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 5 of 28.
“Mr Speaker, Sir, on his first question, it is one that can only be answered by the President. I would not know why he did not understand the NII and I would not know why exactly he chose to criticise the Government. But I thought it is necessary for the Government to state its position on a very basic area where we had disagreement, and that is whether we supported his re-election or not. The rest is for people to draw their own conclusions. On the question of leaving matters to the last and at the end of the term of the President before we discuss them openly, I think when there are disagreements, if it justifies being aired publicly, they will be aired publicly. It is up to the President to decide. In the case of Article 22H, it was discussed openly in Parliament. So it depends on the issues concerned, and we have always come here each time we have certain problems over certain definitions or conventions, and we have come here to keep the public informed. There should be no misunderstanding whatsoever if the public were to go back to the statements made earlier to see how the system should be worked. And because of the press conference, certain doubts have begun to creep in. It therefore gave us the opportunity to explain once again to the public. On transactions during the Budget period, the civil servants have a constitutional duty to inform the President if, in their view, a particular transaction will draw down reserves. If a transaction like selling land at below cost will draw down the reserves, that civil servant has a duty to inform the President's Office or the President. In this case, it will be the Accountant-General or whoever is in charge of the statutory board that owns the land involved.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, up to now, I do not think there is a need for us to review the composition of the CPA. It has worked fine. The President has sought advice from the CPA, and whenever Budgets were submitted, the CPA went through them quite carefully and gave their advice. Whether we need to change this later on, I would not know. It depends on our experience in running the system. The CPA can, through the President's Office, call up any civil servant to answer any questions, if it wants to. There is nothing against that. I think the Accountant-General and the Auditor-General periodically might have been called up to explain certain statements or figures. It has the right to call up civil servants.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I am unable to find this definition in the Constitution. As far as I am concerned, she is the wife of the President. And as a matter of courtesy, many of us refer to her as the First Lady. But, in effect, the First Lady has no status in the Constitution, unlike the Minister, Prime Minister or the President.”
“No, please sit down. I will explain so that you do not have to say a bit more! We have looked at S R Nathan very carefully and we chose him, because of the man's maturity and his balanced judgment. And we know that if he had to exercise his constitutional duties where he disagrees with us, he would exercise it in accordance with the authority which he has. I have no doubt about it. If we had any doubts, we would not have appointed such a person. We are not looking for yes man, as Members of the House would know. We are looking for people with independent views who can add to the system, not sycophants. We want people with that ability to perform the role of that particular institution, and S R Nathan, in our view, and in my personal view, qualifies eminently.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, there were two medical reports which I saw and one of them was from Dr Saul Rosenberg. He is the foremost authority in the world on lymphoma cancer. The other report is by the President's personal physician in Singapore, Dr John Wong, and he of course is also an authority in Singapore on oncology. The two reports were similar. They were not conflicting reports. We had Dr John Wong in Cabinet to interpret his report and the report of Dr Saul Rosenberg for us, and we were advised by an oncologist, not an Attorney-General. We were not qualified and, personally, there were many terms which were beyond me, and we had to satisfy ourselves by asking questions and getting the doctor to explain in layman's terms what the likely condition of the President would be. Have I missed out any point? An hon. Member: S R Nathan?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the Government has no authority whatsoever to demand Mr S R Nathan, as a candidate, to tell us what his health is. But of course privately, I have asked him when I saw him. I said, "What is your health condition?" He told me that he is able to discharge his responsibility. I asked, "Any underlying condition?" He said, "No." He had a heart bypass operation some years ago, but he has been to the National Heart Centre and has been cleared by the doctors. At this point in time, there is no legal basis that I can compel him to tell me what it is, but he has told me what his health condition was. So, personally, I believe his health is good and the press can ask him. If he goes to the nomination centre tomorrow, whether he is returned opposed or unopposed, the press can ask him about his health condition. It is a relevant question for the press to ask.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the Government has no intention to publish the medical reports of President Ong Teng Cheong. He is not seeking re-election. It is irrelevant now to publish the medical details of the President's health. As for the other question whether we are setting a new precedent, I think health is important but it is not a constitutional requirement. We have not put this in. It is very difficult for us to devise a way where we have to define health before a person can stand for election. But I would suggest that any potential candidate who wants to stand for election as President should be asked the question by the press. What is your health condition? Do you have an underlying condition which you know, over time, will lead to problems? Nobody can forecast how a heart will tick over time, or whether or not you may get cancer. Nobody can forecast. But at that point of time, do you have an underlying condition which you know must progressively lead to bigger and bigger problems for you. I think it is a fair question for the press to ask. I do not think at this stage it is wise for us to change the Constitution or the Presidential Elections Act to make it a requirement for health to be declared publicly. Mr S. Iswaran (West Coast): I would like the Prime Minister to clarify, since the projected health condition was the reason for the Government withholding its support for President Ong seeking a second term, what has the Government done to satisfy itself of similar consideration before extending its support to a candidate in the forthcoming elections.”
“Likewise, I have a right to go to any Ministry and demand information to be given to me and circumventing the Minister, if necessary. I do not require a big staff to run the Government.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, in the past, the President had just a personal secretary. There was no Principal Private Secretary. The difference is that the PPS is an Administrative Officer. Your private secretary looks after your office management and so on. We felt that it is not necessary for the President's office to have a large staff because if you begin to man the President's office in order to check the civil servants, we must have a super Auditor-General to check on the Accountant General. You need to have your own lawyer to check on the AG's office and you begin to build a White House staff, as you call it, which would then have its centre of power, and it is totally unnecessary because the key appointments are subject to the veto powers of the President. Under the system that we have devised, the President should work through the people in Government. I too only have a Principal Private Secretary. I have a Press Secretary but I felt that he would be underworked, and I have given my Press Secretary three jobs. He is my Press Secretary. He is also holding a position as Deputy Secretary in the Ministry of Information and the Arts so that he can know what is going on and keep me informed of news. And I still find that he is underworked. So I thought he should also be the Chief Executive Director of the People's Association. And because he is from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, he also attends briefings regularly in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. This is how we use staff. We do not just have people who sit around looking for little faults here and there. It is totally unnecessary. The President has the right to use staff in the Government to get whatever information which he wants. He does not require a big staff.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, that would be very unfair to the President, and unfair to the Government too because whatever pressure we put on the President, he is a not a man who succumbs to pressure. And as shown, he has an independent viewpoint on many issues. On the medical condition of the President, I did not want to be too explicit since the President is not standing for re-election. I think it would be unfair to him. But being less explicit, Members here may not understand what exactly is the position and why there is this difference. I would say that there was a difference in interpretation of the medical reports. We have to be advised by the doctors and we had to ask questions that we were not sure as to what certain words meant. We were also advised by his doctor that for the next six years, there would be a strong likelihood of certain events taking place. The President, from his point of view, can quite rightly look at the other aspect that these are all statistics. And from his point of view, he is the best judge of his own health. He said he felt "fine" and I have no reason to doubt him that he felt "fine". It is a question of how we interpret the medical reports. But in our case, we were guided by professional advice and not just how we felt over the medical reports.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I am equally puzzled and I am still puzzled as to why the President did not understand fully the meaning of the NII as explained by Dr Richard Hu. The President did not deal with me directly on most of the issues. He dealt with the civil servants, normally through his Principal Private Secretary. I would normally come into the picture when they could not resolve certain issues. And of course when it came to my attention, I would then look at the matter and involve other Ministers who were concerned to resolve the issue. I do not think there was this breakdown in trust. It may be differences in the approach to the problems. And as far as the Government was concerned, there was never any reluctance in our case to cooperate. Where we disagreed we explained our disagreement. We finally sorted out whatever issues that we had. I do not get a sense that there was this breakdown in trust. It is just different approaches to the problems.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, we have not been inconsistent. We knew of the President's condition in 1992 when he was first struck with low-grade lymphoma. And again, from medical advice, we knew the likely progression of low-grade lymphoma that, in the first six years of this disease, there would have been no great problem for the President to perform the functions. But the next six years would not be quite the same. If you ask his doctors, they would tell you that, in the nature of things, the next six years would not be the same as the last six years. And it is on the basis of the next six years that we are concerned with. The doctors were right in their assessment, as shown in the last six years. The President had performed his duties quite normally.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, yes, the President had told the public at his press conference regarding his present health situation. But the Cabinet had two medical reports, one from the President's doctor in the United States, Dr Saul Rosenberg, and the other from his physician in Singapore. We studied the reports and it was quite clear from the reports that if you should focus or project the President's health condition into the future, there was a very strong likelihood that he would not be able to perform his duties normally. In a sense, it is like looking at a glass of water, whether it is one-third full or two-thirds empty. The Cabinet had to take the advice of the doctor and take a very careful view of what the President's future condition would be like. And it is on the basis of our understanding of the President's future medical condition, as given in the medical reports, that the Cabinet decided that it could not support the re-election of the President. But it is a matter for the President to decide. He could still have decided to stand for re-election and it would be his right if he wanted to stand for re-election. But we have given our views on the basis of what we think would be his future medical condition, as advised by the doctors, and that Cabinet could not support his re-election.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, as Members know, I had originally wanted to make this statement on 3rd August, but decided to postpone it because the President's wife had just passed away. Ideally, this statement should be made later because President Ong Teng Cheong is still in bereavement. But the President's term will expire on 1st September and it would not be proper to make the statement after he has left office. Dr Richard Hu has addressed the specific items raised by the President at his press conference on 16th July. But having listened to him, some Members of the House and the public may still wonder why the President should choose his end-of-term press conference to criticise the Government in this way. It could not just be the initial difficulties experienced by the President. After all, the problems happened three or four years ago. The public will continue to speculate that there must be more problems with the relationship between the Government and the President which it does not know about. Public reactions to President's statements The media have already reported some of these comments and conjectures. For example, Mr Viswa Sadasivan, Chairman of the Feedback Unit's Political Matters Group, told the Straits Times: "If a President who is a former Deputy Prime Minister can be given the push around in that way, I shudder to think what a newcomer to the scene would face."”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I thank Members who have spoken and joined me in expressing our condolences and support to the President and his family. The Members who have spoken represent a whole spectrum of the House - backbenchers, frontbenchers, the opposition as well as the NMPs. I note that, if not for the constraint of time, more Members of Parliament would have joined us in expressing our condolences to the President and the family. We all share a sentiment which I have expressed earlier on this sad occasion. Question put, and agreed to. Resolved, That this House expresses its deep sympathy and condolence to President Ong Teng Cheong and his family on the loss of his wife, Mrs Ong-Ling Siew May.”
“On behalf of the people, the Government and this House, I extend our heartfelt condolences to the President and his family on their bereavement. I propose that the House observe a two-minute silence as a mark of our respect for the late First Lady after others have spoken and the motion is passed. Question proposed.”
“Mrs Ong chaired the boards of Nanyang Girls' High and Nanyang Primary School. When we talked about Nanyang Girls' High School, her eyes lit up immediately. The new school buildings at Linden Drive had just been completed. She spoke with pride about the new campus, and was delighted when I commented on its beautiful facade and distinctive features. We had such a lively conversation that for a moment, we forgot that she was not well. She even talked about her next project, to redevelop the Nanyang Primary School. Mrs Ong was the architect for the new campus of Nanyang Girls' High School, as well as several other projects for the school. I was glad to read in the Zaobao that Mrs Ong had donated her architectural fees from these projects to the school. Mrs Ong was also deeply involved in charitable work. She supported many fund raising projects for various charities each year. She was also patron of several civic and charitable organisations, including the Children's Charities and Girl Guides Association. Many of us knew Mrs Ong Teng Cheong long before she became the First Lady. She was an unfailingly gracious hostess and a friend. My wife and I, and many of us here, have enjoyed her hospitality at her home. We will all miss her. Mr Speaker, Sir, President Ong Teng Cheong was a member of this House from 1972 till 1993 when he resigned to stand for election as President. We all know him well. He has lost a dear wife. Our hearts go to him and his family in their moment of grief. We offer them our sincere condolences. Even though the untimely passing of Mrs Ong has left a big void for the family, we hope that they will draw some comfort and strength from our sympathy and support.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, That this House expresses its deep sympathy and condolence to President Ong Teng Cheong and his family on the loss of his wife, Mrs Ong-Ling Siew May. When President Ong first learnt of his wife's colon cancer in January 1997, I can imagine his shock and dismay. He himself had been diagnosed with low-grade lymphoma in November 1992. To have one person in the family stricken with cancer was bad enough. To have both husband and wife suffering from it was indeed a cruel blow. But President Ong and his wife took the news calmly and stoically. As President Ong told me several times, life must go on. Both he and his wife decided to live as normal lives as they could. They shut out their ailments from their minds, and immersed themselves in their work. The prognosis for Mrs Ong's cancer was poor. But she fought on, with the support of her husband and family. She was one courageous lady. Over the past two and a half years, she went in and out of hospitals, both in Singapore and the United States. She underwent repeated major surgery, and received chemotherapy and radiation treatment. But she took everything in her stride, and kept to her normal heavy schedule of her own architect's work and her duties as the First Lady. When her friends fell ill, she would visit and comfort them. She kept to herself her own condition, and the pain she suffered as the disease progressed. Mrs Ong was brave until the end. Her last public engagement was the President's Charity Ball on 9th July. My wife and I called on her and the President in hospital on Sunday, 18th July. We knew that her illness was in its last stages. She was in obvious discomfort. Yet she received us with her ready smile, and chatted in good spirit.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, from my statement, the Member should know the strong feelings that we have over this ethnic cleansing and the very fact that I have spent the entire speech concentrating on nation building and creation of a multiracial society in Singapore must suggest in a very obvious way to him that we cannot condone ethnic cleansing in Kosovo, or anywhere else. Mr Jeyaretnam: But you said "however reprehensible it may be."”
“This is a never-ending challenge. The task is not going to get easier. In fact, it is going to get more complicated. To sustain our economy and to let our society flourish, we need to import foreign talents and offer some of them PR and citizenship. Our population will become more cosmopolitan. The city will become more international. Newcomers every year have to be integrated into our society. We have to create in them the same strong sense of belonging to Singapore as the thorough-bred Singaporeans. Our task of nation building is enormous. But we must persevere. If we do, we can and we will eventually become one family, one people, one nation. In his book, "From Empire to Nation", Professor Emerson also qualifies a nation as: "a community of people who feel that they belong together in the double sense that they share deeply significant elements of a common heritage and that they have a common destiny for the future". We can, over time, imbue in our diverse population a sense of community, trust in each other, a commitment to Singapore, and a passion to make it work. We can maximize the significant common elements of our different ancestral heritage as well as our common Singapore heritage, and together, build a nation where we will share a common destiny. We can create the Singapore tribe. Sir, I support the motion. [Applause.]”
“After almost 300 years, you would expect Great Britain, the Scots, the Welsh and the Irish feel more British, and for Britain to become more of a British nation. But till this day, England, Wales, Scotland and North Ireland still field their own teams and compete against each other in the World Cup and other international football tournaments. Each will cheer for its own team, not the other teams. And tomorrow, 6th of May, the Scots will elect their first Parliament to sit in Edinburgh in 300 years. At the same time, the Welsh will be voting for the first elected assembly in their history. The Economist of 1st May 1999 said, "These developments do not signal the re-birth of Scotland and Wales as independent countries. But they do signal a historic and welcome shift in the way Britain is governed." But why should Scotland and Wales want their own Parliaments if they have become more British? Can anyone be so sure that devolution of power would not go further and that 100 years from now, there would not be an independent Scotland? Or Wales? Look at Canada. The Dominion of Canada was formed in 1867, more than 130 years ago. But many of the French-speaking Canadians in Quebec still refuse to identify themselves with the English-speaking Canadians. Their ancestors had come from France, not Britain. Quebec has held two votes on separation from Canada to form an independent Quebec. In the first vote in 1980, 40% of Quebeckers voted for independence. In the second vote in 1995, the percentage has risen to 49.6%. Making Singapore Work So I come back to the basic point: the tribal instinct and shared DNA are stronger than the sense of shared future in a country made up of different tribes. But we must try and make Singapore work, and build a Singapore nation.”
“So we had the Cantonese in Kreta Ayer, the Hokkiens in Telok Ayer, the Hainanese in Middle Road, and the Teochews in Boat Quay. Staying together according to language, race, religion, dialect groups provided an important security and comfort zone. Even today, there is still a tendency for racial enclaves to form in HDB estates. Hence, we had to introduce a quota system in 1989 to ensure that every public housing estate is a microcosm of multi-racial Singapore. If I may use an imagery, our society is made up of overlapping circles, like the People's Association logo, four circles overlapping with one another. Each circle represents one community. What we can do is to maximise the overlapping area of the four circles. This is the area where all Singaporeans, whatever their race, work and play together. It is an open level playing field with English as the common language, and equal opportunities for all. Outside this common area, where the circles do not overlap, each community has its own playing field. In this separate playing field, each community can retain and speak its own language and practise its own culture and customs. This practical approach of nation-building whereby every community has two playing fields has given us multi-racial harmony. This approach helps us to build a harmonious nation out of diversity. But as the divide between races is always there, the national heartbeat may become separate heartbeats over time. Britain and Canada - Devolution of Powers Let me use Britain to illustrate my point. In 1707, England, Wales and Scotland came together to form Great Britain. They were joined by North Ireland in 1801.”
“If, indeed, more and more bright students from Singapore, more and more able Singaporeans think of their self-fulfilment first, there will be no future for Singapore. Yes, it is important to do one's PhD to maximise one's potential. The organisation can wait. Yes, it is important to do research in a world-class institution. Singapore can wait. But if most of our ablest think that way, can we ever build a Singapore nation? When Lee Hsien Loong graduated from Cambridge University, his professor encouraged him to stay back to do his PhD in Mathematics. He came back. He wrote to his professor that he felt his country would need his services. I too wanted to do my PhD after my graduation in 1964. The PSC would not let me. I was under a bursary bond. So I joined the Administrative Service. Later, in 1976, the late Hon Sui Sen invited me to stand for election. I was not a natural politician. I am still not a natural politician. But I felt an obligation to say 'yes'. I had no political ambition. But if my country needed me, I could not say 'no'. Without the bursaries and scholarships, I would not have done so well in life. I felt an instinctive obligation to do national service. Singapore - A Society of Overlapping Circles I support the powerful, emotive statements of Singapore 21. I wish to caution, however, against unrealistic expectations and quick results. A strong dose of realism is necessary. A nation is not built in one generation, much less a country made up of different races and religions, who until recently, were living in different racial enclaves. Historically, the Chinese, Malay and Indian communities lived in distinct neighbourhoods. Even among the Chinese, the different dialect groups had their own cantonments.”
“We must try and build up this trust. This cannot be done through nice-sounding slogans and motherhood statements. It will be built only when we have gone through fire together, and have helped one another to survive. The older generation of Singaporeans have at least fought the communists and communalists together. They have also fought for Singapore's independence. The bond between that generation of leaders and Singaporeans is strong and unshakeable. That generation also feels an instinctive moral obligation to serve the country. But the younger generation of Singaporeans have had no experience of hardships, let alone racial riots and external threats. Their lives have mostly been plain sailing. So their bonds to Singapore and their sense of service to the country are not as strong as the older generation's. When Tony Tan came back from his recent trip to the US, he explained to me why he had proposed tuition loans instead of scholarships for our bright students to study abroad. He had met a group of our scholars in Boston. They peppered him with questions on how they could break their scholarship bonds instead of how and where they could serve on their return to Singapore. Tony was totally dismayed. He proposed that scholarships be replaced with tuition loans. He was not thinking of using public funds. He was thinking that these scholars would have to borrow from the banks at market interest rates. Then when they come back, they can apply to any organisation to get a job, and it is up to that organisation to take over the loans from the scholars. So I understood better the context of Tony Tan's proposal for tuition loans to replace scholarships.”
“Edward Osborne Wilson, a Professor at Harvard University, in his book "On Human Nature", observed that, historically, when Maoris fought for land, alliances were based on kinship. They would consciously and explicitly expand against the territories of the groups most distantly related to them. In other words, expansionist on the basis of how close you are in kinship. In 1837, when Hokianga warriors arrived at one fight already in progress between two sections of the Nga Puhi tribe, they were undecided about which side to join, because they were equally related to both. I suppose it was the same with the Chinese in Singapore before the Speak Mandarin Campaign. Those in one dialect group would instinctively support their own members in a dispute with members of another dialect group. Today, we see the same phenomenon in Indonesia. When a Madurese has a casual fight with an Ambonese in Jakarta, it would soon become a general fight between Madurese and Ambonese. The instinct of belonging to a tribe is most overriding. Singapore - Serving The Nation In Singapore, we have many pools of DNA. To build a nation out of these different pools is not easy. We can never remove totally the divide between the different races. The Chinese would not want to adopt Malay customs, culture and religion nor do Malays and Indians want to be assimilated by the Chinese. The Eurasians too are happy to be what they are. But we can work to lower the divide. It is a long process. It may take us at least one or two generations before we can confidently say that we have built a successful, multi-racial nation where the races will fight together to advance their collective as well as each other's interests. It boils down to trust - whether one race trusts another to protect its interests.”
“Othman Eusofe, my colleague from Raffles and University, had also just started work in Land Office, also housed in City Hall. When news of the riots broke out, the offices were quickly cleared and everyone was told to go home immediately. I went downstairs and met Othman in the lobby. Both of us wondered how to get home. The streets were chaotic with cars and worried people. I did not know how Othman made his way home. I was then living in a HDB flat in Queenstown. There was a colleague in my office who also lived in Queenstown. We decided to walk home. Fortunately for both of us, as we were somewhere near the YMCA in Orchard Road, a friend of my colleague came by in his car. He gave us both a lift home. Do not think that racial riots would never break out again in Singapore. They could be caused by chauvinistic leaders. They could be triggered by insensitive handling of racial issues by an inept government. They could be instigated from outside. That is why we need safeguards such as the Presidential Council for Minority Rights, Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act and the Internal Security Act. These legal instruments in themselves are useful. They help prevent subversive and communalistic acts. But by themselves, just these Acts alone do not guarantee that Singapore would not be divided along communal lines. In a crunch, where the interests of the tribe and the state diverge, can we be sure that the sense of belonging to a state will be stronger than the primordial instinct of belonging to a tribe? Are Singaporeans of different races prepared to lay down their lives for the sake of Singapore if there is a divide amongst the races?”
“The break-up of the former Yugoslavia illustrates that a nation is not just a collection of peoples under a common constitutional framework. Yugoslavia was cobbled together after the Second World War in 1945 by Marshal Josip Tito. It comprised six republics (Serbia, Croatia, Macedonia, Slovenia, Montenegro and Bosnia-Herzegovina) and two autonomous regions (Kosovo and Vojvodina). The Serbs, Croats, Bosnians, Slovenes, Macedonians and Montenegrins came from the same Slavic stock, but they belong to different tribes and backgrounds. Kosovars are mostly ethnic Albanians. The Albanians and Bosnians are Muslims, while Serbs are mainly orthodox Christians. Soon after Tito died in 1980, Yugoslavia began to disintegrate. Belgrade could not hold the different tribes together. Open violence broke out. Finally, independence was declared by Croatia, Slovenia, Macedonia and Bosnia-Herzegovina, one after another, between June 1991 and April 1992. The Bosnians are Slavs, like the Serbs. But despite this, Bosnia fought a war with Serbia from 1991 to 1995, and became independent under the US-brokered Dayton peace accord. Islam divides Bosnians from the Christian Serbs. The Bosnians were converted to Islam in the late Middle Ages by Turkish occupiers. Yugoslavia was not a homogeneous nation. So it broke up after strongman Tito died. Yugoslavia lasted only 45 years. Singapore - Racial Riots Singapore is not a homogeneous nation either. However, there is one consolation, Singapore is too small to break up into two or three separate countries. But racial riots can tear the country apart. When the racial riots broke out in 1964, I had just started work as an Administrative Officer in the Prime Minister's Office, then housed in City Hall.”
“But whether it will last the next 100 years will depend on whether the different races can gel as one people, feel as one people and pulsate with the same Singapore heartbeat. I raise this question because it is important for us to debate the Singapore 21 vision against the background of nation-building. Nations - Jews and Serbs Nations which have lasted 1000 years have an almost homogeneous population sharing the same culture and religion, speaking the same language and practising the same customs. They descended from the same DNA pool. Such a people will instinctively group together when threatened. They will fight together and, if necessary, die together, in order that the tribe they belong to will survive. The Jews are one such tribe. When Israel was threatened, Jews all over the world rushed to support it. Israeli reservists overseas dashed back to defend the country. The Serbs too form a nation. However reprehensible their ethnic cleansing in Kosovo, they are standing up to NATO as one Serb nation. To Serbs, Kosovo is hallowed ground. It is their Holy Land. Kosovo had been Serbian territory as early as in the Middle Ages. It was lost in a humiliating defeat to the invading Ottoman army in 1389. Following the Ottoman conquest, ethnic Albanians moved into Kosovo, thereby displacing the Serbs who were of Slavic stock. The racial composition of Kosovo changed, from majority Serbs to majority Albanians. Today, 600 years later, Serb nationalism has reared to reclaim Kosovo. It is said that the Serbs would no more think of yielding Kosovo to Albanians than Jews of handing over Jerusalem to the Palestinians. Tito's Yugoslavia - Not A Nation There was never a Yugoslavia nation.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I want to put this debate on Singapore 21 (S21) in its proper perspective. When I asked Teo Chee Hean to chair the S21 Committee, I saw it as part of a continuing exercise to build the Singapore nation. In the first phase of our nation building, we concentrated on giving Singaporeans a physical stake in the country. For the next phase, we have to grow the emotional roots. The Report of the S21 Committee is not an end in itself. It must be implemented, and strengthen the process of nation-building. For Singapore is not yet a nation. It is only a state, a sovereign entity. A state is not necessarily a nation. Harvard Professor Rupert Emerson, in his book, From Empire to Nation, defined a "nation" as: 'A single people, traditionally fixed on a well-defined territory, speaking the same language and preferably a language all its own, possessing a distinctive culture, and shaped to a common mould by many generations of shared historical experience.' By this definition, Singapore is not a nation. We do not all speak the same language, nor do we share the same religion and customs. We have different ancestors. We have to accept the hand that we were dealt with - 600 square kilometres, no natural resources, densely populated, and a disparate collection of people, most of whom had migrated from other parts of the world. But Senior Minister and his generation overcame great odds and laid the foundation for the Singapore nation. They emphasised multi-racialism and gave every race an equal opportunity in Singapore. This multi-racial country has lasted 33 years, beyond the skeptics' expectation.”
“The Civil Service recruited 359 graduate officers from Aug-Oct 98. There were a total of 1,024 vacancies during this period. The new recruits were mainly for the Ministry of Education and the Uniformed Services in the Ministry of Home Affairs. A breakdown of the number of graduate officers recruited by the various Ministries is tabulated below: MINISTRY Number Recruited Number of Vacancies Aug 98 Sep 98 Oct 98 Total Ministry of 0 1 1 2 4 Communications Ministry of 6 0 0 6 15 Community Development Ministry of 3 6 1 10 60 Defence Ministry of 2 0 1 3 7 Environment Ministry of 87 116 1 204 758 Education Ministry of 1 0 1 2 10 Foreign Affairs Ministry of 0 0 5 5 15 Finance (Budget) Ministry of 2 18 1 21 21 Finance (Revenue) Ministry of 19 40 4 63 69 Home Affairs Ministry of 0 13 2 15 17 Health Ministry of 3 0 0 3 3 Information and The Arts Ministry of 2 1 2 5 7 Law Ministry of 4 2 2 8 8 Manpower Ministry of 0 3 0 3 10 National Development Ministry of 2 1 1 4 5 Trade and Industry Public 5 0 0 5 15 Service Division Total 136 201 22 359 1,024 DEVELOPMENT ASSISTANCE TO ASEAN 3. Mr Simon S C Tay asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs what is the total amount of official development assistance given by Singapore to each of the ASEAN members from May 1997 to October 1998, whether as training grants or in other forms.”
“The average increase in the wage bill for civil servants for the period 1987 to 1998 is 4.2% per year. Details are given in the table below. Year Wage Bill % change over (million) previous year 1988 $ 1,840 - 1989 $ 1,935 5.2% 1990 $ 2,065 6.7% 1991 $ 2,069 0.2% 1992 $ 1,925 -7.0% 1993 $ 1,969 2.3% 1994 $ 2,244 14.0% 1995 $ 2,252 0.4% 1996 $ 2,487 10.4% 1997 $ 2,629 5.7% Average 4.2% The change in the wage bill is a function of many factors such as the size and structure of the Service. For example, the proportion of Division I officers in the Service has doubled, from 17% of the total population in 1988 to 34% in 1997 while the percentage of Division III officers has dropped from 31% to 25%, and Division IV officers, from 19% to 10%, over the same period. The large increase in 1994 (14.0%) was due to a major salary revision exercise in that year. The salary revision was introduced in conjunction with the introduction of co-payment of medical expenses. Civil Servants who accepted the new medical schemes which required them to co-pay medical expenses were given salary revisions averaging about 7%. The increase in 1996 (10.4%) was also larger than normal because of the relatively bigger NWC wage adjustment (6.5%) in that year. In addition, there was also an increase in the number of Division I officers in 1996 by 16.5%, which is significantly higher than the average increase of 9.3% per year for the period 1988 to 1997. The increase of Division I officers in 1996 was largely due to an increase in the recruitment of teachers. CIVIL SERVICE VACANCIES 2. Mr Simon S C Tay asked the Prime Minister what is the progress from August 1998 to October 1998 in recruiting graduates to fill vacancies in the civil service.”
“Sometimes adverse weather conditions cause aircraft to stray off-course. And no air force in the world can guarantee that its pilots will never make navigational errors. Earlier this year, there was one instance when RSAF aircraft accidentally strayed into Malaysian airspace - and we apologised to Malaysia. Mr Speaker, Sir, threats to scramble RMAF aircraft to deal with RSAF intrusions and assertions of the right to shoot missiles to bring down intruding aircraft are, to say the least, most unfortunate - particularly when reference is made to a fighter of the former Soviet air force shooting down a civilian aircraft that had been misidentified. Such statements are especially unfortunate considering that Singapore and Malaysia are friendly neighbours interested in cooperation for mutual benefit as the two Prime Ministers have recently underscored. We should be trying to clear up any misunderstandings instead of making statements which raise tensions and increase the likelihood that a dangerous situation might arise. As Minister Syed Hamid himself has stated, it is dangerous to "play games" in defence matters as doing so could lead to a very dangerous consequence. Mr Speaker, Sir, let me reiterate that we would like to have good defence relations with Malaysia. We are ready to resume defence interactions when Malaysia is ready to do so and at a pace the Malaysians are comfortable with.”
“Sir, Malaysia had, in official protests, alleged that there were seven intrusions by the RSAF since 18th September this year, when Malaysia revoked the arrangements and agreements which allowed the RSAF access to Malaysian airspace. No supporting information was provided to substantiate any of the allegations. Singapore categorically rejects all these allegations as being completely without basis. Our investigations showed that three of the cases involved aircraft of other countries. Two of them were transiting through Malaysian airspace with proper diplomatic clearance given by the Malaysian authorities while the third was a civil aircraft. In another three cases, there were no RSAF aircraft flying at the times and places stated in the Malaysian Third Person Note. The last case involved an RSAF Fokker 50 maritime patrol aircraft coming into Changi Air Base, but the aircraft did not overfly or circle over the Navy Recruit Training Base as alleged. Singapore has already responded officially to Malaysia to conclusively rebut the allegations. We have also asked for substantiating evidence if Malaysia insists that the intrusions did occur. It is not reasonable to keep on repeating the allegations without providing any details to substantiate them. Singapore recognises that Malaysia, like any other country, has the right to take actions to defend itself against hostile action and to protect its sovereignty. As I have explained, there were no intrusions by RSAF aircraft in the instances alleged by Malaysia. The RSAF is extremely careful about not intruding into the airspace of other countries. But it is not possible to guarantee that there will not be accidental infringements, especially when Singapore's airspace is so tight and we share a common border.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, we have decided to go ahead with the desalination plant, and we will go ahead. This is a pilot plant which will yield about 30 million gallons per day and it is useful for us to have this plant so that we know how it works. As I cautioned just now, we do not know as yet whether the discussion now will lead to fruition. INVASION OF MALAYSIAN AIR SPACE (Threat of retaliatory action) 12. Mr Tay Beng Chuan asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Defence whether there is any apparent threat arising from recent statements by Malaysia that it will not compromise on any invasion of its air space and will take appropriate action if necessary; and (b) whether the Republic of Singapore Air Force has any safeguards in place should retaliatory actions take place. The Minister of State for Defence (Mr Matthias Yao Chih) (for the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Defence): Mr Speaker, Sir, I believe the hon. Member is referring to a number of statements over the past month made by the Malaysian Defence Minister, Datuk Syed Hamid Albar. On 26th October and again on 10th November this year, Datuk Syed Hamid told the Malaysian Parliament that the RMAF would mobilise its fighters "to take appropriate action" if there was any intrusion into Malaysia's airspace by the RSAF. Datuk Syed Hamid was also quoted by the Malaysian press as having said, on 2nd November, that although Malaysia had the right to fire missiles at aircraft which intruded into its airspace, it preferred to apply pressure through public opinion. He cited the case of a South Korean airliner that was shot down by a Soviet Union military aircraft after it strayed into Soviet airspace - an incident which resulted in a huge loss of innocent lives.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, if Malaysia is keen to sell that piece of land to Singapore, it has to put it on the market and interested buyers would have to tender for the piece of land. I do not know how much the land would fetch. It may or may not be sufficient to meet the needs of the Malaysian Government.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I do not know how the US would react on this particular issue, but here we take into account our own national interest, and our interest in helping the Malaysians. I myself do not expect the US to object to our assistance to Malaysia in this particular case, because we are getting something in return, which is of tremendous importance to us over the longer term.”
“Mr Speaker, the exact nature of the financial assistance which we will give to Malaysia is being discussed. It can be a direct loan from the Singapore Government. It can be Singapore Government buying bonds from Malaysia. It could be a guarantee. These are matters being discussed at the moment. The CIQ issue is separate. It is not part of this discussion. We have decided, when I met Dr Mahathir, to defer discussion on the CIQ and the Points of Agreement to a later date.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, as I have explained just now, negotiation is in progress. I do not think it is wise for me to go into details of the two agreements. The main point is that once the agreements are signed, they will be tabled for approval by Parliament.”
“Mr Leong Horn Kee (Bishan-Toa Payoh): Sir, may I ask the Prime Minister whether it is possible for him to disclose some broad outline of the nature of the two agreements that are being discussed, for example, the amount of loan that the Malaysian have now stated in their agreement and is there any proposed period in the water agreement that we would like to ask for?”
“Thank you. The essence of what Prime Minister Mahathir and I discussed has already been reported in the newspapers. Prime Minister Mahathir sought Singapore's co-operation to raise funds to help Malaysia meet its financial needs. Prime Minister Mahathir also reaffirmed Malaysia's commitment to provide water to Singapore beyond 2061 when the 1962 Water Agreement expires. At Malaysia's request, Singapore submitted its draft Agreement on Water to the Malaysians on 14th November 1998. Malaysia in turn sent its draft loan agreement to Singapore on 20th November 1998. Officials from both countries are now negotiating the two agreements. It is, therefore, premature to go into the details today. But as they are major agreements between two states, they will be tabled before our respective Parliaments for approval after Dr Mahathir and I have signed them. However, I must caution that negotiation is still in progress and we cannot assume yet that we will reach agreement on the details. The two proposals are win-win because Singapore will provide or raise funds for Malaysia on very favourable terms. These funds will help Malaysia meet its financial requirements and overcome its economic challenge. In turn, with the new water agreement, Singapore's long term supply of water will be secured. Water from Malaysia is also a cheaper alternative than desalination. The meeting between Dr Mahathir and I to discuss bilateral co-operation does represent a change in attitude on both sides towards restoring and improving bilateral ties. There is a greater chance now that such improvement in ties will be sustained, especially if we conclude the loan and water agreements.”
“The qualifications to be a voter are provided in the Parliamentary Elections Act, not the Constitution. Section 5 of that Act provides that a voter must be not less than 21 years of age. We are a young country with only 32 years of history. Singapore has, so far, operated very successfully with its model of democracy. This includes the minimum voting age of 21 years. There are no pressing reasons to change the minimum voting age. I am, therefore, inclined to leave it as it is. PAYMENT OF TAXES 2. Dr Lee Tsao Yuan asked the Minister for Finance whether, in light of the current economic slowdown, measures will be taken to extend the payment of income, property and other taxes over a longer time frame in order to help the Small and Medium-sized Enterprises (SMEs), which are facing economic difficulties, tide over this period.”
“He has not advised me but I have read the arguments between the Finance Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister with Mr Jeyaretnam, and that advice was given to the Deputy Prime Minister and it is part of the advice to the Government. ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS 3. Dr Yaacob Ibrahim asked the Minister for Home Affairs (a) whether the number of illegal immigrants arrested is on the rise; (b) whether the number has reached a level which will endanger our security; and (c) whether our resources are being stretched in trying to put this problem under control.”
“Mr Jeyaretnam is a lawyer. The Attorney-General is the person to answer the question. I have been advised by the Attorney-General that what we do is perfectly constitutional.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the same question has been asked several times by Mr Jeyaretnam of both the Deputy Prime Minister and the Finance Minister, and both Ministers have explained the situation quite clearly. I am of the view that the Attorney-General has advised me very well. As to the guarantee part, this comes under the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS). MAS will issue the guarantee and under the MAS Act there is provision for the Authority to do so without our having to come to Parliament or going to the President. I can assure the Member and also the other Members of the House that we would do things in accordance with the Constitution. If there is a need to come to Parliament, we will come to Parliament. There is no question about that. There is no difficulty in that. If we have to seek the President's approval, we will seek the President's approval. In this particular case, the MAS Act has allowed us to proceed with the scheme without our having to come to Parliament or to seek the President's approval.”
“The Scheme will run for an initial period of two years or until the Indonesian trade finance cycle is restored, whichever is earlier. However, the Government of Singapore reserves the right to discontinue the Scheme in the event of a change in circumstances which renders it no longer relevant or valid. Singapore and Indonesian officials will meet to flesh out the scheme soon. I am unable to say now the exact date when the BTFG scheme will come into operation. We will need some time to work out the procedures and rules to create an effective scheme which will achieve its objectives. We are seeking help from international experts. We know its importance for Indonesia and will endeavour to get it going as soon as possible.”
“Singapore will use US$3 billion out of the US$5 billion that it has earlier pledged to Indonesia for its IMF package to back this facility. We will eventually expand the scheme further to cover exports through Singapore by Indonesia's trading partners who do not have their own bilateral export credit schemes. The remaining US$2 billion of the US$5 billion that Singapore has pledged to Indonesia will be used for this purpose. Conceptually, we have the following mechanism in mind. ECICS Credit Insurance Ltd will administer the Scheme. ECICS is an unlisted public company that is in the business of insuring Singapore exports against risks of non-payment. The Singapore Government will select several banks operating in Indonesia to be designated as Trade Finance Banks (TFBs). We will also identify a group of Singapore exporters to participate in the scheme. Indonesian importers will approach one of the approved TFBs to issue a Letter of Credit for a sales transaction secured with an approved Singapore exporter. The TFB will bear the commercial risk on this transaction. The Letter of Credit will be presented to the Singapore-based bank of the Singapore exporter. Bank Indonesia will guarantee fully the obligations of the TFB to this Singapore-based bank. The Singapore Government, in turn, counter-guarantees part of Bank Indonesia's obligations under the scheme. The Singapore exporters, the Singapore-based bank and ECICS will share in some of this risk. This is necessary to ensure that each party in the scheme does due diligence. If the TFB fails to honour its obligation on the Letter of Credit it has issued, Bank Indonesia's unconditional guarantee will apply.”
“Thank you. The Singapore Government originally proposed a Multilateral Trade Finance Guarantee Scheme to help resolve the trade finance problems faced by Indonesian firms. However, the G7 countries, whose participation is vital since they are the largest trading partners of Indonesia, prefer their own bilateral trade financing schemes. On 28th February 1998, then Minister for Finance Mar'ie Muhammad asked our Finance Minister Richard Hu to have Singapore launch the Multilateral Trade Finance Guarantee scheme on our own. On 2nd March 1998, then Minister for Trade and Industry Tunky Ariwibowo repeated the request to our Ambassador in Jakarta, Edward Lee. On 20th March, in Jakarta, the Minister for Trade and Industry Muhammad Hasan made the same request to Ambassador Lee. In response to these requests, Singapore decided to launch a Singapore-Indonesia Bilateral Trade Finance Guarantee (BTFG) Scheme. I wrote to President Soeharto on 31st March informing him of Singapore's decision to establish the BTFG after Indonesia and the IMF have reached an agreement on their latest round of negotiations. He called me up in London on 2nd April to thank Singapore for its decision. The BTFG is a bilateral scheme to enhance confidence in trade financing transactions undertaken by banks in Indonesia. The aim is to help restore established trade between the two countries. As Singapore has no experience designing or operating a government-sponsored trade finance guarantee scheme, we have to start cautiously and modestly. Initially, the scheme will only provide export credit insurance for our domestic exports to Indonesia. After we have gained experience with the scheme, we will expand it to cover retained imports from Indonesia.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, may I have your permission to take Questions 1 and 2 together as they are both related?”
“The Senior Minister, with my agreement, sits on the international advisory board/council of the following: Company/Institution Honorarium Stanford University Institute Nil for International Studies Advisory Council Board of the Institute for Nil International Economics, Washington DC J P Morgan International US$15,000 p.a. Council (US investment bank) TOTAL International Advisory US$15,000 p.a. Board (French oil major) Daimler Benz International US$25,000 p.a. Advisory Board (German car and transportation equipment manufacturer) The honoraria he receives are donated to charity. Membership of these boards gives him insights into the world economy as analysed and assessed by American, French and German institutions and multi-nationals. This exposure is useful in his capacity as Chairman of the Government of Singapore Investment Corporation. CONTRIBUTIONS TO INTERNATIONAL ORGANISATIONS 2. Mr Simon S C Tay asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs if he will specify the international organisations in the United Nations to which Singapore makes voluntary contributions and the respective amounts given to each of these organisations in each of the last ten years.”
“A major component is the creation of Singapore ONE - an islandwide broadband network that will run multimedia interactive services, including fast Internet access, video-conferencing, online shopping and distance learning. Singapore ONE is expected to be accessible to all Singaporeans by end 1998, thus bringing Singapore another step nearer to the "Intelligent Island" vision. We have done all these without a Ministry of Information Technology. The inter-agency arrangement under NITC has worked well. NITC has provided strong and effective leadership to the push for IT development and use in Singapore. Rather than set up a new Ministry, it is better to focus on refining the existing arrangement, at least for the time being. The strong NITC leadership and added Government emphasis on IT should be adequate in addressing the challenges of IT for Singapore. IMPROVEMENTS AT BUS SHELTERS 44. Mr Shriniwas Rai asked the Minister for Communications if he will consider (i) improving bus shelters so as to prevent passengers from getting wet during heavy rain and (ii) providing public telephones at these shelters.”