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 6 of 28.
“Singapore has recognised the importance and far reaching consequences of the IT revolution as early as twenty years ago. In 1981, we allocated $100 million for computerisation projects in the civil service to improve the efficiency of the government machinery as well as seed the development of an IT sector in Singapore. At around the same time, we formed the National Computer Board to promote and catalyse IT development in Singapore. We also have the National IT Committee (NITC) to formulate IT policies and strategies, and coordinate and integrate IT applications nationally and in the various sectors of society. NITC is a high level inter-agency committee. It is currently chaired by Teo Chee Hean, with DPM Lee Hsien Loong as advisor. Singapore has achieved considerable success in propagating the widespread use of IT in homes, schools and industries and in building up a significant IT economic sector. Our household computer penetration rate of 36% is one of the highest in the world. We are spending $2 billion over the next 5 years to provide computers for every pupil in schools. The local IT industry registered revenues of almost $9 billion in 1996 and is growing at a phenomenal rate in excess of 30% a year. A milestone in our IT development is the unveiling of the national IT plan in 1992. Codenamed IT2000, the plan envisions Singapore as an "Intelligent Island" where IT is used in almost every facet of life - at home, at work and at play. IT will be exploited aggressively to boost Singapore's economic competitiveness and enhance the quality of life of our people. Implementation of IT2000 is on track.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I have explained the circumstances in which I released the letters and I still hold the view that it is entirely appropriate for me to do so. When a person stands for election, he must be prepared for whatever character flaws, if he had, to be exposed by the PAP. This is what we stand for. If there is anything which we know about a particular candidate, which is of public interest, we are going to reveal it and I breach no rule whatsoever. SINGAPORE'S ECONOMIC GROWTH (Assessment for next fiscal year) The following Question stood in the name of Mr Chng Hee Kok- 11. To ask the Minister for Trade and Industry what is his assessment of Singapore's economic growth in the next fiscal year in view of the continuing turmoil in the currency and stock markets. REGIONAL CURRENCY AND FINANCIAL CRISIS (Impact on Singapore's economy) 12. Mr Tay Beng Chuan asked the Minister for Trade and Industry if he will give an assessment of the impact of the regional currency and financial crisis on Singapore's economy and what are the strategic policies and measures the Government will adopt to maintain the confidence of investors in Singapore and keep the economy competitive vis-a-vis the other ASEAN countries.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I did not look at the Standing Orders. The issue is a simple one. The authors of the letters are the ones who decide whether the opinions expressed therein are to be kept confidential or not. So we had the permission of the authors of the letters and they could easily repeat in public those same opinions which were contained in the letters, which they did, not just once but several times, with telling blows during the General Election.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, Deputy Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong was a member of the Select Committee that deliberated in 1992 on the appointment of Nominated Members of Parliament. Several MPs had written to the Committee strenuously opposing Mr Tang Liang Hong's appointment as an NMP. The MPs had also spoken to BG Lee at the time to express the same views. BG Lee told me about the MPs' views, and gave me copies of the letters during the last General Election. He had asked the Speaker for the letters as he did not have them with him on the day he spoke to me about the MPs' views. The letters showed clearly that Tang was a Chinese chauvinist. I decided to release them to the media. Tang was standing for election. Singaporeans had a right to know before the election that long before Tang contemplated entering opposition politics, four Chinese educated MPs, plus Dr Tay Eng Soon, all of whom had known Tang for many years, had concluded that he was a dangerous extremist. There was nothing personal. But they considered Tang unfit to be a Nominated Member of Parliament. By December 1996, Dr Tay Eng Soon had passed away. The other MPs consented to their letters being made public. The MPs also publicly repeated, confirmed and elaborated on the statements in their letters. There was no question of any breach of confidentiality. I can understand Tang being embarrassed by these letters, which were written four years before he became a candidate in the 1996 elections, and therefore carried that much more weight with the people and the court. But I am surprised that the Workers' Party, which has repeatedly pressed the Government to provide Singaporeans with more information to make up their own minds, should make an issue of the publication of the letters.”
“I do not know of any officer who has received improper favours purchasing apartments in Nassim Jade or Scotts 28. If the Member knows of any officer who has acted improperly in any such purchase, he should give me the information and the matter will be fully investigated. DE-REGULATION OF FINANCIAL SECTOR 2. Mr Low Thia Khiang asked the Minister for Finance whether the Government plans to de-regularise the financial sector and, if so, how the de-regulation will affect the economy of Singapore.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I want to end this debate on the President's Address on a high note, not in some scruffy debate on this issue which has been in the press for a long time. Some hon. Members: Hear, hear!”
“People who feel confident and secure. People who believe in Singapore and its future. Let us work together to make Ours the Best Home, for ourselves and our children. [Applause].”
“Singapore 21 will help us to pre-empt the problems faced by many developed countries today as they try and maintain economic dynamism while managing growing social divisions. We should focus on building capabilities, resilience, and "heartware" for the future, rather than just going for growth and trying to reach developed country status. To work through these ideas will require fundamental changes in our approach. We need time to build a consensus about the need for such a change of course, and to work out what exactly the new course should be. We are already taking major initiatives in education. The public sector is actively thinking of the future and also for the future, preparing for scenarios which we hope to avoid but which we must be ready to cope with. But this is only half the story. The other half depends on Singaporeans feeling a responsibility to contribute their ideas, and committing themselves to participate actively in their communities and in national life to make our vision of a best home a reality. Singapore is about people. It is only in Singapore that we, as Singaporeans, have the freedom to build the kind of environment we want to live in, work and bring up our children. That is what being an independent, sovereign nation means. In no other country will we have the same opportunity to shape a country we can be proud of. I hope that Singaporeans from all walks of life will rise to the challenge and make the difference for Singapore and for your children. Singapore 21 is about a Home for a People, not a hotel. A Home where we feel comfortable with ourselves, where we look after one another, where everyone makes the country succeed. Our vision for Singapore is not houses of bricks and mortar, but homes with hearts and dreams.”
“We need a civil society to mobilise our people's energies and talents, and to create a cohesive and resilient nation. When people participate actively and become involved in community and national issues, they build ties among themselves and bond to the country. We must change the mindset that only a few leaders at the top of the system need to think and take responsibility for social and national issues, while the rest of society can simply mind their own business and go about their daily lives. All Singaporeans must feel a responsibility for solving local issues and shaping their own communities. They should not wait for the Government to solve every problem. The Government itself must be prepared to take a step back and perhaps even a back seat, especially on local community issues, and allow some free play to develop. One good way to do this is for concerned citizens to get involved in voluntary work or in the running of their own local communities, through the Town Councils, CDCs or RCs. Singapore's political life must evolve in the direction of greater participation by the people, more willingness to shoulder responsibilities, and more giving to the country than taking. Conclusion In future, the competitive advantage of nations will lie in their people - how a society is organised to maximise and mobilise the potential of its people, and how it serves the material, spiritual, intellectual, political, social and emotional needs of its citizenry. The ideas I have put forward are to develop a cohesive and resilient nation, a people fully equipped to compete in the future and a people with emotional stakes in Singapore.”
“So we must distinguish ourselves as a society where the different races respect and accept one another, and the majority makes room for the minority to succeed. Everyone, Singaporeans and visitors alike, regardless of their cultural or religious background, should feel comfortable in Singapore. But while recognising and celebrating the importance of each community's heritage, our shared national identity must come before our cultures of origin. As our pledge reminds us, first and foremost, we must be Singaporeans, one united people regardless of race, language or religion. And we must guard against individuals or institutions which would stir up religious or racial divisions in society. As a society, we must be willing to respect and accept a greater diversity of ideas. Why do some societies, like the US, for example, produce more ideas and innovation than others? Education systems have something to do with it. But the broader social environment is critical in supporting creativity and innovation, whether in the arts, sciences, research, industry or politics. We have to move beyond tolerance, to respect the different cultures in our midst, and to gain strengths from diverse ideas. But there must be individual responsibility and a sense of accountability to the broader community. Rights and duties are inseparable, two sides of the same coin. This is the way to become a cosmopolitan, creative and cultivated society, which attracts top talent from all over the world. Beyond Leadership - Civil Participation Outstanding leadership and sound government will always be crucial. The government has to provide the best conditions for security and economic growth. Yet leadership and government will not be enough.”
“But beyond our efforts to improve the lives of all Singaporeans, my hope is that Singapore will become a society where every citizen not only strives to get ahead, but also feels a responsibility to share success. Many of our founding fathers, like Tan Tock Seng, Lee Kong Chian, Govindasamy Pillai (a founder member of the Ramakrishna Mission), and Haji Ambo Sooloh (a Bugis merchant and philanthropist), used their wealth to benefit others, not to flaunt their success or for personal glory, but out of a deep sense of responsibility to their community. They built schools and hospitals, and helped the needy and the weak. We must keep this noble tradition alive. Beyond donating to charity, every Singaporean, no matter what his station in life, can do something to help others and his community, whether through voluntary welfare organisations, or simply by getting involved in community work in his neighbourhood. Not all well-off Singaporeans contribute to charities. Some feel that by paying taxes, they are already subsidising the poor and needy. But paying tax is the legal obligation of every citizen. It is not philanthropy. It offers nothing extra for the community. We need to change the mindset of such people, to get them to feel that they owe a social responsibility to others for their success and affluence. Beyond Tolerance - Respect and Gain Strength from Diversity In many societies, race, language or religion will take on increasing importance either as a rallying cry or as an anchor in an uncertain and fast changing world. Look at the divisions Pauline Hanson has generated in Australia. But Singapore is a multi-cultural, multi-religious society.”
“We must always give the ablest and most committed the scope and the support to develop to their full potential so that they can contribute their maximum to society. But we must also develop all Singaporeans to their full potential. Countries with a larger population can afford to use their human resources less efficiently. But Singapore's talent pool is so small that we cannot afford any human wastage. Our system must not focus primarily on developing our top talent, but must value and develop people at all levels. Beyond the Drive to Succeed - Passion for What We Do Singapore was built by hardworking people who had the drive and determination to succeed. We must not let this work ethic weaken. But beyond the drive to get ahead, we must cultivate a sense of pride in our work and a passion for what we do. Many Americans have this quality. They have an intense interest and passion for whatever field they are in, which drives them to develop true expertise and to push the frontiers of their field. This quality has made them world leaders in many new technologies and disciplines. This is what R&D and innovation are about - people who pursue their interests and ideas with a passion, people prepared to be different from others - because they are thinking of new things. We must foster this sense of passion, this pride in work, both in the schools and in the workplace. So beyond the drive to succeed, we must have passion for what we do. Beyond Success - A Sense of Service The Government has shared the fruits of growth with all Singaporeans, and will continue to do so.”
“Our concept of competitiveness must therefore recognise that the robust and successful societies of the future will be those which place people at the centre. Countries and societies which can develop and mobilise the people, and serve the human needs, goals and aspirations of their citizens will have a lasting edge. Singapore must be such a society. Towards Singapore 21 There are several elements that I believe we need to adopt to achieve this. Beyond Top Talent - Value and Develop People at all Levels In a global, knowledge-based economy, countries which attract and mobilise human talent will thrive. We have to continue to draw in talent, but we must also continue to invest heavily in the education and training of our own people. We aim to maximise the talents and abilities of all Singaporeans, not just the best and the brightest, but every individual. Not everyone is equally talented. But every person has some useful ability. Our education system must therefore not only groom our top talent, but also recognise and develop a range of skills and abilities at every level. We have begun to move in this direction. Not everyone can perform equally well. But every person who tries his best should have his contribution recognised. Our attitude should not be that only a few people at the top add value, while the rest only run the machinery. Every Singaporean has a contribution to make to his job, his company, his community and his country. But equally, he has a responsibility to keep himself employable and productive through continuous learning, and to play his part to the best of his ability. This does not mean moving away from meritocracy.”
“Who would have anticipated the current strain in relations with Malaysia, a year or even six months ago? What will hold Singaporeans here? Affluence and prosperity cannot be the only glue holding us together. If Singaporeans are just economic animals, materialistic with no sense of belonging, they will be like migratory birds, seeking their fortunes in other lands when the season changes. They will have no cause to fight for, no community to live for, no country to defend or die for, only the pragmatic desire to get on and get rich. If it ever comes to this, Singapore will not survive as a sovereign nation. To meet this problem, and other challenges now unknown, it will not do just to make minor course corrections, small improvements to a generally working model. We need a new vision for Singapore, an ideal, a fresh mindset. We need to move beyond material progress, to a society which places people at its very centre. Singapore 21 is my team's vision for the future of Singapore, a Singapore where people make the difference, where each citizen is valued, a Singapore which is Our Best Home, an ideal home which we will all help to build. Singapore 21 is about what the people of Singapore want to make of this country. More than a house, Singapore must be a home. The Government can provide the conditions for security and economic growth. But in the end, it is people who give feeling, a human touch, a sense of pride and achievement, the warmth. So beyond developing physical infrastructure and hardware, we need to develop our social infrastructure and software. In Sony Corporation, they call this "heartware". We need to go beyond economic and material needs, and reorient society to meet the intellectual, emotional, spiritual, cultural and social needs of our people.”
“Increasingly, Singapore will have to compete with both developed and developing countries for talent and investment. We are not only competing with Kuala Lumpur, Bangkok, Hong Kong, Shanghai or Taiwan but also Seattle, Atlanta, Dublin and Sydney for investments. Unless we can develop into a world-class city, with capabilities equal to the best anywhere, we are just a tiny speck on the world map. We have to make it to the World Cup finals. Besides economic competition, Singapore faces a far more fundamental challenge: rooting our best and brightest in this country. A recent survey by MasterCard found that one in five Singaporeans wishes to emigrate, despite Singapore's economic success. I am not sure how much to believe this survey. The Good Conduct Certificates issued to those who had emigrated, the data did not suggest that there is a serious uptrend, nor is there a downtrend, in emigration. In 1987, 3,825 Good Conduct Certificates (GCCs) were issued; 1990, went down to 2,528; 1996, 2,240. But, nevertheless, there is enough anecdotal evidence to suggest a potential problem. Choo Wee Khiang tells me that a friend of his was dismayed and shocked that his 15-year old daughter had talked to him about emigrating. So our key challenge is to build ties among the people and emotional bonds to this country. Deepening our sense of belonging will be a priority in this term of my Government. Response How should we respond? We can continue as we are, pursuing our current strategies, perhaps with some minor course corrections, hoping that National Education will grow a stronger sense of national identity. If we do this, it is quite likely that we will enjoy several more good years. But what if we should suffer an external shock and run into economic difficulties?”
“Many developed countries are finding this balancing act very difficult. While the OECD countries are leaders in the knowledge-intensive industries, many are also experiencing uneven or declining education standards, high unemployment and social tension, especially in Europe. Growing juvenile crime, racial tensions, structural unemployment, job insecurity, an unsustainable state welfare burden, and loss of confidence in the future are straining their social fabric. The experience of the developed countries holds lessons for us. They suggest the kinds of problems we may face in the future. Social divisions are not a major problem for Singapore today. But divisions may grow as our society matures and income gaps widen. We need to nip these issues in the bud. The most pressing challenge facing Singapore today is to retain our competitive edge. Keen regional competitors are breathing down our neck. Our neighbours are aggressively upgrading their infrastructure. They are directly competing with our traditional economic strongholds, our port and airport. They are also seeking niches in the new knowledge-based industries, like Information Technology. Our neighbours have the advantages of cheaper land and abundant labour, and the pull of larger domestic markets. They can copy successful strategies and acquire the latest technologies. But we still have the competitive edge of a better trained and disciplined workforce, higher productivity, and a more conducive total business environment. We can meet the regional competition. But merely outperforming our neighbours is not good enough, nor is it our goal. Winning the Malaysia Cup or even the South-East Asian Games championship may make us the best in the region, but we are still nobody in the world.”
“Twenty years ago, as a young MP, I had no idea that Information Technology would so change the way we live, or that Communism would collapse in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe so abruptly and benignly. Given that changes will be even more rapid and drastic in the future, what kind of a world will we live in in 20 years' time? How do we prepare Singaporeans for this unknown future? First, we need to understand, as far as we can, the nature of the game unfolding. Second, Singaporeans must have a goal to chase and a vision to carry this country forward. Challenges Let me talk first about the basic challenges facing every country, developed and developing, and then the challenges facing Singapore in particular. All countries face a dual challenge. First is the economic challenge to maintain growth, create good jobs and attract investments. All countries have to cope with an increasingly integrated and competitive world. To do well, their societies must motivate and reward risk-takers and entrepreneurs, the highly skilled and the more able. Second is the social challenge to maintain social cohesion and to manage growing income differences between the highly educated and skilled and those who are less skilled and less able. The fast pace of technological change, coupled with the mobility of investments across international borders will mean constant change in a country's socio-economic structure. Industries will boom or bust. Companies will migrate or down-size. This will cause insecurity and social turbulence. Governments will come under pressure. Thus France has lurched from Left to Right and Right to Left, all within five years. All countries will have to balance these two imperatives: economic competitiveness and social cohesion.”
“I will also ask the House to support our investing in the Singapore sector of the infrastructure for the fast train service. Singapore 21 - A Vision for a New Era Mr Speaker, Sir, now let me turn to Singapore 21 - our Vision for a new era. In January 1992, during the debate on the President's Address, I asked the House, "To judge my Government not by what I say or can accomplish straight-away, but by what my Government will achieve at the end of its term of office. Edusave, independent schools, Medifund, home improvements - they need four to five years to show everyone what there is in it for them. If we go for short term, small benefits, and miss the long term, big benefits, we will lose our strategic way. This will spell ruin for Singapore." We went the full term. We delivered on our promises. The people gave their verdict. They liked our programme. That was the main reason for our success in the General Election, not the corny excuses given by Mr Jeyaretnam for his defeat. Today, I am again asking this House to take a long view, to look soberly into the future, weigh the strategic choices and make the right strategic decision. This House will lead Singapore into the next millennium. It has been self-renewed. It should be a future-oriented House, one with ideas, one which will deliver. We know one thing about the future. Globalisation will mean more intense competition. Many MPs have emphasised the need to sharpen our competitiveness to stay ahead. The Information Technology revolution will speed up the process of change itself. We must keep on learning and be quick to adapt to changes. But there are many things in the future we do not know, and cannot possibly foresee.”
“Mr Chiam See Tong's proposal of an economic union with Malaysia is not as ridiculous as it sounds. He got his economic history of our Malaysia days wrong, and he has ignored important non-economic factors, but the economic logic of his proposal is correct. However, cooperation takes two willing parties. I do not think this is the right time to talk about an economic union when bilateral relations are strained and we are still having difficulties implementing specific items of cooperation. Mr Speaker, Sir, Singapore and Malaysia share a symbiotic relationship. I fully subscribe to Dr Mahathir's philosophy of "prosper-thy-neighbour". It is an important way to strengthen our two countries' symbiotic relationship and help each other to become developed. The electric train, when it comes about, will be more than a physical connection; it will be a powerful symbol of the two countries' inter-connectedness on the fast track to success. I have another reason for telling the House the details of my discussion with Dr Mahathir on the POA and the electric train. Whatever the present strains in our relationship, I support Dr Mahathir's vision of a fast train network connecting Singapore to Kuala Lumpur, and all the way to Kunming. I hope that the fast train service will succeed. But I need Malaysia's help to vary the terms of the POA so that the fast train can operate in Singapore. I have suggested how this can be done through a new framework of wider cooperation. I do not know at this stage when the new era of cooperation will come, or whether it will come. I hope it will come. I shall work for it. If it materialises, I will have to come to Parliament to vary the terms of the POA, and seek your approval for the new electric railway line.”
“Fourth, the Malaysian proposal as conveyed in writing by Malaysian officials actually described a commuter train from Tanjong Pagar to Kulai, with intermediate stops in Singapore, and not a high speed electric train from city centre in Singapore to city centre in Kuala Lumpur as envisaged by Dr Mahathir. Conclusion on POA Mr Speaker, Sir, the framework of wider cooperation I proposed to Dr Mahathir is designed to overcome the difficulties I had highlighted. I want good relations with Malaysia. I wish to be helpful. But it is not possible for me, or for any Prime Minister of Singapore, to simply set aside the POA which is an international agreement solemnly entered into between two Governments. To do so would undermine the sanctity of all the agreements and treaties Singapore has concluded in the past or will sign in the future. However, provided there is a framework of wider cooperation which includes long-term indefinite supply of water to Singapore, I believe I will have a convincing reason to carry my Cabinet colleagues, Parliament, and the people of Singapore, first, to vary the POA to meet Malaysia's requirements, and, second, to invest in the Singapore sector of the infrastructure for the high speed train to help make the train service financially viable. I believe both countries have much to gain by working together for mutual benefit. I firmly believe that neighbours must live together in harmony and help each other to do better and improve the standard of living of their people. If Singapore and Malaysia can embark on a new era of cooperation, we will signal to the present and future generations that we have discarded the old historical and emotional baggage in favour of fruitful, mutually beneficial cooperation.”
“Second, because electrification of the existing railway would mean extensive changes, the electric train service would amount to a new railway. Under the Railways Act, Parliament's approval has to be granted before the new train service can begin. Under section 3 of the Railways Act, the Malaysians would first have to deposit their railway scheme with the Secretary to the Cabinet. The President, on the advice of the Cabinet, can then provisionally approve or reject the railway proposal. If the President approved, details of the scheme must be deposited with the Chief Surveyor for public inspections and objections within three months. Next, the plans and the objections, if any, have to be presented to Parliament and considered and approved or amended by Parliament. Third, the overhead catenary system proposed by the Malaysians is unsuitable for a densely built up city like Singapore. It is against our planning rules. The Singapore Government has spent millions of dollars to bury all our telephone and power cables underground. It has not allowed the Mass Rapid Transit and the Light Rail Transit to use overhead cables for aesthetic and safety reasons. The catenary system uses a very high voltage of 25,000 volts. This poses a safety risk and causes extensive electromagnetic interference in the surrounding areas. We had thus proposed the use of a third rail system which is visually less intrusive and allows for a smooth ride given the operating speeds here. I would like to add that for the same reasons, trains in Europe commonly use the catenary system in the countryside and switch to the third rail system in the city.”
“The station at Tanjong Pagar is scruffy, hemmed in by a flyover and the container docks in front. There is limited room for expansion. More importantly, the city centre had already moved away from Tanjong Pagar. I proposed a fresh approach. I offered three alternative sites for the Tanjong Pagar train station and a new train route. These sites are at Newton, Suntec City near Marina Centre and Marina South. I felt that any of these three sites was superior to Tanjong Pagar. Dr Mahathir agreed to consider these three alternatives. The new train route would also free the three parcels of land under the POA plus the Bukit Timah land for joint development. PM's letter to Dr Mahathir dated 21st December 1996 I wrote to Dr Mahathir on 21st December 1996 elaborating on the idea of alternative stations to Tanjong Pagar. I said that Singapore would contribute significantly to the cost of building the new infrastructure - the new station, a new train route - if it was better than the existing route - and the third rail in place of catenaries. Singapore would invest in the infrastructure for the Singapore sector to help make the fast train service financially viable. A group of Malaysian officials came to Singapore in February 1997 to view the three alternative sites. Recap of why we could not agree to Malaysia's proposed electric train project Mr Speaker, Sir, to put things in perspective, let me explain why we could not agree to Malaysia's electric train project on the terms originally proposed. First, under the POA, both sides have agreed that Malayan Railway would vacate Tanjong Pagar. Therefore, the proposal for the new electric train service to the station at Tanjong Pagar was inconsistent with the POA.”
“I explained that a new water agreement would help me to overcome the political objections and the legal restrictions posed by the POA. However, I acknowledged that Malaysia had to ascertain first that it has enough water to meet its own long term requirements. I also used the opportunity to inform him that we could not allow the building of gantries or catenaries for the electric train. The Singapore Government had not allowed even its own MRT to build gantries above ground because they would be an eyesore in a city state like Singapore. PM's letter to Dr Mahathir dated 18th March 1996 Immediately after our meeting, Dr Mahathir spoke to the Singapore and Malaysian press. He told them that Malaysia was ready to study how it could supply water to Singapore if it had enough to meet its own long term requirements. I wrote to Dr Mahathir on 18th March 1996 to follow up, and to express my appreciation for what he had told the press. Dr Mahathir's reply to PM dated 1st April 1996 In his reply on 1st April 1996, Dr Mahathir assured me that Malaysia was prepared to supply Singapore with water if its water resources are in excess of its growing needs. He also said that he had instructed KTM to minimise the use of gantries and level crossings by using a third rail and either overhead or underground crossings. He recognised that this could increase costs but aesthetic considerations must be given every importance. Meeting on 24th November 1996: A fresh approach When I next met Dr Mahathir during the APEC Leaders Summit in Manila on 24th November 1996, I reaffirmed that it was for him to decide if he wanted the train station for the new electric railway to remain in Tanjong Pagar. But I also suggested that Tanjong Pagar is not a suitable site for the fast train service.”
“Meeting on 15th December 1995 in Bangkok Two weeks later, I met Dr Mahathir again on 15th December 1995 in Bangkok at the ASEAN Summit. At our bilateral meeting, I informed him that my Cabinet was supportive of the electric proposal within a framework of wider cooperation. I proposed that this framework of wider cooperation could include a long term indefinite supply of water to Singapore. Once this was agreed upon, Malaysia could decide on the terminal point of the new railway in Singapore within its railway lands. The terminal point could be at Tanjong Pagar, as Dr Mahathir wanted. But should Malaysia decide to move the railway station from Tanjong Pagar to Woodlands, the Singapore Government, notwithstanding the terms of the POA, would agree to the joint development of KTM land in Bukit Timah, in addition to the agreed three parcels of land referred to in the POA. Dr Mahathir replied that he would look at the matter closely. Meeting on 2nd March 1996 in Bangkok Dr Mahathir and I next met in Bangkok on 2nd March 1996. The setting was the inaugural ASEM meeting (Asia-Europe Meeting). At our bilateral meeting, I emphasised that our cooperation on the electric train project and the long term supply of water would serve as two important symbols in bilateral relations. I told him candidly that although water was not an immediate issue for Singapore, an agreement by Malaysia to meet Singapore's long term water needs beyond the life of the present water agreements would remove the perception in Singapore that water may be used as a leverage against Singapore. It would be a powerful signal that our two countries are embarking on a new era of cooperation.”
“I gave considerable thought to ways to overcome the problem. Meeting on 2nd December 1995 in Singapore The opportunity came when Dr Mahathir visited Singapore and called on me on 2nd December 1995. He presented his vision of a fast inter-city electric train that would run from Singapore to Kuala Lumpur to Kunming. He wanted to keep the railway station at Tanjong Pagar. I was supportive of his proposal for a city to city fast train link. All great cities in Europe are linked by fast trains. Travelling by train from city to city is convenient and popular. A fast train link between Singapore and Kuala Lumpur would be an attractive and viable alternative to air and road travel. I gave Dr Mahathir my full support for his proposed electric train project. However, I explained that I had to act within the terms of the POA, which governed all issues affecting KTM land in Singapore. (KTM is the new corporate name for Malayan Railway.) I pointed out that the electric train service would require a variation of the POA. I further explained that I could overcome the political and legal difficulties of varying the POA only within a framework of wider cooperation between Singapore and Malaysia. I recalled his "prosper-thy-neighbour" philosophy and said that the framework could include Malaysia selling Singapore water for the long term, ie, beyond 2061 when the second Water Agreement with Johor expires. My idea was that with a new water agreement, I would be able to overcome whatever difficulties posed by the POA for the electric train. I felt confident that this would enable me to convince my Cabinet, and later Parliament, to vary the terms of the POA to meet Malaysia's needs for the electric train.”
“I subsequently learnt that Dr Mahathir was unhappy that the Malayan Railway land at Bukit Timah had not been included for joint development in the POA. But I could not simply set aside the POA. The POA was a formal agreement between two countries that had been signed by Tun Daim and Mr Lee Kuan Yew on behalf of both Governments. Meeting on 28th October 1991 in Harare About a year after the signing of the POA, I met Dr Mahathir in Harare in October 1991. That was when I had my first inkling of problems with the POA. Dr Mahathir stated that he would like to develop commercially the MRA land at Bukit Timah, something not provided for in the POA. His idea was to use the station and the railway track to Jurong for a few years. After that when the Bukit Timah railway station was no longer required, the station could be shifted to Woodlands. I suggested that it was commercially more viable to shift the railway station to Woodlands in one step instead of two steps. I added that we had decided to extend our MRT to Woodlands and if the railway station were to be built at Bukit Timah, it might have to relocate to Woodlands in just a matter of years. Meeting on 6th September 1994 in Langkawi Three years later, in September 1994, I called on Dr Mahathir in Langkawi. Again, he raised the commercial development of the Bukit Timah site. I replied that I could not deviate from the terms spelt out in the POA, which did not allow for the joint development of the Bukit Timah site. I said that it was clear from the POA that other than the three specified parcels, the Bukit Timah site and remaining Malayan Railway land would be returned to Singapore. I left that meeting disturbed and worried that things were not going right on the issue of the Malayan Railway land.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the Minister for Law has just given us the background to the Points of Agreement (POA), and explained the difficulties in working the agreement. These difficulties are part of the reasons behind the current strain in Malaysia-Singapore relations. Let me add to what Minister Jayakumar has said, but first let me bring you back to June 1990. I told the House then (I was then Deputy Prime Minister) that I had asked Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew to "settle old accounts as I prefer to open a new era unfettered by old thinking". By that, I meant settling outstanding issues like the railway land. I wanted a clean slate on which new relations free from historical and emotional baggage could be written. It was for this reason that Mr Lee wrapped up the negotiations on the Malayan Railway land before he stepped down as Prime Minister. In fact, he signed the "Points of Agreement on Malayan Railway Land in Singapore" with the then Malaysian Finance Minister, Tun Daim Zainuddin, as his very last act in office on the day he retired as Prime Minister, ie, 27th November 1990. He did so with my full support. The POA provided for Singapore and Malaysia to set up a joint venture company, M-S Pte Ltd, to jointly develop three parcels of Malayan Railway land, in Tanjong Pagar, Kranji and Woodlands. Malaysia would have a 60% share, and Singapore 40%. We wanted Malaysia to have a significant long term stake in Singapore as this would give both sides an abiding interest in good bilateral relations, and in the prosperity and success of the other. The proposed high quality property developments by M-S Pte Ltd would give Malaysia such a stake.”
“Mr Lee Yock Suan: The 50% cap at Phase 2B was introduced in the 1995 Registration Exercise. The objective of limiting the available places at Phase 2B to 50% of the places available after Phase 2A is to give both groups of parents viz those with and those without school connections, an equal chance to register their children in popular schools. During the Primary One Registration exercise this year, balloting was carried out in only 4 out of 30 mission schools at Phase 2B. They are CHIJ (Toa Payoh), CHIJ (St Nicholas Girls'), Methodist Girls' School and St Anthony's Primary School. Only 79 children failed to gain admission to these mission schools during the ballotting at Phase 2B. Except Anglo-Chinese Primary School which closed registration at Phase 2A, all the other mission schools had more places for Phase 2B than applicants. At the end of Phase 2B, there were more than 1,000 vacant Phase 2B places in these mission schools. The Ministry will not therefore increase the number of places at Phase 2B for Christian children from 50% of available places to 60% or introduce a Phase 2B (Supplementary) for the unsuccessful children. CHILD ABUSE 4. Dr Kanwaljit Soin asked the Minister for Home Affairs what is the number of documented cases of children who have died or suffered serious injuries from abuse or neglect from 1991 to 1995.”
“The Government found it necessary to create GRCs because with all constituencies racially integrated, but with voters still preferring candidates who belong to the same race as themselves, minority candidates were finding themselves at a disadvantage compared to Chinese candidates. There was a risk that one day no minority candidates would be returned to Parliament. This would have caused grave disquiet to the minority communities and threatened the stability of our political system. Women candidates do not face the same problem. The difficulty with getting enough women MPs is not so much getting them elected, as it is finding suitable female candidates in the first place. This is a worldwide phenomenon. Even in the US and Europe, except for Scandinavia, most legislators are men. The Nominated MP scheme has helped us get more women into Parliament, because the demands on Nominated MPs are less onerous than on elected MPs. The PAP will make greater efforts to find suitable women to field in elections. But setting a quota on the number of women MPs, through the GRC or a similar scheme, will neither encourage nor help qualified women to enter politics. ADMISSIONS INTO MISSION SCHOOLS 3. Assoc. Prof. Walter Woon asked the Minister for Education, in relation to the admission of Christian children to mission schools, whether he will consider increasing the number of places available under Phase 2B of 1997's primary school admission exercise to 60% of the places available after Phase 2A and, if not, whether he will consider introducing a Supplementary Phase 2B so that children who do not get admission to the mission school of their choice under Phase 2B may be admitted to other mission schools which have places remaining.”
“There is no need to do so. Individuals are appointed to such commissions, committees and councils on their own merit, to represent particular interest groups, or for other reasons specific to the panel concerned. The Government should not interfere with these arrangements. Some countries have gone far in requiring proportional representation of a wide range of "minorities" in university admissions, employment, advancement, political office, etc. They call this "affirmative action" and "equal opportunity". The results have not always been happy. Singapore should stick to the system of meritocracy which has worked well and is fair to all citizens. WOMEN REPRESENTATION IN PARLIAMENT 2. Dr Kanwaljit Soin asked the Prime Minister why gender is not considered as important as ethnicity in the composition of a well-represented Parliament and why the under-representation of women cannot be considered within the same framework as that of ethnicity as a consideration in the composition of Group Representation Constituencies.”
“Now, Sir. I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Third time." Mr Speaker: The Question is, "That the Bill be now read a Third time." A Division will be taken to ascertain that the Third Reading of the Bill is supported by the votes of not less than two-thirds of the total number of elected Members of Parliament, which is 54 Members, pursuant to Article 5(2) of the Constitution. The Clerk will ring the Division Bells. Question put, "That the Bill be now read a Third time." Division taken: Ayes, 64; Noes, 4; Abstention, Nil. Ayes Abdullah Tarmugi Ahmad Mattar Beng Kian Lam, Arthur Chandra Das, S. Chay Wai Chuen Chen Koon Lap, Kenneth Chen Seow Phun, John Chew Heng Ching Chin Harn Tong Ch'ng Jit Koon Chong, Charles Choo Wee Khiang Goh Chee Wee Goh Chok Tong Goh Choon Kang Harun bin A. Ghani Ho Kah Leong Ho Peng Kee Ho Tat Kin Ibrahim bin Othman Jayakumar. S. Ker Sin Tze Koh Lip Lin Koo Tsai Kee Lau Ping Sum Lau Teik Soon Lee Boon Yang Lee Hsien Loong Lee Kuan Yew Lee Yiok Seng Lee Yock Suan Leong Horn Kee Lew Syn Pau Lim Boon Heng Lim Chun Leng, Michael Lim Hng Kiang Loh Meng See Low Seow Chay Mah Bow Tan Mohamad Maidin B P M Ong Chit Chung Othman bin Haron Eusofe Ow Chin Hock Peh Chin Hua Sidek bin Saniff Sinnakaruppan, R. Tan Cheng Bock Tan Keng Yam, Tony Tan Soo Khoon Teo Chee Hean Teo Chong Tee Umar Abdul Hamid Vasoo, S. Wan Soon Bee Wong, Aline K. Wong Kan Seng Wong Kwei Cheong Yao Chih, Matthias Yap Giau Cheng, Eugene Yeo Cheow Tong Yeo Toon Chia Yeo, George Yong-Boon Yu-Foo Yee Shoon Zulkifli bin Mohammed Noes Cheo Chai Chen Chiam See Tong Ling How Doong Low Thia Khiang Abstention Nil”
“So, in our case, we therefore would not go in for a system which will throw up very weak governments.”
“We have already made changes for that through the Non-Constituency MPs. It is meant for minority views to be represented in Parliament should the situation arise when no party, other than the ruling Party, wins a seat in Parliament. Or if it wins less than three, it would also be entitled to one or two NCMP seats. And we have also introduced the Nominated MPs. Again, it is to allow views, other than those of the ruling Party, to be reflected in Parliament. We are against proportional government for the simple reason that it will quickly degenerate into votes along racial line. Because if you specify, say, a certain percentage which will qualify a party to have a candidate returned to Parliament, you are going to have some parties appealing to a particular racial group, because you have got to fix the percentage at a fairly low level, say, 5% and above. Then you begin to compete along racial line. Secondly, even if you solve that problem, you will end up with a weak government, a coalition government, as you can see in the case of many European countries. Because if you go on proportional government, the first few are likely to be elected. So the candidates will judge for themselves. If they stand for election for a particular party and that party is unlikely to win more than a certain percentage of votes, they may not get elected. So they may form their own party. And you will end with a coalition party which will be a much weaker form of government for the country. In the case of Singapore, we have always believed that you need strong government to run the place. You need a strong government to come out with strong policies, which may be unpopular, in the coming election but which we know are right for the future of Singapore.”
“No, it depends on the particular situation. If you look at the system in other countries, they change with time. New Zealand has a first-past-the-post system for many years. In the last election, they have changed it to a mix of single-member constituency, first-past-the-post plus a proportion basis on a party basis. So it is a mix for first-past-the-post plus proportional representation. Japan used to have multi-member constituencies. That means for each constituency, it would have several candidates fighting for several seats in Parliament and you can have several candidates from the same party contesting for the seats in the constituency. Over time, Japan, for its own historical or political reasons, changed that system to a mix of first-past-the-post, single-member constituency plus the proportional representation. So politics has to change to suit the particular time and to anticipate the future. What is the main purpose of any changes that we make? It is to ensure that there will be political stability for the country and, most importantly, to ensure that there will always be good government for the country and for the people.”
“Yes, if he wants to enlarge it to that size, I think he will build on the same principle which I have when I initiated it over here and whatever reasons he has for enlarging it from six to 20-odd. It is again like badminton and tennis. If you want to double the size of the doubles-court, then you have to give the reasons why.”
“If we move into these theoretical five big GRCs, whoever is in charge at that time, must come out with strong arguments to convince the Members of Parliament.”
“They have this in Luxembourg. So theoretically it is possible.”
“I said it depends on judgment because I do not want to draft a set of rules for the CDCs to decide. If I want to draft a set of rules, I might as well let this function be handled by the hospitals or by the universities. The set of rules, if it is left to the Government, will be: if they earn below a certain figure they qualify, and above a certain figure they do not qualify. There is a margin where you require judgment. I will leave it to the people handling the case to judge. Because when you pass this function down to the constituency level, it is likely that somebody in the constituency will know the circumstance of a particular case, whether it is genuine or not. Sometimes his case can be above the financial guideline for giving out assistance but the people in charge will argue for a case and they decide. The Government does not decide. The question is, if such question comes before the CDC from a resident of an opposition ward, how would the CDC decide. I think the CDC will decide fairly.”
“Yes, the CDC will be in charge and the CDC will decide. So whether there is merit in a particular case or not will depend on the judgment of the CDC for that particular constituency.”
“The funds will be handled by the CDCs. They would not be handled by the opposition. But in cases of education and financial assistance, as I have said before, the CDCs are there to forge this community bonding. So even though applicants come from the opposition wards, if they are really poor and they can prove that they are very poor and need assistance, the CDC will handle their case. But that function will be handled by the Government.”
“Second Adviser in charge. But, again, this is for the foreseeable future. I do not know in future how the system will evolve. Again, it is theoretically possible that when we are more confident, in fact, some day in the future, we will merge the two Councils.”
“For the time being, CDCs and Town Councils are two different organisations. When you have a larger Town Council and the town is won by whichever party, that party will be in charge because those are municipal functions which we are quite happy to pass on to the Town Councils. But CDCs are part of the governmental functions. So we are not intending to hand over this governmental function to the opposition. We will hand over to the CDC which can be, in the case of opposition wards, handled by non-MPs in charge.”
“So we bring this particular function down to the community level. That way, over time you build up this relationship and understanding between the people and the members of the CDC will be in charge of the social development and the requirements for assistance in some of these cases. Again, we start off on a modest basis. If the scheme works, with experience, it is my intention, and the Government's intention, to identify more such responsibilities to be handed over to the CDCs.”
“It is the social aspect of the Town Councils. Town Councils are also like bringing Government to the people. The elected MPs are now in charge of certain municipal functions. For the CDCs, I have in mind of allowing them to handle funds to assist the residents in the community. Take, for example, educational bursaries. Bursaries are now handled by the schools or by the universities or the polytechnics. Of course, many CCCs have their own bursary fund. But that is rather inadequate. So my scheme will be for the CDC to give financial assistance to poorer students. For example, university bursaries. Instead of the students from poorer families applying to the university for the bursaries, in future they apply to the CDC for the bursaries. The CDCs will be required to raise some funds from within the community or from without to support the bursary scheme for the poorer students. Of course, the Government will be generous enough to contribute in the ratio of $3 for every dollar raised by the CDC. That way, we have this community effort for the better off to support the less well off because the leaders within a community are required to raise funds to help those who do not have the means to go to university. This is one example. A second example would be in the rendering of financial assistance to poorer families under Medifund. At the moment, they have to apply to the hospitals for their Medifund assistance. Under this CDC scheme, in future, poorer families who cannot afford to pay for their medical care in hospitals will apply to the CDC for assistance. The CDC will be assisted by social workers and the decision whether to give the assistance or not to the applicant rests with the CDC, ie, the local authority and not with the hospitals, which is part of the Government.”
“Ideally the boundary of the CDC should coincide with the boundary of the Town Council. But it need not be so because of this requirement that the town councillors must be Members of Parliament. So you can have opposition Town Councils next to the PAP Town Councils and CDCs may include the opposition wards. It may not quite coincide. But this is the present stage. My own vision is for the CDCs and Town Councils to evolve into one, as suggested by Dr Tan Cheng Bock, that over time, as our population becomes more settled in the various new towns and old towns, they should have a situation where a CDC and Town Council would be in charge of an organic town. At the moment, it is not possible. You will find that the Electoral Boundaries Review Committee has configured the towns in such a way which suit the election purposes but does not quite suit the natural organic town for purposes of administration. But my own ideal will be to move to that situation where you have the Town Council and the CDC coinciding with the town and you have a mayor in charge of a fairly big town. So we have got to let the system evolve because the population movements are not quite yet settled. In my own calculation, it might perhaps take three or four elections before we can have a fairly stable pattern for CDCs and Town Councils. So I would expect quite a few changes in the next one, two, or three elections.”
“That is the question which everybody wants to know. We will announce them fairly soon.”
“Yes. As I said just now, I think for the coming election, by enlarging the size of the GRCs, because we have a much stronger team than the Workers' Party, it will benefit the PAP. But it does not mean that the scheme is not neutral.”
“Likewise, had the opposition parties been doing that, they would not have to worry about all these changes, because, in the ultimate, when you face the people, it is your quality of people that counts, the programmes that you offer, and your ability to persuade people to your candidates, to your programmes. I believe I have covered most of the points under the various groupings. And if I have missed out any points, I will be happy to answer your clarifications or queries further.”
“Or is it to prepare for succession in government, succession in Parliament, good, honest and able people coming into Parliament so that in time to come, they will gain the necessary experience to take over the governance of Singapore? Yes, the coat-tail effect of the Ministers helps in bringing in these new candidates for the PAP. But I am sure Mr Chiam will not deny that he also has some coat-tail effect. And perhaps Mr Low Thia Khiang too, I think, would recognise that he has some coat-tail effect. If he says he does not have, then I will be very sorry to hear that after so many years he does not have any coat-tail effect. So again it is neutral. If it benefits the PAP now, it is because our coat-tail is bigger than yours. And I think there is nothing wrong in having a large coat-tail. I have been to Bukit Gombak and I went quietly to Hougang last weekend. For what purpose? It is to make sure that my coat-tail will bring in some support for the PAP advisers and PAP candidates there. Mr Chiam commented that the opposition is unable to prepare fully because of the late changes. But in the nature of things, concepts always take a long time to refine. And in this case, it took us quite some time, first, to have the idea, gain experience and then for us to refine the idea and, lastly, to put it to Parliament for consideration. But the opposition parties know that an election will be due within five years and from day one, after the election, they should start preparing for the next election, like we do in the PAP. The moment an election is over, we prepare for the next election.”
“It is like playing badminton or tennis. First, you have a singles court, one against the other. Then we decide to play doubles. We enlarge the court. We add one more player. How does that help one party against another? The team that has a stronger pair will win the tennis match or badminton match. And if later on we have a new game, we want to have a foursome for tennis or badminton, we will double the size of the court. But both would then have four players. And whether one or the other wins depends on the strength of the players. So the scheme is objectively, theoretically, if you like, scientifically, neutral. The key is who can produce the better team. I take it that it is a compliment to the PAP when you say that the scheme is biased in favour of the PAP. Because what you are saying is you cannot match us and that we are going to beat you in the GRCs. I think the answer is yes, it is so for now. It benefits the PAP for the coming election because we have got a stronger team. And we have got stronger teams for the different GRCs. Is that the fault of the PAP or is it something which we want to consolidate? I think we want to build up the system which produces strong teams to be in charge of constituencies and in charge of the country. Again, over time, if the opposition is able to build strong teams, I do not think it necessarily favours the PAP. Mr Chiam talks about the PAP bringing in new candidates with strong people in charge in the team. The answer is yes. I think it helps the new candidates that we will bring in. Again, is this for the benefit of the PAP or for the country? Do we bring in new candidates for our own purpose?”