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 4 of 28.
“Our economic agencies, universities and research institutes will also continue to work with their Chinese counterparts to enhance exchanges in mutually beneficial areas such as IT and telecommunications, tourism, R&D and financial services. MEDISHIELD 18. Mr Yeo Guat Kwang asked the Minister for Health whether there are any plans to ensure that MediShield will remain affordable and effective such that the coverage is adequate and the premium deductible will not rise unduly.”
“Xi'an's Jiaotong University lamented that two thirds of its graduates did not stay in Shanxi Province after graduation. The Shanghai leadership is aggressively attracting talents to help convert opportunities offered by the Internet revolution and other growth sectors such as life sciences to real business activities. For example, they are offering scientists and professors from Beijing double the salary and rent-free accommodation plus flexible employment terms to work in Shanghai. That is why when I suggested that Asian countries should collaborate to forge a "Silicon Valley of the mind" to retain Asian talents in Asia, it met with an immediate and receptive response. Business Opportunities As China continues to develop and open up, there will be many new opportunities for our businessmen. The Chinese government is now giving greater emphasis to the development of the inland provinces. The inland provinces are many years behind the coastal region. Their opening up will create even more investment and trade opportunities. I understand that the business delegation which accompanied me to China had identified 37 business opportunities while in Xi'an for further consideration. It is up to the private sector to assess and decide on the type of investments to be made. The government will, however, help to facilitate their efforts through our economic agencies. For example, the Singapore-Shandong Business Council, established in 1993, has successfully initiated 12 areas of cooperation such as manpower training, finance and banking, enterprise development, hospitality services and information exchange.”
“Economic assessment My recent visit to China has re-affirmed my bullish assessment of its growth prospects. It is a large market of 1.2 billion consumers and an attractive investment destination. It can be a strong economic partner, if our businessmen can grasp the opportunities it offers. Of course, like all emerging economies, there are some areas of concern that bear watching. For instance, China's traditional industries are still suffering from over-capacity. Domestic demand remains sluggish although the government is trying to encourage greater spending. Nonetheless, I am confident that the Chinese government remains committed to the path of economic reforms, and is prepared for the full introduction of foreign competition upon WTO membership. China's impending accession to the WTO will keep up the pressure to speed up reforms in its State Owned Enterprises (SOEs) and financial sector in particular. One strong impression I had from this trip is that while the Chinese government is vigorously pushing ahead with its economic reforms, it is at the same time busy preparing for the New Economy. During our visits to Zhongguancun in Beijing and the Xi'an Hi-Tech Industrial Development Zone, we saw that the Chinese government had begun to build infrastructure, including info-communications infrastructure, and to enhance institutional capacities such as in research and development, with a view to riding on the New Economy for sustainable long-term growth. Another issue of particular concern to the Chinese leadership was the outflow of Chinese talent. Premier Zhu Rongji told me that China was losing about 70 to 80 per cent of its graduates from top Chinese universities, mainly to the US. Beijing's Tsinghua University has 10,000 of its graduates working in Silicon Valley.”
“The great majority of the 18 to 21 year old Singaporeans are still studying or doing national service. They are not economically active. Hence, lowering the voting age from 21 to 18 years will not significantly increase the number of economically active voters to balance the growing number of voters in the over 60 age group. DUAL CITIZENSHIP 2. Mdm Claire Chiang See Ngoh asked the Minister for Home Affairs, in view of the increasing mobility of the young and talented globally, whether Singaporeans will have dual citizenship.”
“But I do know that to survive in an intensely competitive borderless and volatile world, it does matter if we do not have a well-informed, thinking, resourceful, innovative and cohesive population with the resolve to keep Singapore going. This is why for the remaining term of this Parliament, we are emphasising people - numbers, quality, commitment, relationships, roots, responsibility, freedom, participation and passion. But more than talking and consultation, there must be action. This is where I salute the thousands of social workers, volunteers, grassroots leaders and others who do more than talk. They go about quietly, looking after the interests of their community and fellow Singaporeans. They are a critical part of our people sector. The Government values such people. Conclusion Singaporeans, especially the younger generation, must believe firmly in what Singapore stands for - our ideals, ethos, principles and values, and be willing to do their part to safeguard our way of life. They have done well in life because the Singapore system offers them a level playing field, abundant opportunities, and a helping hand to develop their potential to the fullest. Singapore's future is in their hands. They have to make a difference to Singapore and make us proud to be Singaporeans. This is what active citizenry is about. If our hearts beat together for Singapore, we will succeed as a nation no matter what challenges lie ahead. [Applause.]”
“Do not think that Singapore is sailing in calm waters and therefore we can take risks. Or that we are freer to rock the boat because we now have a sturdier boat and each one of us is equipped with a safety helmet and a life jacket. The political landscape of our neighbours is changing. It will affect the strategic and security environment of our region. And however well-governed Singapore is, however strong our economy is, and however united our people are, we will be reminded from time to time that we are a little red dot, or an adik, or a predominantly Chinese country within a Muslim region. This does not mean we have to have a siege mentality. It means we must be robust, forward-thinking and innovative to break out of the confines of our geography, which is why we are changing the way we teach in schools, and getting our people to be more resourceful, creative and better informed. Our revamp of the education system will lead in the future to a questioning electorate. A questioning electorate and population will demand a higher performance from Parliament and the Government. It will demand more political space, more debate. Will such a population throw up an alternative party to challenge the PAP, or will it throw up more good men and women to join or support the PAP and help it carry on with its work? Does it matter so long as it produces a group of leaders who are honest, committed to Singapore and more competent than the PAP leaders? Does it matter if it is a population which understands Singapore's uniqueness and vulnerabilities and backs its leaders?”
“Zulkifli Baharudin said that "being thick-skinned must certainly be one of the necessary pre-requisites for anyone intending to engage in public debate". No, we do not want Singaporeans to develop hides. Even the thickest hide can be stripped. We do not want a querulous population with thick skins. An important pre-requisite for public debate is a keen mind - how sound an idea is, and how it will benefit public interests. Let me add that those without mischievous intention or a hidden agenda need not fear a rebuttal from Government. They should not be discouraged to speak up simply because Government may challenge their views. Constructive debate is a necessary part of the process for determining what is best for Singapore. This is what consultation and participation is about. But those out to undermine the Government, or to wrest power from the ruling party, is another matter altogether. They must expect a political response from the Government. This political response can be extremely robust because whoever wins in the political arena will decide the future of Singapore. The PAP will guard its turf jealously, not for itself, but for the good of Singapore. Singapore will always be like a boat shooting the rapids. Those who have done white-water rafting would understand my analogy. They will understand the importance of the steersman as the boat negotiates the rocks in a fast-flowing, frothy river. The Government is like this steersman or captain. I have experienced the thrills and dangers of white-water rafting in New Zealand. Once in the boat, I put my faith in the captain and do what he told me to do. Consultation took place before I stepped into the boat. Once I was in, I had to play my part as a member of the crew.”
“Parliamentary democracy means electing a group of Members of Parliament to represent the people's interests. The Government consults the people mainly through their MPs, and is answerable to Parliament for its performance. That is why having good MPs who can understand the concerns and solve problems for the people is important. Second, when the Government consults, it is with people who have good knowledge of the subject. It consults people who can help improve the formulation of policies. It is not necessarily with people who may be affected by the policy. Every policy of the Government affects the whole population. No government consults its citizens on every policy. Third, Singaporeans must not expect every suggestion and idea of theirs to be accepted. If a proposal is well argued, it will get a fair hearing. Even if it is rejected, it is also valuable if it has challenged existing assumptions and thinking and provided the opportunity for the Government to reaffirm its policies. Fourth, while Singaporeans will have more space for political debate, it does not mean that the Government is vacating the arena. Anyone who wants a policy changed, or to set the national agenda, must expect a debate with the Government. Every Government policy has been carefully considered before implementation. But anyone is free to challenge it. However, he must expect a response from the Government. The Government will defend its policies, principles and programmes openly and robustly. Not to do so is contrary to the whole purpose of public debate. If the Government remains silent, views contrary to what the Government believes is right, will soon prevail. This will confuse the ground because the public may think the Government, by its silence, agrees with the contrary views.”
“Ravindran has answered this question very well - that you want spontaneity from the people sector. What Simon Tay and Zulkifli are doing is right, that is, do a study on how to foster civil society and submit it to the Government, and then we take it from there. This is what I mean by active citizenry. You take the initiative, and not expect the Government to outline the steps all the way for you. Turning Singapore into a nation of ideas Each year, thousands of Singaporeans submit their suggestions and views to the Feedback Unit. In 1997, we took the feedback process further by organising regular feedback contributors into groups. So far, 27 feedback groups have been formed. These feedback units are the people sector's equivalent of Quality Circles and Work Improvement Teams. We now want to go beyond feedback on how policies affect the people to encouraging Singaporeans to submit constructive suggestions and new ideas. In the Civil Service, we reward Work Improvement Teams when they submit cost-saving ideas. Singaporeans may wish to form themselves into similar work improvement teams to submit ideas on any aspect of government. We will introduce an award scheme to give symbolic recognition for useful ideas put up by Singaporeans, either individually or as a team. Big ideas or small ideas, let them flow. Turn Singapore into a nation of ideas. Consultation and Participation Here, let me explain what I expect of consultation and participation, to avoid misunderstanding and cynicism. First, consultation does not mean that every Singaporean must be consulted, or that every policy discussed with the public before it is implemented. That is not practical. If it were practical, you would not need Members of Parliament or representative government.”
“The Government has successfully tapped private sector expertise for major Government-led committees such as the Committee on Singapore's Competitiveness of 1997 and the Financial Sector Review Committee of 1998. We found the private sector involvement very useful, both in terms of coming to grips with the problem and of forging a consensus on the way forward. We will continue to involve the private sector in major review of important policies, not just in economics, but also in non-economic areas. At the same time, we have systematically opened up more channels for citizens to participate, to involve them in building a world-class home. Besides writing to the press, Singaporeans can channel their views through the Feedback Unit, Service Improvement Unit, Institute of Policy Studies, Members of Parliament, dialogue sessions, GPC resource panels and so on. The recently-completed Singapore 21 exercise was noteworthy for its involvement of Singaporeans from all walks of life, in particular, younger Singaporeans. Their vision and recommendations are now accepted as national policies. Due to such extensive and active participation, we were able to come up with a Singapore 21 vision which fully reflected the needs and aspirations of our people. The opposition may dismiss Singapore 21 as empty elections talk. The point is, it is a collective product of Singaporeans, and the opposition has nothing fresh to offer. Simon Tay expressed his disappointment that the President's Address and Addenda fell short on details on fostering an active citizenry. If the Government were to spell out each and every step, or a series of bangs, as he put it, then it is contrary to what active citizenship is all about and what we are trying to do, that is, more initiatives from the people sector.”
“We now have to even compete for the hearts of Singaporeans against attractions elsewhere. Developing each and every Singaporean With this background, you will appreciate better the significance of the statement - every Singaporean matters. There are not many of us to build and protect our home. So we have to provide every Singaporean with the opportunity to develop his or her potential to the fullest. We have cut down our school dropout rate. So it shocked me to learn that each year some 1,500 children, or 3% of a cohort, are not even registered for Primary One in national schools. The Ministry of Education has argued against compulsory education because the number of non-registration is considered small. But every Singaporean matters. And every Singaporean child should be given the same head start in life, ie, to attend school. I favour compulsory education, at least up to Primary 4 level. Beyond that, if a child does not want to study, or wants to drop out, there is little we can do. I am asking the Ministry of Education to consider the introduction of compulsory education. Giving Singaporeans an emotional stake We have given Singaporeans a physical stake in the country - home-ownership, upgrading of HDB estates, shares of privatised Government companies, cash top-up of their CPF and Medisave accounts, good infrastructure and ample facilities for sports and leisure activities. We must now give Singaporeans an emotional stake in the country. This is why I have made consultation and participation one of the Government's major goals. It is to give Singaporeans a bigger say in their own future, and thus bond them to Singapore. We want Singaporeans to sprout ideas to make Singapore better, take responsibility for their ideas and make them work.”
“Since we have to take in new immigrants, we should be selective, admitting only those with skills, high education and talents, from wherever they are. This way, we make sure that foreigners who become Permanent Residents and Singaporeans are a definite plus to our country. These foreign-born Singaporeans will help enhance the vibrancy and dynamism of our economy and society. We should make every effort to absorb these foreign-born Singaporeans into our society. We should strengthen their commitment by giving them a sense of ownership of Singapore too. This inclusive approach will ensure that a generation from now, these new Singaporeans and their children will be as nationalistic as any one of us. Their children will have to do national service as Singaporeans. Singaporeans Overseas This brings me to the second trend - the increased number of Singaporeans going overseas. I asked the Ministry of Manpower how many Singaporeans are overseas on a long-term basis. The Ministry came up with an estimate of 150,000, which included working adults and their dependants, emigrants and students. Based on the number of Good Conduct Certificates issued by the Police, each year some 2,000 Singaporeans pack up their bags and emigrate. More than half are females, many of whom married foreigners and leave Singapore to join their husbands. There are also some 6,000 applications to MINDEF each year for reservist training deferment on grounds of overseas employment of duration longer than six months. Whether we like it or not, more Singaporeans will take wing, given the pace of globalisation and their own personal mobility. As Singaporeans become even more cosmopolitan, the issue of concern to us is whether they will become less rooted to Singapore.”
“The needs of the old will become even more acute after 2030. The proportion of older people then will be far higher compared to what it is today. There will also be fewer people in the working-age group. This means that the 3.5 million people in Singapore in 2030 may not produce sufficient wealth to look after the needs of the old and society in general. Can a shrinking population sustain a first-world economy? The statistics also show that the more educated mothers are, the fewer kids they are likely to have. The more educated have on average a family size that is about 15% smaller than those with lower education. As the educational standard of our people will go up, we must expect our TFR to fall even further. There are many reasons for the declining TFR - urbanisation, education, changing lifestyles, singlehood and late marriages. Having babies also involve personal choices and trade-offs. I am not optimistic that we can achieve a significant increase in fertility level. But we must never give up trying to get Singaporeans who can afford it to have more children. Dr Jennifer Lee talked about incentives for fathers. I am not sure paternity leave is the solution because our main problem is the large number of highly-educated women who remain single. Among those with post-secondary qualifications, about one in five women is likely to remain single in her life time. So we must try to increase the marriage rate of our women, especially those with higher education. Adopting an "inclusive" mindset Given that our citizen population is not replacing itself, we have no choice but to top up our population with new immigrants. They provide a much-needed boost to our manpower strength, augmenting shortfalls in the productive age groups and increasing our talent pool.”
“The statistics show clearly that we are not replacing ourselves. This is a serious problem. The Government has warned against this trend 12 years ago. We tried to reverse it but we have not been successful. Our Total Fertility Rate or TFR has fallen steadily since 1990, despite our scrapping the "Stop At Two" policy and encouraging married couples to "Have three or more, if you can afford it". The TFR is a fertility indicator which shows whether the population is replacing itself. A population is considered to be replacing itself if it can maintain a TFR of about two. This means a woman in our population would on average have two children in her lifetime. Our TFR has fallen steadily from 1.87 in 1990 to 1.5 in 1998. 1998 was the Year of the Tiger so one would not expect a large number of births. But the Year of the Rabbit has not been prolific either. The number of births in the first eight months is, in fact, 3% lower than that of the same period last year. Unless the Rabbit surprises us in the next three months, the TFR for 1999 is likely to fall below 1.5. In 1987 when I announced the Government's New Population Policy, I also expressed the hope that there would be at least 50,000 births a year. This provides the minimum cohort size to sustain our economy, defence and other manpower needs. Our actual birth numbers were nowhere near the 50,000 mark in the past five years. In 1998, the number of births came to only 43,664, far short of the target that the Government set. If this declining fertility trend persists, and it is likely to be the case, our citizen population of three million will grow to about 3.5 million by 2030 and then start to decline. Ang Mong Seng and Dr Michael Lim raised the needs of the old.”
“We need the resources from a sound, competitive economy to build a world-class home, and we need a world-class home to anchor Singaporeans to create a first-world economy for Singapore. Between the two facets, a first-world economy is the easier goal to achieve. Our economic foundation is strong and our reputation as a pro-business economy is excellent. By implementing the right policies consistently and building new capabilities, we will succeed in becoming a first-world economy. Building a world-class home presents a trickier challenge. It is not just about nice houses, modern conveniences and bright city lights. It is about people, relationships, motivation, commitment, passion, dedication and determination. The irony is that the more Singapore improves its infrastructure and amenities, the less unique and indistinguishable from other cities it becomes. Singapore risks becoming like one of those well-run, comfortable international hotels which successful business executives check in and out. Building a world-class home What makes a home different from a hotel is where the heart is. Most homes are less comfortable than a hotel, but they are where the people feel they belong, where they are king and where they can decorate and arrange the furniture anyway they like. This, in essence, is what distinguishes a home from a hotel. Singapore is a place where Singaporeans can be themselves, where they can make a difference, and where they care for one another and rally together when faced with challenges. The best home for Singaporeans is a world-class home. Here, I want to highlight two demographic trends which may undermine our effort to build our world-class home. Falling fertility rates The first trend concerns the growth of the population.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, at the Opening of the last Session of Parliament in June 1997, I spoke on Singapore 21 and our vision for a new era. But visions must confront realities, and in case our feet left the ground, I cautioned that there were many things in the future we could not possibly foresee. One month later, a financial crisis erupted in Thailand, swept across Asia, and devastated several economies. It permanently changed the strategic landscape in the region. The forces of change that the regional crisis unleashed are still at work, and we do not yet know their full impact. Who could have foreseen the traumatic changes in Indonesia, or that Singapore, at the UN's and Indonesia's invitation, is participating in the INTERFET mission in East Timor? What will Indonesia be like after 20th October when a new President is chosen? What will the region be like in five years' time? In addition, technology and globalisation will continue to transform businesses, economic structures and human society. We have to face intense economic competition in an increasingly borderless world, and manage change in our society as well. This volatility and uncertainty in our regional environment and the rapidity of changes in the world are realities we have to live with. Our response should be strategic and robust. In essence, we shall focus on our people, investing in them, enhancing their capabilities, stretching their minds, stimulating their creative and entrepreneurial spirit, and harnessing their ideas and energy to build a first-world economy and a world-class home. This is our bold strategy to tackle the challenges ahead. A first-world economy and a world-class home are not two separate goals. They are two sides of the same coin.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, if there is any prosecution in court, I think the candidates or the opposition MPs deserve it. Mr Chiam has not been prosecuted. Mr Low Thia Khiang has not been prosecuted. And so long as they stay within the law, they are free to stand for elections, and to make their points of view known to us. As Dr Vasoo has said, Mr Speaker, Sir, I do not think we should engage in a debate with the Non-Constituency MP on this occasion.”
“If we continue to increase the quality of representation in this House, we will maximise our chances of perpetuating the virtuous cycle we have created, good MPs, strong and good Government, political stability, sustained economic growth, good living environment and comfortable homes, a cohesive and supportive people, committed leaders, and so on. Parliament has played a key role in the development of Singapore. In time to come, this new Parliament House will have its own history to tell and its own memories to recall. May the spirit of Singapore's parliamentary democracy live on. [Applause.]”
“I want to remind him that in 1984, he vigorously opposed the concept of Non-Constituency MP (NCMP). Now, he must be grateful for such a scheme. Except for NMPs and NCMPs, we are all elected by the people. We owe it to them to look after their interests. We best do this by leading and taking a principled stand on issues, and not merely following popular sentiments. MPs will come under pressure from the public whenever tough, painful policies and measures are introduced. Our job is to lead, to explain, to persuade. This is not to say that we ignore public sentiments. They are important. We must understand them, be sensitive and responsive. Wherever possible, we must consult people - people who can contribute to the formulation of public policies. Consultation does not mean taking a straw poll and following the majority view. Our response must be based on longer-term national interest, even if it means short-term pain, and on larger collective interests rather than individual interests. We must explain our policies and persuade people that they are right. This is the meaning of leadership, and this is the key role of MPs, as the people's representatives. In this new building, our eyes must be cast on the future rather than on the past. What new challenges will confront us? Can we overcome them? Expectations of a new generation of Singaporeans - can we meet them? Will future generations throw up strong and able leaders to protect, defend and lead Singapore to more good years? This and future Parliaments will have to find the answers to these questions.”
“Meaningful political participation must mean joining or supporting a political party, advancing its cause and work, attending to constituents and if invited, take part in elections, win and serve as an MP. How many upcoming successful Singaporeans want to sacrifice their careers, privacy and time with their families to participate actively in politics? I invite Dr Lee to find me five suitable women candidates for the next general elections. She has two or three years to do so. Mr Chiam and Mr Jeyaretnam, as we must expect, will always take the opposite view. They must not blame the Government, or blame us, for their own failure to increase the number of seats for Opposition Members. Mr Jeyaretnam has fought five general and three by-elections since 1972. He lost six times, won only twice. He may criticise us for impeding parliamentary democracy, but the truth is that the people have rejected him, the last time in Cheng San. He owes his presence here today to the pragmatism of Singapore's parliamentary democracy. Some hon. Members: Hear, hear!”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, as I look around this new Chamber, it reminds me very much of the old. The layout is the same, the furnishing is just as modest and even the colour of the seat cover is the same dark maroon. I only wish my seat was as deep as the one in the old Chamber. This Chamber, however, is more spacious. It should serve our needs for at least another 100 years, if not forever. The seating layout can even be re-configured into a horseshoe shape or circular shape if some future Parliament chooses to do so. We can now also vote electronically. But just as a house is not a home, a new Parliament building alone does not guarantee a good Parliament. Whether this Parliament building becomes a respected home for parliamentary democracy will depend on the present and future Members of this House. We must therefore continue with the tradition of the old Chamber, upholding standards and working for the benefit of the people whom we represent. I thank Members who have spoken in support of the motion. I want to thank Senior Minister in particular. He has recalled a bit of history with his speech and added meaning to this nostalgic occasion. I do not intend to respond to every comment made by those who spoke. It is not necessary and time does not permit me to do so. Dr Lee Tsao Yuan said that there is an excess demand for political participation and policy consultation in Singapore. I disagree. Yes, many people want to have their views and comments heard or seen in print but they also want to have the safety of staying out of the political arena plus the luxury of being able to carp or shoot from the hip without attracting Government counterfire.”
“NMPs bring to Parliament debates viewpoints different from Government MPs and Opposition MPs. In the same year, we established the institution of Elected President with custodial powers. In this way, Mr Speaker, while the British gave us a good political system, we have not hesitated to shape and mould our parliamentary democracy, our procedures and our institutions to take into account our political, cultural, social and democratic conditions. These innovations are complemented by similar steps outside Parliament which enable Singaporeans to be part of the civic society and the body politic. Grassroots organisations like CDCs, CCCs, RCs, Neighbourhood Committees, Town Councils and the Feedback Unit give thousands of Singaporeans a role to make Singapore a better place. Mr Speaker, Sir, on behalf of the Government, I want to express our appreciation to past and present Members, PAP and non-PAP, for their contributions to our system of parliamentary democracy. I also urge present and future Members to build on the accomplishments of their predecessors. Parliamentary democracy has worked well in Singapore. It has won the confidence of the electorate because of the integrity, openness and effectiveness of its proceedings and the honesty and competence of MPs. As Members of this House, we must continue to strengthen it as a key political institution in Singapore. We have the responsibility to ensure that the system not only functions effectively but also serves the needs of our people. Public respect for Parliament will be preserved only if we, their representatives, are worthy of their trust. Sir, I beg to move. [Applause] Question proposed.”
“It is the result of the PAP's high standards and its stringent screening of its candidates. Even then, from time to time, a mistake is made. In politics, either the good keeps out the bad or the bad, like a bad currency, will drive out the good. Mr Chiam See Tong is living proof of this adage. He has been driven out of his former party by a bad currency. Woe betide the day when bad currencies get into Parliament. Never think it will never happen. Hence, in anticipation of this doomsday scenario, we have put in place the institution of the elected Presidency with custodial powers over our past reserves and key appointments made by the Government to safeguard Singapore's long-term interests. But the best safeguard is within the political parties themselves. They must set high standards so that only competent, honest and deserving candidates are put before the voters. Finally, let me stress that our parliamentary democracy has worked because, over the years, we have carefully made adaptations and modifications to the system which we had inherited. Let me recap some of these changes: 1969: We introduced the institution of the Presidential Council for Minority Rights to ensure that there will be no discriminatory legislation. 1984: We introduced the concept of Non-Constituency MP to ensure that whatever the outcome of Parliamentary Elections, there will be some opposition MPs in Parliament. 1987: We introduced the Government Parliamentary Committees (GPCs), and the GPCs, backed by resource panels, have brought a sharper focus to debates in this House. 1988: We established the concept of Group Representation Constituency to ensure that Parliament will always have elected representatives from minority groups. 1990: We established the concept of Nominated MPs.”
“In some countries which professed to be parliamentary democracies, elections are frequently marred by violence, money politics, and all sorts of political chicanery. The result is what the Indonesians called KKN - corruption, cronyism and nepotism. Second, the ruling party's policy to self-renew its MPs at every general election has made Parliament relevant to changing circumstances and the expectations of each new generation of Singaporeans. Self-renewal has become an accepted fact in Singapore, not just in Parliament but also in the Civil Service, SAF and the Singapore Police Force. We consciously and systematically head-hunt for younger people with promise to nurture, develop and take over from us. We owe a big debt here to the Old Guard PAP Ministers and MPs. They risked their lives in the struggles against the communists and communalists, planted the metaphorical tree, looked after it, but did not stay on to enjoy the fruits. Their dedication, sacrifice and commitment to the long-term interests of Singapore are values which present and future Members of this House must emulate. Third, a key strength of democracy can also turn out to be a major weakness. Almost anyone above 21 can stand for election. But it never ceases to amaze me that people are prepared to entrust their and their country's destiny to some unknowns, regardless of their competence, commitment and character. To be a SAF officer, a lawyer, an accountant, an engineer, or an economist, you have to pass stringent tests. But there are no qualifying tests, no legal requirements for quality control, for anyone who aspires to be a people's representative. That this Parliament has a high reputation for efficiency, effectiveness and integrity, is not the natural order of things.”
“The people trusted the PAP and the PAP, in turn, returned their trust by delivering results for the country and the people. We must never betray the trust the people have reposed in us. The strong support of the people for the PAP Government provided the political stability so crucial for economic growth and nation building, especially in our early days of independence. We were able to consolidate our young nation and build a strong foundation for the future. It has also enabled the ruling party to take a long-term view in planning and implementing public policies and programmes. This is an advantage which most Governments in other democracies do not enjoy. On this historic occasion, when we move from the old building to the new, permit me to make some observations from our experience of parliamentary democracy, which the British established by three Orders of the Queen in Council, in 1955, 1959 and 1963. After we separated from Malaysia, our Constitution has been based on the provisions of the State Constitution prescribed by the 1963 Order by the Queen in Council and many of the fundamental articles of the Malaysian Constitution that we had adopted. My first observation: clean general elections are critical to the political governance of Singapore. The electorate has confidence that all our elections were fairly and openly conducted. There was no money politics. They trusted the system. As a result, every MP is seen by the electorate to be not only his legal but also his legitimate representative in Parliament. He is respected. To keep our politics clean for so long is no mean achievement. The ruling party has not gone corrupt despite the absence of a strong opposition.”
“But social cohesion and managing differences between different racial, religious and income groups in society are something we have to work assiduously for. Our fundamental challenge is to build ties among the people and emotional bonds to this country. So, when I spoke on the Motion of Thanks to the President, 20 years later, at the 1997 Opening of Parliament, my focus was on the need for Singapore to develop "heartware", not just economic competitiveness. I am glad that this has led to the adoption of the Singapore 21 vision for making Singapore our best home. Mr Speaker, in 1953, the Rendel Commission recommended a Legislative Assembly with an elected majority and a ministerial form of government to pave the way for self-government in Singapore. This led to the first multi-party elections for the Legislative Assembly in 1955. It was the birth of Singapore's system of parliamentary democracy. Since then, this Chamber has hosted 3 Legislative Assemblies and 9 Parliaments. Among us today, Senior Minister is the only Member who has been in this Chamber since 1955. The many speeches that he has made in this House, spanning a period of 44 years, are a record of the political history of modern Singapore. Except for the first Legislative Assembly from 1955 to 1959, the PAP has been the ruling party in the Legislature for an uninterrupted period of 40 years. In fact, for 16 long years between 1965 and 1981, there was not even a single Opposition Member in Parliament. After 13 Members from the Barisan Sosialis boycotted Parliament in 1965, the PAP won four successive general elections between 1968 and 1980 in clean sweeps. This extraordinary situation came about because the PAP governed in the best interests of Singapore and Singaporeans.”
“My maiden speech on the Motion of Thanks to the President for his Address at the Opening of Parliament in February 1977 was heavy on economics. Coming from a "technocrat" turned politician, this was to be expected. I spoke on the need to increase our domestic exports, the problem of job-hopping and shipping. I argued that Singapore should aim to be a world transhipment centre instead of just a "regional warehousing and transhipment centre" which was what the Ministry of Communications wanted. This basic theme, that we need to look beyond the region, and go global, has become even more important now that the global economy is one single, seamless marketplace. This was indeed my focus in this year's National Day Rally. In the same session, I was enthralled by Prime Minister Lee's 3 1/2-hour marathon speech on a range of political issues. At the end of his speech, he posed a riddle on psephology. He compared the election result of Marine Parade with Buona Vista's and asked why the PAP's performance in Marine Parade, a new town with the "mostest" number of 5- and 4-room flats and no 1-room flats, was not as good as that in Buona Vista, another new estate with more than a thousand 1-room flats. Both the late Ang Kok Peng and I had weak opposition candidates. Marine Parade received 76% of the total votes cast while Buona Vista received 80%. That was my first lesson in understanding the factors, including race, of why Singaporeans voted the way they did. Indeed, forging a strong nation out of our multi-ethnicity and diversity is an even greater challenge for us than Singapore's economic competitiveness. We have learned valuable lessons from the racial riots of the 1960s. Parliament has incorporated various safeguards into our laws to preserve religious and racial harmony.”
“It will also be a place of interest for students and the general public. It has amenities to bring Parliament closer to the people. By the standards of modern buildings in Singapore today, the new Parliament building is modest with functional furnishing. It is certainly not a monument to feed our ego. Nevertheless, it has captured the dignity of the institution that it symbolizes. It is a worthy successor to the old Parliament House. I want to take this opportunity to record the Government's appreciation to everyone involved in this major national project, especially the architects, engineers, contractors, clerks of work, technicians, workers and the Parliament Secretariat. Members will no doubt miss this old Chamber. I am happy that we will not be leaving everything in this Chamber behind when we leave this place. One small but symbolic piece of heritage we will bring along to the new building is the Mace of Parliament. We have inherited it from the First Legislative Assembly. It will continue to be the symbol of the inviolable authority of Parliament and the Speaker, and remind us of our Parliamentary roots. Speaking for myself, I must say that I am leaving this place with fond memories. When I first entered this Chamber 23 years ago, I sat in the far corner where Chuang Shaw Peng now sits. Next to me were Rahmat Kenap from Geylang Serai and N Govindasamy from Radin Mas. Both good men have since passed away. There were 11 of us in the 1976 class of new MPs. Now, only four of us are left - the Speaker, Dr Ow Chin Hock, Sidek Saniff and myself. We are quickly acquiring the status of senior citizens, politically speaking that is. Among the 93 Members in Parliament today, only Senior Minister has been in this House for a longer period than the four of us.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, That this House, at its last meeting before it moves to its new Chamber across the yard, (1) notes the progress in establishing the system of parliamentary democracy since its early beginnings in this Chamber on 22nd April 1955; (2) records its appreciation for the contributions made by past Members in establishing the confidence the electorate has in its integrity and the openness of its proceedings; and (3) urges present and future Members to build on the accomplishments of their predecessors. Today's move to the new Parliament building not only reflects Singapore's success and progress as an independent country, it also symbolises the entrenchment of our system of parliamentary democracy as a key institution of Singapore. The relocation of Parliament to the new Chamber at the adjoining site is born out of necessity. This old Chamber has been the seat of Singapore's Legislature since 1955. The 1955 Legislative Assembly consisted of only 25 elected Members, 4 Nominated Members, 3 ex-officio Members and the Speaker, making a total of 33. By 1997, Parliament has increased in size to 93 Members, including 9 Nominated and 1 Non-Constituency Members. The present building, over a period of time, had undergone several renovations to accommodate the increase in the number of Members and the accompanying support services, such as library and administration, as well as increased space for TV and the press. It was not possible to expand this elegant but old building to meet the needs of our future growth, including the use of information technology in the Chamber. Hence, the Government decided to build a bigger Parliament House in 1992. The new Parliament House has a Chamber for 100 Members, with room for another 20, if needed.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, as I explained, the pay of a President is not insubstantial and the dignity of a former President does not depend on his financial wealth. It depends very much on how the former President carries himself. MALAY HERITAGE COMMITTEE (Government assistance) 9. Mr Harun A Ghani asked the Minister for Information and the Arts to what extent the Government will assist the Malay Heritage Committee other than providing the $2 million grant. The Minister for Information and the Arts (Mr Lee Yock Suan): Mr Speaker, Sir, the Malay Heritage Centre is a Malay community project owned and led by the Malay community, with Government's assistance during the initial planning stage. Besides a matching grant of up to $2 million which will go towards an Endowment Fund, the Government will bear the full restoration cost of the former Istana Kg Glam and Gedung Kuning - the neighbouring building - also known as Bendahara House. The National Heritage Board is also providing administrative and curatorial assistance to the Malay Heritage Foundation and its Management Committee in planning for the Centre. SCHOOL DROP-OUTS 10. Mdm Claire Chiang See Ngoh asked the Minister for Education (a) how many students dropped out of the education chain in 1998 and the first half of 1999; (b) what is the profile of the school leavers; (c) what measures are being undertaken to keep them in school; (d) among the 5,640 students who dropped out between 1995 and 1997, how many had been counselled and allowed to return to schools; and (e) whether there was any attempt to reach the rest of the drop-outs to monitor their educational and personal development.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, when we decided on not giving pension to former Presidents, it was with a view of not putting unnecessary pressure on the budget or strain on taxpayers. We normally look for somebody who has retired or is about to retire to become the President, and normally, such person would have some savings of his own. And as the President, the pay would not be insubstantial. So we decided not to have pension for former Presidents. This would also apply to Mr Wee.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the Constitution does not provide for former Presidents automatically to receive pension and medical benefits. However, the Civil List and Pension Act provide for any person who ceases to be President to be granted a pension for such amount and on such terms as Parliament may, by resolution, determine. In determining the terms for granting a pension to a former President, Parliament may also decide to accord him post-retirement medical benefits. In the past, Parliament had passed a resolution granting a pension of $2,000 per month to the widow of the late Mr Yusof bin Ishak and $500 per annum jointly to his two children until the younger child attains the age of 21 years. As a pensioner, the widow is also receiving medical benefits. Parliament had also passed a resolution granting Mr Devan Nair a pension of $5,000 per month on condition that he continued to receive, and abide by, such medical advice and treatment as may be prescribed for him by a panel of doctors. Mr Nair declined the pension. No provisions for pension were made for the widow of Mr Benjamin Sheares, and for Mr Wee Kim Wee. The Prime Minister, however, had approved as a special case, medical benefits for Mr Wee and his wife. Mr Ong Teng Cheong will not be receiving any pension as a former President. However, he is receiving pension as a former office-holding Member of Parliament. As for medical benefits, he will continue to be on the Medisave-cum-Subsidised Outpatient (MSO) Scheme. Former Presidents are not provided with secretarial support or an office as they cease to perform any official function when they step down. Dr Lee Tsao Yuan: May I ask the Prime Minister whether it is possible now for Parliament to approve a pension for the former President, Mr Wee?”
“Mr Jeyaretnam: May I ask the Senior Minister - I am glad he is in the House - in his interview to the press he has said then that the President is not a check on the Government, that it must be the Opposition who will be the check on the Government. Is he then saying that the President was never intended to be a check on the Government?”
“Have no doubts, I have no doubts, people will go and see the Auditor-General, lower officials, if the Permanent Secretary or the CEO of a statutory board is not on the job, and say, "Look, this is something dreadfully wrong. And this will lead to all of us being left with nothing." But, as Mr Lim Kim San and Dr Goh have argued with me before we brought these provisions to the House, a good mobiliser can play ducks and drakes with the electorate and swing it around against the President and his Council of Advisors, and can get it through a referendum, then all is lost. But if you have these checks, you have certain hurdles, obstacles, then I hope that there will be people in this House, in spite of a large majority for the Government, who will say, pause, think about it before you take this step. Unlike Indonesia, Malaysia or Thailand, you have nothing to pledge to the World Bank. You have not got hidden reserves of oil, gas, uranium, copper or gold. It is that kind of climate of integrity, high standards that is our best protection. So we put up with a lot of frivolous, irrelevant attitudes from some opposition members. What we have embarked on is for a very serious purpose. Why should I, before I stepped down from office, put impediments in the way of my successor, if I did not believe that this obstruction, this inconvenience, could prove to be a very valuable break, a circuit breaker, if the need were to arise? Today's exchange, as a result of what the President said on 16th July, was useful as part of the education of our people.”
“So before my colleagues and I became unable to function, we discussed amongst ourselves whether we could trust a future generation to exercise the same prudence, the same care, over what we have accumulated and may need in the future. It is an open secret that some of my colleagues think that I am attempting something which is futile. Because if a generation is determined to spend its way through its patrimony, it will go back from rags to riches to rags. But at least we should have some mechanism to get the people to pause. Let me explain how a government works. I had been in charge of the CPIB from 1959 to 1990. It has not got a huge, enormous apparatus ferreting out what is going on in immigration and the customs, and in tenders. But it has experienced investigators who can detect signs, and you can always be sure that when something wrong is taking place, and somebody is being shortchanged, that matter will come out. Dr Lee Tsao Yuan worries about whether the President is given the right information. Let us suppose for one moment that what my colleagues and I feared did take place - that we have a spendthrift, reckless, adventurous, opportunist government that is willing to spend its way to prosperity, and is stripping off the family heirlooms. Does anybody in this House believe, in the culture that we have created, that public servants will quietly see their pensions go down the drain? Because as these reserves are drained away, the value of our currency will drop, as the rupiah dropped. They are going to take every step to protect their future, and will do so. And that is how the CPIB works.”
“Sir, I have seen a copy of the minutes of the meeting where the President asked for the information to be given. I have read the minutes and there was no indication whatsoever that the Accountant-General was being disrespectful or rude. The President wanted certain information and it is quite right for the Accountant-General to explain that, "Mr President, Sir, if you would like to have all the lands owned by the Government valued, it would require 56 man-years." I saw the minutes. The minutes were approved by the President. It was entirely obvious to me that this was a very normal discussion between a respectful civil servant and the President. The Senior Minister (Mr Lee Kuan Yew): Mr Speaker, Sir, the exchanges this afternoon establish two important principles. First, this new institution which we have established can function. In a way, it was perhaps as well that the President chose in his farewell press conference to vent his frustrations. He left the Government with the unpleasant task of having to rebut him in public. I have heard the exchanges this afternoon, and I would like to add these few points. The integrity of the Government is of crucial importance to Singapore. Many people do not like what they call the authoritarian, dictatorial attitude of the PAP, which I have led since 1959. That was 40 years ago. We started with a reserve of about $50 or $60 million in the kitty. We are now able to guard for the future of Singapore, and the troubles we may run into from time to time, over S$150 billion. It's not as big as the Saudi oil reserves, but it is not peanuts.”
“Sir, that is the choice for the President. He has chosen to go public with the press conference. I have chosen to come over here to explain and face MPs in answering any questions that they may have. I do not choose a press conference to rebut the points raised by the President.”
“We do not trust the opinions of certain politicians.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, we have gone through these arguments when we debated the criteria for the Elected Presidency. I do not think we need to repeat them. We are looking for honourable men and women who can perform a particular function. You do not just want to have somebody who has bought and sold some shares, some private tutors or failed politicians, to demean the post of the Presidency, and let the people decide. We regard the Head of State as a very important institution and it is best that we have the right person who fulfils certain criteria to stand for election for that particular post, and the matter has been decided over here. Parliament has decided. The people have elected the PAP. This was an issue way back in the 1988 election. We won. We defeated the argument by Mr Jeyaretnam. So the people have spoken on this issue. We have got this through in Parliament.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the President has two roles. One is ceremonial, serving as a symbol of Singapore. The other are the custodial functions that he has under the Constitution. The two roles are now merged into one person and any Government would want to ensure that whoever becomes the President is somebody who can do Singapore proud, and can do the job competently. So we, as a Government, would therefore always have a vested interest to ensure that the right man emerges to become the President. But there is nothing to stop Mr Jeyaretnam from finding someone who qualifies under the rules to stand for election against somebody whom the Government supports, and the people can decide. In this instance, Mr Jeyaretnam has failed to find somebody who can become a contestant in the arena against Mr S. R. Nathan. There is no rule against it. It is within our right to try and get the best candidate for Singapore. Singaporeans are not cheated. In fact, our lament is not enough people are coming forward who can do Singapore proud in performing the role of the Presidency.”
“I do not think it is necessary. If he wants to ask this question in the House he should get the Speaker to go around asking each one of us whether we do so or not. I think it is totally irrelevant. The point is, no Minister has withdrawn any cooperation from the President, and when most Ministers see him, we call him "Mr President". There is no disrespect shown to the President whatsoever. So it is totally irrelevant for us to try and guess whether Ministers regard the President's performance of his duty as rather vexing to them. I think we have always cooperated, and we should cooperate, and we will continue to cooperate with the new President.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the President's low grade lymphoma has indeed transformed into high grade lymphoma more than a year ago.”
“Sir, it is a matter of conjecture that some civil servants and Ministers found his attitude to be a nuisance. Unless I go around asking the civil servants and Ministers whether they indeed found the President's checking on them a nuisance, I would not know whether it is true or not. So it is not necessary for me to send out a general circular to the civil service and the Ministers to change their mindset.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, there is no legal basis for us to get the candidate to submit a medical report. We have asked him, and he has satisfied himself that he is physically and medically fit to stand for election.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, when we talk about civil servants having the responsibility under the Constitution to report to the President, it is not all civil servants but only those who are designated with the responsibility to do so under the Constitution. The President has the right to call up anyone for information which he wants. It is for him to exercise that right if he needs to get further explanation of certain issues or figures. As for the unpleasant encounters, I would not know unless the President raises them with me, privately or publicly, which he has done through the press conference. I thought he would probably have identified the major unpleasant encounters in his long list of problems at the press conference, and we have addressed those episodes in Parliament earlier.”
“Sir, I would not know the answer. But if I have to guess the answer, I think it was the President's own view.”
“I would say that we should try to entrench that within the next six years, but I would not want to commit myself at this moment.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, my statement just now had made it very clear that civil servants, ie, CEOs of particular Ministries or statutory boards have a constitutional duty to perform and, as CEO, I have made it very clear, as I have done in my statement, that if they have any reason to suspect that reserves are being drawn down, wittingly or unwittingly, they must indeed tell the President. In fact, it is a constitutional duty. If a civil servant who is required to do so does not do so, he is derelict in his duty. The suggestion by Mr Simon Tay that we should, from time to time, raise in this House points which have been agreed to between the President and the Prime Minister, I think we can consider that. If it involves a matter of principle, I think we should let it be aired over here. But if it is just merely agreements on routine matters, I do not think we need to come to the House or we need even to go public on that. But where a principle is involved, a new principle in particular, where we have settled between the President and the Government, I think it is useful to keep the House informed. Thirdly, whether we would entrench the Presidency in the Constitution, in terms of our inability to change the Article without his permission in the next term, I would not want to commit myself at this stage. I think it is better for us to work the system and be very satisfied that we have a good system before we entrench those powers in the Constitution. Otherwise, it is very difficult for us when we find that we should in fact do things in a different way to try to change the Constitution, because the President can block it. So I would rather err on the side of caution.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, at the moment, there is no need for us to think of ways to strengthen the institution. It is how the institution is being implemented which is important. The fact that we are debating this institution is part of the process of working the system. The President has taken certain issues into the open. He has let his views be known. We react in a way that we should. We come to Parliament. We explain why and we explain away the mistaken perception of the President. So it is more on how this system will be implemented. And when we have a new President, I have no doubt that he would have a new style of managing certain things in the two areas that he has got the powers. And we will still work the process through and, if necessary, we will come to Parliament and explain. At this stage, I do not think we need to change any particular Article in the Constitution to strengthen the institution.”
“If he fails to report, then I think he has committed an offence under the Constitution.”