My worry is that some extremist groups will exploit the growing Islamic consciousness in Singapore and in the region, to advance their religious or political objectives through radical means, some of which can be violent. The Kumpulan Mujahideen Malaysia is a radical group. It envisages the creation of a Daulah Islamiyah Nusantara, a pan-regional Islamic state, comprising Malaysia, Indonesia and southern Philippines. The Indonesian-led Jemaah Islamiyah group has added another country or part of it, Thailand, to Kumpulan Mujahideen Malaysia's pan-regional Islamic state. It has talked about forming an Islamic state comprising southern Thailand, Malaysia, Indonesia and southern Philippines. Ibrahim Maidin, the Singapore leader of Jemaah Islamiyah, went one step further. He told an ISD officer that he was convinced that sooner or later, Malaysia, Indonesia, and Mindanao in the Philippines, would come under Syariah law and become a Daulah Islamiyah, or Islamic state. He continued that when that happened, Singapore would inevitably also become Islamic. Other militant groups in the region have objectives which are more national in nature, but they are no less worrisome.”
“A religious teacher had advised his students not to mix with non-Muslims as they were non-believers. When one of the students told her parents of this, they pulled her out of the class immediately. But what about the other students remaining in the class? Should it not be the religious teacher who should be pulled out of the class instead? At the very least, he should be advised to refrain from such teachings. Such extremism is a cause for concern. Extremism comes at the expense of inter-racial and inter-religious interaction. It excludes rather than includes. It results in the withdrawal of the practitioner into his own communal cocoon, and in the rejection of others who do not share his beliefs. When that happens, the other communities will not only keep their distance, but will also press for more space of their own. This can break up our social structure and social cohesion. Extremism is even more dangerous when the extremists campaign and compel others to follow their view in the name of religion. Zainul Abidin Rasheed should be supported when he asked moderate Muslims to stand up against extremists. Moderate Muslims should not allow the extremists to set the agenda for them. It is not only us who are concerned about the rise of Islamic extremism. Earlier this year, leaders of the two largest Muslim organisations in Indonesia met in Jakarta to discuss the problems facing the country. After the meeting, the Nahdlatul Ulama chairman, Hasyim Muzadi, told a press conference that the image of Islam had been politicised by certain groups for their vested interests. He stressed that such radicalism was not the Islamic way of thinking.”
“In Mauritius, 52% of the population are Hindus, and 17% Muslims. At the same Commonwealth meeting, the Foreign Minister of Sierra Leone told me that the same thing was happening to his country's Muslims. They have also become more conservative. 60% of Sierra Leone's population are Muslims. There are, however, other Muslim societies which have not gone down the path of conservatism. I met a Moroccan Minister on Wednesday. He was surprised that so many Muslim women in Malaysia and Singapore wear the tudung. He told me that the women in his country did not wear the religious headscarf. He invited me to visit his country to see how Moroccan Muslims practise their faith. He added that Tunisia, another Muslim country, is even more liberal, but, no, not Algeria. If Singaporeans who are more religious remain engaged with mainstream secular society, there is no problem. But if they opt out, this could fracture our social cohesion. What I am even more concerned about, however, is religious activism and extremism, or people using religion to advance their own agenda. Take Ibrahim Maidin, the local Jemaah Islamiyah leader, as an example. He taught Halimah's children religious studies. He wrote to Halimah when he heard that she was standing for election. He urged her that as a Muslim, she should not do so. He argued that as an MP in a secular political party, she might be associated with laws and policies which were not in accordance with the Syariah. It spoke well of Halimah that she did not listen to him. Otherwise, she would not be here today, and would not be able to contribute to her community as well as to Singapore. This would have been a loss both to the Muslim and non-Muslim communities. Another Malay leader told me a similar story of extremism.”
“But if they do turn real bad, then we would have been prepared with possible responses. This characteristic of the Government has enabled Singapore to survive many crises. Islamic militancy Halimah Yacob said that Malay-Muslims in Singapore had turned to religion to counter the threat that their culture and values might be eroded in the face of the global cultural onslaught. She added that becoming more religious did not mean that Malay Singaporeans were choosing to disengage themselves from society. I understand her position. But if this was the only reason for Malay-Muslims in Singapore to turn to religion, and Halimah is right about Muslims not disengaging from the other communities, then I would not worry about the trend. There is really nothing wrong with Singaporeans wanting to be more religious, so long as they regard their religion as something personal between themselves and their God, and they interact freely with people of other races and religions. The increased religiosity of our Muslims is part of the global Islamic wave that emanated from the Middle East after the 1973 oil crisis, when the countries there were flushed with cash, and the 1979 Iranian Revolution. I met the Prime Minister of Mauritius last month when he stopped over in Singapore on his way to Australia for the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting. He told me that the Muslims in his country had become more conservative, and that many Muslim women had taken to wearing headscarves. Mauritius is far away from the Middle East and some distance from Africa, and yet in that island country, they too have been affected by this wave of Islamic resurgence. He lamented that their Muslims were not mixing as freely with the non-Muslims as they did in the seventies.”
“It also changed the political environment of some countries. Even today, four years later, the political situation in our largest neighbour, Indonesia, has not fully settled into a new state of equilibrium. So, in addition to having to restructure our economy, we now have to deal with a more volatile and less accommodating political environment in the region. Even more serious is the security problem we now face - the threat from terrorism and Islamic militancy in the region. September 11 and the Jemaah Islamiyah arrests exposed this grave and immediate threat to Singapore. Singapore was very nearly blown up. Four tonnes of ammonium nitrate, 1.2 tonnes of TNT, and fuses for the explosives, had already been acquired. The terrorists were looking for another 17 more tonnes of ammonium nitrate and seven trucks and they are going to pack the 21 tonnes of ammonium nitrate into the seven trucks and about the same time, drive all these seven trucks at seven different targets to blow them up. Can you imagine the devastation this would have cost to Singapore and the aftermath? MPs, understandably, concentrated on bread-and-butter issues, because these are what your constituents are concerned with. But you will also have to inform them of the larger picture against which the bread-and butter issues will have to be solved. So let me now elaborate on some of the more intractable larger-picture problems which we will be faced with. Wang Kai Yuen commented that the Government tended to understate good news and overstate bleak scenarios. It is in the nature of this Government to plan on the worst-case scenario. Then, if things do not turn out as bad as we had provided for, we can all sigh with relief.”
“So, if the views of Cabinet Ministers sound alike at times, we should be comforted that they are united. We should, in fact, worry if they begin to sound very different from each other on the same subject, for this would suggest a divided Cabinet. Severe challenges ahead Mr Speaker, Sir, in the last few days, MPs and the new MOSs have dwelt on many serious challenges that Singapore would have to confront in the coming years. Listening to them, I am not sure that they realise the full gravity and enormity of these challenges. The challenges they face will certainly be much tougher than those I faced when I first became an MP in 1976. The issues today are much more complex, and also more threatening. They will put our young MPs and Ministers severely to the test. In the eighties through the early nineties, we had the benefit of a benign regional environment. ASEAN was cohesive. Its economies were booming. There was political and social stability in our region. Indonesia was growing, and under Suharto, well-disposed towards us. The global economy also expanded rapidly. Yes, there were several crises - Vietnam's invasion of Cambodia in 1979, and the downturn in the global economy that contributed to our 1985 recession. But on the whole, the external environment was favourable. This allowed us to concentrate on economic development. We attracted MNCs to invest here. We upgraded the economy from labour-intensive industries to higher value-added activities. Later, we built an external wing to our economy. We rode on the region's rapid growth. We went to China, India and many other places. The 1997 Asian financial crisis brought that happy state of affairs to an end. The crisis did not pull down only the economy of the regional countries.”
“There are two reasons for this principle. First, collective ministerial responsibility enhances the accountability of the Government. In our Parliamentary democracy, whichever party has a majority in Parliament will form the Government. But the Government, led by the Prime Minister and his Cabinet Ministers, is not at liberty to do whatever it wishes. It is accountable to Parliament. The principle of collective responsibility means that there is an agreement between the Prime Minister and his Cabinet colleagues that they will stand together as a team when accounting for their actions before Parliament. Discussions within Cabinet are therefore secret. Once a decision on an issue or a policy has been reached, Cabinet Ministers will take the same public position. It cannot be otherwise. Imagine for a moment that the principle of collective responsibility did not exist. If a problem occurs, it is only too tempting for a Cabinet Minister to claim, "I did not really agree with this policy, so I cannot be held responsible." This principle of collective responsibility is therefore to ensure that all Cabinet Ministers are held accountable to Parliament for the actions of the Government. Secondly, collective ministerial responsibility enhances inter-ministry co-ordination. Most of the important problems we face as a nation are complex and cut across the portfolios of individual Ministers and Ministries. The Government's policies and initiatives must be evaluated in the light of their effects upon various aspects of our society. They must be carefully coordinated to avoid unnecessary duplication or, worse, mutual contradiction. It therefore makes good sense for Cabinet Ministers, and indeed, the entire Government, to share the same broad policy positions.”
“But none will agree that they can do away with party discipline completely. Nevertheless, in the spirit of experimentation, we are willing to provide more opportunities for the Whip to be lifted. Apart from lifting the Whip for matters of conscience and selected issues, PAP MPs may request, on a case-by-case basis, for the Whip to be lifted. At the same time, we are introducing other measures to enhance Parliamentary debates. For example, a more flexible timeframe will be adopted to allow sufficient time for MPs' views and inputs to be debated in Parliament, considered by the relevant Ministries, and incorporated into the draft legislation. Also, to help MPs prepare better for Parliamentary debates, we will give them more research resources and staff support. Our MPs today assume that the unity and cohesion of the PAP will stay forever, when they ask for the Whip to be lifted. They are too sanguine about the future. No one can tell what the state of the Party will be like in the future, or how some MPs will behave once they think that the Ministers are beholden to them because they can vote against the Ministers freely. Collective ministerial responsibility Soo Khoon also suggested that we should let Ministers state their individual views freely before the final decision is taken on a subject. This is being done. Ministers are expected to contribute to the debate on a subject before a decision is taken on the matter. Their inputs are given in Cabinet, before the matter comes to Parliament. We do not let Ministers speak discordantly outside Cabinet because of the principle of collective ministerial responsibility. This principle is another cornerstone of Westminster-style Parliamentary democracy. It is, in fact, enshrined in Article 24(2) of our Constitution.”
“Lifting of Whip The party Whip is an appointment that can be found in many political parties represented in all legislatures all over the world, particularly in countries that follow a Westminster or British style of Parliamentary democracy, like Singapore. The duties of the party Whip vary from party to party, but primarily they involve maintaining the party's voting strength, by ensuring that members attend important Parliamentary debates and support their party when a division is called. Simply put, the party Whip builds and maintains party discipline. It is in the interest of the people for political parties to be disciplined. In Parliamentary elections, the parties come first. Candidates stand for election under a party logo, unless they are independent candidates. The people want to be assured that the MPs they have voted for remain faithful to the party platform they were elected on. A party whose members are unable to maintain reasonable consensus on its policy positions will find it difficult to instill confidence in it, and get the support of, the voters. Furthermore, lifting the Whip for most motions, as Tan Soo Khoon suggests, implies that we should completely let go of party discipline. This goes against the grain of party-based Parliamentary democracy. We will be lifting the Whip on the motion on Nominated Members of Parliament. Already, we can see some MPs marshalling others for their cause. Do we want to see this for every issue? But how much leeway is given to MPs, and how to do it, are the prerogatives of the individual political party. Different political parties have different comfort levels when it comes to party discipline. Some are less tolerant of public dissent amongst their members, others more so.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I welcome the new MPs to this House. I feel a deep sense of responsibility towards them, because I had a hand in getting them here. Some, like Khaw Boon Wan and Vivian Balakrishnan, I had personally persuaded to leave the security and comfort of their job to take on this onerous task of governing Singapore. The new MPs have crossed a major milestone in their lives. An 'MPship' is not a career move or a feather in the cap. It is a commitment to serve the people and the country. This you can do well, only if you feel for the people and the country, and are prepared to think beyond yourself, your family and your friends. The demands on your time and energy will be great, and the expectations of your performance high, both in Parliament and in the constituency. And you will probably receive more criticisms than bouquets. It is therefore not a job for the thin-skinned. You should seek to make a difference to Singapore. You can do this by looking after your constituents, helping them when they need help, and forging social cohesion. In Parliament, speak thoughtfully and honestly, after you have reflected on the issues and done some research and analysis. Do not just offer feedback, useful though it is, or echo criticisms without thought. Offer also suggestions for improving the lives of Singaporeans, and help to solve both big and small problems. Expression of views by Party MPs Tan Soo Khoon argued for the Whip to be lifted for all backbenchers, and for the Ministers to be allowed to speak freely. I do not really need to explain the meaning of the Whip and the Cabinet system of collective leadership to the former Speaker. But as there are many new MPs here, let me take some time to explain.”
“A statutory board or GLC, in consultation with their respective parent Ministry or holding company, first identifies their requirements and the broad selection criteria for Board members. Based upon this, potential candidates from both the private and public sectors are then identified and approached. For public officers, inputs of the Public Service Division (PSD) are sought. The criteria used for searching for members of statutory boards and GLCs are determined by the vision of the organisation, the nature of business, and the leadership role demanded from the Board. Potential nominees are selected based upon their relevant knowledge and skills, and their ability to contribute. In addition, we take into account other factors, for example, ensuring that there is no conflict of interest. The Ministry concerned, or the GLC or its holding company, as the case may be, also seeks to achieve a fair representation of candidates from the public and private sectors, as well as ensure that the interests of major shareholder are adequately represented. As of 15th February 2001, there are a total of 2,175 directorship positions on GLCs (including statutory board companies), of which 176 (8%) positions are held by females while 1999 (92%) positions are held by males. As for statutory boards, there are 666 board positions, of which 54 (8%) are held by females while 612 (92%) are held by males.”
“Sir, when you do a doctoral thesis, you do not do such a simple correlation that the higher the pay, the more the benefits for the people. You have to look at what the Government can deliver and if you need to have high pay to attract good people into government, then of course, there is a link between that and the per capita GDP. Where you have high pay, and you pay people who do not measure up, then of course your performance cannot increase. So the link is not between the high pay. The link is between good people whom you have to attract with the right pay. In our context, it has to be related to the market, and you see the results later on. What I am saying is, judge this Government in totality for what it has performed. Do not look at individual Ministers' pay alone. Look at the wage cost of Government as a whole, the benefits to you, and the price of a bad government.”
“$11 per capita per year for a Government that can produce good economic growth and give you $270, even if it is once in five years, is surely good value for money. Summing up, it is wrong to focus on the individual pay of Ministers in isolation. He is only a member of a team. You should focus on the cost of my Government and the benefits and consequences of having that Government. What is the cost of my Government to each Singaporean? Five plates of "char kway teow"! What was the price each of us would have paid if our economy had shrunk by 5% during the financial crisis? $3,166! And this price is only an example of the huge price you have to pay for a weak or bad government. We have put in place a virtuous cycle of good Government, economic growth and benefits for the people. For your own benefit, it is wise for you to strengthen, not break this cycle. [Applause]”
“Fortunately, there were other classmates who have done well, retiring in high government positions. But their countries have not lived up to their dreams when they were young men at Williams College, eager to learn and eager to put into practice what they had learnt. The real lesson for me from Williams College was: without a good government, all the good theories of economic development count for nothing. Countries with weak or bad governments will go downhill, suffer internal strife and may even break up. They will not be able to deliver a high standard of living for their people. And when a country goes down, it is not the able people who will suffer most. It is the man-in-the-street. They are the people who cannot migrate easily. They are the ones who need a good government most. So ask yourself, "Where will Singapore be 30 years from now? What type of government will produce you a safe, stable and prosperous Singapore?" Let me help you answer the questions by giving you some simple arithmetic. First, the wage cost of all the political office-holders will be $34 million after this pay revision. There are three million Singaporeans. What is the cost of Government per capita? $11 per year or about five plates of "char kway teow" per Singaporean. Second, in 1995, the Government made a contribution of $200 into the CPF account of all Singaporeans aged 21 and above and an additional pro-rated contribution of up to $300 to those who had contributed $750 themselves to their CPF account. The total amount paid out was about $800 million. What was the pay-out per Singaporean? $270, if we divide it by a population of three million. We can do more such CPF top-ups in future, provided we have good growth.”
“I do not think they are generous, given the Ministers' huge responsibilities and impact on our people's lives. I want the right people to do these jobs. And so should you. That Ministers' pay is a source of envy for some people is not necessarily bad. We are more likely to recruit good Ministers this way. I would be extremely worried if it were the reverse. If Ministers envy the pay of their counterparts in the private sector, that is the first step towards corruption. Several MPs have advised me that we must deal with the emotional reaction of Singaporeans over the salary revision. They themselves support the market-based salaries but are concerned that the man-in-the-street will not understand why Ministers have to be paid high salaries. I understand these emotions. But I have faith in the judgment and rationality of Singaporeans. I have no doubt that some Singaporeans will react emotionally and will not accept our arguments. But I believe most Singaporeans will listen to the logic and make a rational decision. They have always done so. A rational and practical approach to problems has always been Singapore's hallmark. Otherwise, Singapore will not be where it is today. To conclude, let me go back to my Williams College days. I have often wondered what has happened to my classmates. What has happened to my Ethiopian friend, who already had six children at Williams College? He was a high official in the government of the late deposed Emperor Haile Selassie. As for my Yugoslav friend from Croatia, I wonder whether his children had to fight fellow Yugoslavs to become Croatians? What about the Pakistani official from East Pakistan who became a Bangladeshi? His government house overlooking the port of Chittagong was shelled during the war.”
“Our Ministers can stand their own against most of their counterparts elsewhere. We have a Cabinet Singapore can be proud of. My most urgent job now is to make sure that there will be a successor team which can manage Singapore's complex economy in an increasingly competitive global environment, and which also understands the concerns of the man-in-the-street. I can build up this team only if we are able to persuade good men and women into politics. The difficulty here is that a political career is not the natural or first choice of most able Singaporeans. Other major advanced countries too, like the US, face the same problem. We have to overcome this problem. Singapore has left behind the revolutionary stage where leaders emerged to lead a historic movement with little thought of pay. We are in a steady state of development where fortunes can be made in the buzz of the private sector. There is much excitement in the new world of dotcoms, financial services, life sciences and R&D. Most able Singaporeans prefer to seek fulfilment in these challenges rather than in politics. If we fail to get a group of these bright, able and honest Singaporeans to form the political core of Singapore, then over time, the standard of government will go down, and Singapore will crumble. Singapore is vulnerable. It does not have any natural resources except our people. Our people have been fortunate to be led by a good and competent Government since 1959. It will be very shortsighted and costly for Singaporeans if we grudge good Ministers their due, and settle for lesser men in Government in the future. I have gone through the proposed revisions to public sector salaries and salary benchmarks thoroughly. I am satisfied that they are fair.”
“Certainly, they have to pay internationally competitive salaries for foreign talents. But let me add here that expatriates are excluded from the calculation of the salary benchmarks. The Government has no choice but to match these upward trends in private sector pay in order to attract its fair share of talents. But the Government does not intend to be a price-setter. It will not lead the pace of pay revision in Singapore. It will only be a price-taker. We will only respond to the trends in the private sector, with a lag of one year, to ensure that public sector pay remains competitive. Another reality we cannot escape from is the widening income gap between the top and bottom earners. In every society, there will be a bottom 10% and a top 10% of wage earners. The Government cannot artificially reduce the income gap between these two segments of the population by forcing upwards the salaries of the bottom 10%, or forcing downwards the salaries of the top 10%. This is a market economy, not a command economy. What the Government will do, however, is to ensure that all Singaporeans have an equal opportunity to make it to the top 10%. At the same time, we will help the relatively poor to ensure that they also benefit from the general increase in prosperity. The Government has already put in place a system of subsidies for education, housing and health. It has also implemented several assets-enhancement programmes. We will continue to help the lower-income Singaporeans increase their assets, as well as improve their earning capacity through training and skills upgrading. We will give them hope through investments in their children's education and future. Conclusion As Prime Minister, I have travelled widely and seen many governments at work.”
“Today's Realities In debating the salary revisions, let me remind you of some realities we cannot run away from. First, we are seeing a global convergence in the pay of top executives. Globalisation and technological advances in transportation and communication have led to increasing mobility of this group of people. They are able to move easily around the world in search of the best employment opportunities. If they do not get internationally competitive remuneration in their country, they can easily uproot for other more favourable opportunities in another country. Companies are therefore increasingly pressured to pay internationally competitive salaries for top executives, regardless in which country they operate. Second, our job of retaining talents is made more difficult because Singaporeans, with their proficiency in English and high competence, are mobile and in great international demand. American universities and MNCs regularly cream off our scholars and bright students who study in the US. Third, we must make a rapid transition to a knowledge-based economy. We have done the easier parts like building infrastructure, putting in place a business-friendly environment, and training our workers for skilled jobs. The next phase is much more difficult. We have to create new products and services ourselves and not merely add value to other people's products. With globalization and the IT revolution, competition has heightened. It is a new ball game altogether. Overall, what all this means is that the wages of top private sector talents in Singapore will face significant upward pressure in the years to come. Companies in Singapore will have to pay their top local executives internationally competitive salaries to retain them.”
“There are two reasons why we are proceeding with the salary revision now. First, in November 1994, when we debated the White Paper on Competitive Salaries for Competent and Honest Government, we said that the salary benchmarks would be reviewed in five years' time. Second, the gap between private sector and public sector pay has become a gulf since the start of the Asian financial crisis. This is because the Government froze the salaries of Ministers and top civil servants during the crisis. This was despite the fact that the salaries were due for upward revision. For example, the private sector benchmark for Ministers' salaries at Staff Grade 1 had increased by 13% in 1998 and 29% in 1999. Not to adjust the Ministers' and civil servants' pay now when we have emerged from the crisis and resumed strong growth, and especially when it is fully justified by the private sector benchmarks, is to fall into a state of paralysis experienced by governments elsewhere when they faced the issue of public sector pay revision. Because they were unable to keep the salaries competitive vis-a-vis the private sector, inevitably, their countries saw a decline in the quality of people wanting to be MPs, Ministers, judges and civil servants. We are not, however, insensitive to workers' feelings and public sentiments. Because the CPF cut has not been fully restored, we are not restoring immediately the pay of Ministers and top civil servants to the private sector benchmark for Staff Grade I, but phasing it in over three years. These office-holders will receive only 80% of the benchmark in the first year. The basic monthly salary for Ministers will therefore increase by only 0.3% this year. With bonuses, the annual increase for Ministers will be a modest 12%.”
“I doubt whether western democracies have fully grasped this. Governments still tend to count the warm bodies applying for occupations." But not this Government. It goes for quality, not merely warm bodies, and certainly not seat-warmers. That is why we have performance bonuses for political office-holders, one of the few countries in the world to do so. Ministers are paid in accordance with their performance. I shall now ask the Clerk of Parliament to hand out a table (Cols. 629-630) showing the distribution of performance bonus received by political office-holders. [Copies of table distributed to hon. Members.] This is to answer the point raised by Mr Inderjit Singh that the performance of office-holders should be properly evaluated (Table 1). From the Table, you will see that only three Ministers received performance bonus of more than four months, and the most number of Ministers was in the 3-4 months category. We have been stringent with our evaluation. The office-holders were given similar tables at the time they received their performance bonus. So they knew how they have been evaluated. Table - Performance Bonus Distribution for Political Office-holders (Cols. 629-630) We also insist on self-renewal. MPs and Ministers, even though they are performing well, will at the right time, have to make way for younger people. In future, Permanent Secretaries too, even if they are good, will have to make way for younger people. Otherwise, younger people with high potential will not stay long enough to become Permanent Secretaries. Timing of Salary Revision Some MPs have told me that while they support the salary revision for the public sector, they are concerned about the timing because the CPF cut has not yet been fully restored.”
“" On his point on corruption, Singapore's policy of paying our public officials market-based wages has helped us create a corruption-free environment. Transparency International, an NGO dedicated to fighting corruption worldwide, has consistently ranked Singapore within the top ten least corrupt countries in the world, since its index was first published in 1995. Among Asian countries, we are rated the least corrupt. Professor Nye added that the high salaries also helped "lateral entries" from the private sector into government. He said that this was important in a modern economy with a complex, fast-paced financial sector, as government decision-makers would need the inputs of private sector practitioners. Professor Nye was right about lateral transfers. When we identify a suitable young man (or woman) with the potential to be a Minister, we have to persuade him to give up his bright prospects in the private sector for an uncertain future in politics. Benchmarking Ministers' salaries to what the best in the private sector earns, makes it easier for us to get some of the best people to become Ministers. Some may argue that you do not have to pay so much to get people to join the public sector or become Ministers, and that there will always be people who want to become Ministers or civil servants. Quite right, if you think in terms of quantity, not quality. The Economist in an article in its issue of 8th May 1999 on "The Politics of Envy" asked: "Why do governments systematically underpay their top people?" And answered that it is the tendency to think in terms of quantity, not quality. Andrew Oswald, an economist at Warwick University, was quoted in the same article: "Governments can set low pay and still get workers. It is the quality that will adjust.”
“By the time of the next GE, we would have met 400 to 500 potential candidates. Out of them, we hope to find 15 to 20 with these 5 "Cs" qualities. These are the 5 "Cs" which a potential candidate must have (not your usual 5 "Cs" but my 5 "Cs"): (1) Capability: Does he have a record of good performance? Does he have the potential to become an office-holder? Does he have good judgment? Does he have leadership qualities? (2) Character: Does he have character flaws? Is he able to get on with people and motivate them? (3) Compassion: Has he done things for others beyond his own family? Does he care for others? (4) Conviction: What does he believe in? What does he want to achieve in life? What motivates him? Why does he want to be an MP or a Minister? (5) Commitment: Is he loyal to his friends? Will he stay the course? Will he fight when the chips are down? If we assess that a person is interested only in politics as a career move, he will not be chosen as a candidate. If he is attracted only by the pay, he will not be selected as a Minister. But that does not mean we should not pay a Minister what he is worth. We are targeting the top people to be Ministers. They are high-income earners or will be in their non-political careers. We will have to pay them a competitive, market-based salary so that pay will not be an obstacle discouraging them from entering politics. Professor Joseph Nye, Dean of the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University, made the same point in a talk in Singapore last year. He said: "Singapore is very wise. You need to attract good people into government, and paying high salaries reduces the incentive for corruption.”
“Singaporeans are very fortunate to have a government that is very well-managed, very far-sighted and willing to embrace change." Foreign governments and investors have noted our strengths in the crisis. Our ability to withstand the crisis has increased confidence in Singapore. This is obvious from my many meetings with foreign investors and leaders both in Singapore and abroad. We are going to see more foreign investments come in. This means more jobs and better jobs. Let us put the salaries of Ministers in their proper perspective. A million dollars for a Minister seems a lot when compared to the salary of a worker. But $34 million for all the Ministers and political office-holders, that is the cost of government, is a tiny drop when compared to the increase in GDP that a good government can produce. For every 1% growth, the GDP increases by $1.4 billion. Good People for Good Government So how do we produce a good government? Get the best to serve the country. A good government does not come naturally. It must be systematically created through the active recruitment of good and able people. You cannot just leave it to the electoral process to throw up a good government. If the present ruling party is not able to persuade some of the best people to enter politics, you will have only weak men and women to choose from to form a government. After every election, we immediately look for new candidates for the next election (we do not wait until the election is about to come) - from the civil service, SAF, Police, statutory boards, GLCs, the professions and the private sector. In other words, all over Singapore. Since the last GE, we have already invited nearly 250 Singaporeans in their late 20s to mid-40s for tea sessions.”
“Just consider the damage to these economies in 1998. South Korea's economy shrank by 6.7%. Thailand's economy shrank by 10.2%, Malaysia's by 7.4%, and Indonesia's by a massive 13%. In contrast, Singapore avoided a contraction in 1998. Our economy still grew, if only by 0.4%. Suppose we had not managed our economy well. It could easily have shrunk by 5%. This would have taken off $9.5 billion (at current prices) from our GDP. Divide this by a population of 3 million and you will get a loss of $3,166 per person. This is an indication of the price each Singaporean pays if we had not managed our economy well. In contrast, what was the total annual salary for all political office-holders in 1998? About $28 million. What is the total salary increase we are proposing for political office-holders? About $6 million. With the salary revision, the annual salaries of all political office-holders, that is my Government, will rise from $28 million currently to $34 million. Is this a lot of money when compared with the $9.5 billion damage to the economy that could have been inflicted by the Asian financial crisis? Is $34 million a lot of money when they amount to only 0.024% of our GDP of $144 billion (at current prices)? Let me put it simply: the damage we had prevented to the economy from the Asian financial crisis is more than enough to pay the Ministers and the other political office-holders for the rest of their political lives and in fact over many lifetimes! The Asian financial crisis has distinguished us from the other regional economies. Recently, an American asked the US Ambassador to Singapore, Mr Steven Green, on the Internet: "Why was Singapore affected less than the region during the economic crisis?" His reply: "In one word, it is management.”
“" More recently, Lord Woolf, one of Britain's most senior judges, was so impressed by the smooth functioning of the Singapore judiciary that he wished the courts in his country would follow some of the processes here. In the area of health, the World Health Organisation earlier this month assessed Singapore to have the world's sixth best performing health care system among 191 member states surveyed. Our education system has also come in for praise from foreign experts. US Education Secretary Richard Riley, when he was in Singapore recently for the APEC Education Ministerial Meeting, commented that there was a lot the US could learn from Singapore's education system. In the third and latest International Mathematics and Science Study some years ago, Singapore's 13-year olds came in first among 41 countries in their ability in science and mathematics. This is clear testimony of the effectiveness of our education system. Some US schools are even using our mathematics textbooks. These are but a sampling of the international assessments of the performance of Singapore and the Singapore Government. Singaporeans by now take all these assessments and high rankings for granted. But pause for a moment and ask yourself how we have managed to achieve first world standards in so short a time and with so little resources. Could it have been done without leaders of integrity, ability and dedication to the people they serve? Test of Government The true strength of a government is revealed when it is put through the most severe crisis. This Government has been put through one in the recent Asian financial crisis. The financial storm devastated the economies of South Korea, Thailand, Indonesia and Malaysia, but left Singapore relatively unscathed.”
“The Straits Times and Zaobao recently carried a survey by the Political and Economic Risk Consultancy (PERC) on the quality of various Asian governments. The report by PERC showed Singapore to have the best quality of political leadership among the major economies of Asia. Singapore's economic policies were also deemed to be the most effective. The PERC report said, "A nation's per capita GDP is a good example of the effectiveness of a particular government's economic policies." It goes on to say that if it were to go back fifty years and pick those countries of Asia which would be dominant economies today, Singapore would have been considered an economic backwater compared to places such as Manila. But Marcos rode the Philippine economy into the ground, whereas Senior Minister guided Singapore to our achievements today in an "amazingly short period of time." Another PERC-produced report in March, Asian Intelligence, also reported that its respondents had "consistently rated Singapore as having one of the best bureaucracies in the region" and that "Singapore is widely regarded as a place where things get done, and get done efficiently." But it is not only in the area of economic policy that international analysts have rated the Singapore Government highly. In "The Economic Freedom of the World: 2000 Annual Report", published by the CATO Institute in Washington DC and Canada's Fraser Institute, Singapore scored full marks for its legal structure and property rights. In PERC's Comparative Country Risk Report 2000, Singapore's judicial system maintained its top position in Asia. PERC commented, "Singapore's legal system has an excellent reputation among businessmen for being fair and effective, if a bit harsh at times.”
“Compare the salaries of Ministers and senior civil servants with the benefits you receive from having a good government. Look at it from the viewpoint of results, that is, the value of output and not the cost of inputs alone. It is the results which are important. What you get out of it, not the cost of inputs alone. Has my Government given you "safe homes, stable jobs and fuel to dream of all the tomorrows?", as a member of the public put it. She wrote to express her appreciation for my "keeping the country well oiled and well run". "Safe homes, stable jobs and fuel to dream of all the tomorrows?" You might not have systematically evaluated the performance of the Singapore Government, but many international consultancies have. I would like to refer to some of these professional third-party evaluations, not to blow our trumpets, but to underline the value of a good government. First, Singapore's economic competitiveness. This year, for the seventh year running, the International Institute for Management Development in its annual World Competitiveness Yearbook ranked Singapore the world's second most competitive economy after the US. Another think-tank, the World Economic Forum, thinks we have done better. In its 1999 Global Competitiveness Report, it ranked Singapore as the world's most competitive economy for the fourth year in a row. Both analyses regard the effectiveness of government policies as a key factor contributing to the overall competitiveness of a country. In the World Competitiveness Yearbook, Singapore came out first on the extent to which government policies are conducive to competitiveness. In the Global Competitiveness Yearbook, Singapore was also ranked first in many areas of government, including economic policies and public sector competence.”
“Today, 21 years after the end of Idi Amin's reign, Uganda is still suffering from his misrule. India has millions of talented people. Silicon Valley is full of Indians. Indian Singaporeans have contributed significantly to our development. Yet India remains a poor country. It is weighed down by a bureaucratic leadership that prevents India from performing to its full potential. I believe that India is capable of achieving much more. When I was in India in January this year, I put this question to several Indian leaders when we discussed the importance of talents. To what extent of its potential is India performing today? Their estimate was 30 to 40 percent. Good Government Different people will have different definitions of a good government. My own criteria for a good government are: (1) It must be honest, fair and just. (2) It must be capable of forging national consensus and social cohesion, and willing to take painful decisions for the overall good. (3) It must be able to anticipate the future to head off problems and be nimble enough to adapt and seize opportunities when circumstances change. In times of crises, it must be resourceful enough to overcome them. And, (4) It must be able to improve the standard of living of its people, maximize their potential and involve them in building a better society. I have led this Government for 10 years now. How it has performed is for you to judge, by my criteria or by whatever criteria you choose. In particular, scrutinize our performance in the last five years from the time we argued in this House that Ministers and civil servants must be paid market-based wages. Has the performance of my Government justified its wage?”
“D, I would study the relationship between economic development and the quality of government. Empirically, there is clearly a close correlation between the economic performance of a country and the quality of its government. The more competent the government, the higher the economic growth of the country when measured over a long period of time. There are, of course, other reasons why some countries do better than others, why their economies grow faster, why their people enjoy a higher standard of living, and why they have peace and stability. These include a country's natural resources, its location, and its people. All these are important factors no doubt, but I believe my Ph.D thesis will conclude that the most important factor behind a country's economic performance and the standard of living it can provide its people, is the quality of the political leaders. There is much wisdom in an old saying that an army of sheep led by a lion is stronger than an army of lions led by a sheep. The former will function as an effective unit. The latter will end up with the lions fighting amongst themselves and the sheep being eaten. People are no different. They have to be led. A people led by a superior government can produce exceptional results. On the other hand, an able people led by a mediocre government will underperform. Worse, if they are led by a fanatical government which fears being challenged, clever people might even lose their heads. Cambodia is a tragic example. Pol Pot and his Khmer Rouge killed off millions of their own people. Uganda is another example. Under Idi Amin, it lost many of its talents. My friend from Williams College, a native Ugandan, had to flee the country. Ugandans of Indian origin who ran the economy were chased out.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, Singapore is not the United States. The US has a population of 280 million people. We only have a population of three million. The US is a huge country. We are just a little red dot. So running Singapore, I believe, is much more hazardous and difficult than running the United States. In Singapore, people will require a good government much more than the Americans will require a good government. If the Government does not run Singapore well, the whole country can disappear. In 1966, the Government sent me to study Development Economics in Williams College in the US. It was a special course for officials from developing countries. I was then a young officer working in the Economic Planning Unit. My class of 20 came from 16 different countries in Asia, Africa, Latin America and southern Europe. We were taught theories of economic development, quantitative programming and other useful subjects. But what we were not taught was the importance of good government as a pre-condition for sustained economic development. This was assumed. But alas, it was an assumption that did not hold true for most of the countries represented in my class. What has happened to these countries since then is instructive. For example, three of the countries have broken up - Pakistan, Ethiopia and Yugoslavia. Nine countries have experienced civil wars, social upheavals or violent changes of government at some stage in the last 35 years - Philippines, India, Egypt, Uganda, Liberia, Mexico, Colombia, Bolivia and Honduras. That leaves only four countries out of the 16 represented in my class without severe political and social upheavals - Kenya, Tanzania, Malaysia and Singapore. Kenya and Tanzania are not exactly models of economic growth. If I were to do a Ph.”