Ho Peng Kee
Singapore
“In this way, new appointees can also cultivate that important X-factor - a judicial temperament. Second, structured in-house seminars where latest developments and emerging areas of the law can be fully ventilated and experience shared. NUS law staff can be enlisted for this purpose.”
“An increasing volume of recent legislation introduced in this House has been adapted not only from the UK but also from Australia and New Zealand. The GST Bill is a good example. Finally, Sir, the ad-hoc appointments of Judicial Commissioners is also a laudable move.”
“Sir, I am concluding my speech. My other point is this. It may surprise Members to know that despite our functions, which are all public oriented, CASE to-date has not yet been granted status of a charity under the Charities Act, despite our asking for it, writing in, and so forth, to the relevant departments.”
“Sir, there may be light all around but some people, nevertheless, still see no picture. When we talk about the big picture, we do not need details. When we talk about the small picture, we need details. The big picture, Sir, is very clear. GST is linked to the reformation of our tax structure. It helps us to bring down our corporate tax.”
“Correct, Sir. Sir, it is important under the Bill, as a matter of policy, that the matter of profiteering should be looked into. As I mentioned earlier, Sir, it has been mentioned many times by not one Minister, but many Ministers, on not one occasion but many occasions, that CASE has a role to play.”
“It also reviews and advocates for legislation on consumer-protection and operates the Good Retailers Scheme in conjunction with STPB and, like many other consumer groups worldwide, publishes its own flagship magazine, The Consumer. Sir, like the hon. Member before me, I see that there is a glimpse of impatience on your face.”
The complete record
Every one of 110 lines we hold for Ho Peng Kee, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 3 of 3.
“- that the Government has categorically said that no child shall be deprived of a place in an independent school if he is so qualified. That is the point we must bear in mind. In any case, I am going to end, not with a Chinese idiom, which I think many Parliamentary colleagues have done, but I end with a quote, a quote from an American President whom all of us know, President John F. Kennedy. This quote in its original form has been very well used, sometimes over-used, but I think my adaptation is quite appropriate on an occasion like this. What I would like to say to all Singaporeans is this: Do not just ask what the Government can do for you. I think that is a legitimate question. Do ask that question and you are right in asking that question, but also ask: what, as fellow Singaporeans, we can do for one another. Finally, and very importantly, ask what we together as Singaporeans and individually as a Singaporean, we can do for Singapore. With this, Sir, I support the motion. 2.15 pm”
“If I am wrong, I stand corrected. But in any case, I would like to remind this House -”
“On the question of politics, Sir, I want to come back to my theme of balance. I think there is a place and a time for everything under heaven. One must certainly get one's priority right. When one is an undergraduate in the university it is certainly not the time to be engaged in politics. I am sure many parents will agree with me. Politics, Sir, is something which is very intense. Politics drains you. I am sure, given the very tight constraints the students face in the university, they know their priorities, they know that in the university it is the time to acquire academic knowledge and social skills so that they can repay their debt which they owe to society later on as a working member of the population. The other point I would like to just mention is that our universities have indeed turned out very fine minds, including that of Prof. Tommy Koh, world-class in his chosen field of diplomacy, despite the illusory shackles that, Mr Chiam says, embrace our universities. One last point is that this morning the Member for Bukit Gombak again raised a hollow cry that there are children who are qualified but are deprived of places in independent schools. I think all of us know this assurance and the Government -”
“I am sure both my NUS colleagues and NTU staff, many of whom are engaged in important research, will take issue with him. I feel somewhat aggrieved also because his remarks do a great disservice to leaders and members of the many active student organisations on the two campuses. I believe Mr Chiam himself recently paid a visit and gave a talk to a very lively audience in the University. If the hon. Member pays a visit to my Hall of residence, I am sure he, like many guests before him, will be quite amazed with the vibrancy and vigour in the Hall. Mr Chiam See Tong: Is politics allowed?”
“Another area, let us challenge and encourage one another to keep fit. Here Mr Ling has brought up the point about kidney patients who, he would have us believe, are a neglected group. This is definitely not true. The Member for Cheng San GRC has very firmly rebutted the point. But in addition, all of us will applaud the good work of the NKF. Incidentally, the President of the NKF is, I believe, the Senior Minister of State for Education and the Patron is I believe the President himself. In addition to the points that the Member for Cheng San GRC raised, the Government also introduced legislation recently where kidney organs are now "in" unless one "opts out". So I certainly cannot say that kidney patients are a neglected lot. In summary, Sir, I urge fellow Singaporeans to maintain a sense of balance and perspective in all that we do. Much has been achieved but more can be achieved. The enduring underlying challenge for Singaporeans is to stay united and to pull together. Let us do this not only for ourselves but for our children and our children's children. Before I close, may I take this opportunity to respond to a point raised by the Member for Potong Pasir. He says that the Government should loosen its grip on the universities and grant it more autonomy. He claims that the Government has put the universities on a leash, and would have us believe that there is fear on the campuses. I think this allegation is unfair and certainly untrue. Moreover, it is sweeping. Like Dr Michael Lim, I feel it deserves a rejoinder. Let me assure him that all is well with our universities. We are not perfect, but neither are we the stifling and mindless institutions that Mr Chiam would have us believe them to be.”
“Having failed to educate the public for so many years, the Government has imposed this ban as a means of last resort. Having said this, Sir, please permit me to make two points, perhaps for the benefit of future exercises of like nature. My first point is this. I feel the ban would have gone down better with the public if notice had been given that the Government was contemplating the ban. The message would then be this: We will ban unless the situation improves and stays improved. This, in my view, would serve two purposes. First, to give the culprits what in law is called a locus poenitentiae or an opportunity to repent. The second purpose and I think, more importantly, to give Singaporeans as a whole, particularly gum chewers who dispose their gum in the proper way, as well as parents, teachers and friends of the recalcitrant chewers, the opportunity to exercise group and peer pressure. I feel that this will enhance people bonding as the concept of mutual accountability and responsibility will be reinforced. Also, it will enhance bonding between Government and people. My second point on the ban is this: Perhaps a short grace period could have been considered for traders to dispose of their stocks. The money involved in each case may not be much, but still it is the thought that counts. Sir, to summarise this third area of concern I say this. Let us continue to open up and be warm to each other as fellow Singaporeans, whether it be in the case of Singaporeans travelling, living or working abroad, or right here in Singapore, in our offices, schools, hostels, karaoke lounges, messes, indeed in public places. Let us sing our National Anthem and our community and national songs with greater gusto, and not just during National Day celebrations.”
“Let us keep the three processes in balance, as we continue our present steady course towards achieving a Singaporean identity. I guess as we go along this process, there is a need to continually focus on these three processes. But here, may I suggest, that more be done to promote better understanding and wider practice of our Shared Values. Secondly, more should also be done to promote greater awareness of how Singaporean pioneers have contributed to the building up of early Singapore. Thirdly, I would like to suggest that highlight be given to our Singaporean distinctives, such as our food, our lifestyle, our colloquial expressions, our pastimes, our leisure pursuits, traditional games and so on. My third area, Sir, is this. I would like to see greater efforts in promoting community life in Singapore. Community life straddles many forms and facets of living in Singapore. It is called for in settings, such as the family, work place, tertiary institutions, in schools, professional or social interest groups, neighbourhoods and so on. Community life requires adjustment and accommodation. Excessive individualism and individualistic behaviour are incompatible with cohesive community life. The President warns against this in his Address. Singaporeans by all means should develop individuality from which creativity springs. After all, everyone is unique. But the rich diversity that nurturing individuality engenders should be balanced with the accommodation of group interests that community life requires. In this context, I support the recent ban on chewing gum. Here, group interests, such as the safety and convenience of MRT commuters, protection of the environment and costs, should rightly prevail.”
“I agree with the present approach of tapping strengths that lie in our rich cultural diversity. Unlike the Member for Potong Pasir, I do not think that this approach would lead to racial segregation or, worse still, discord. Each cultural heritage has something to offer. It serves as an anchor to that community in the midst of a rapidly changing world. In our quest for a Singaporean identity, it is correct that we do not dilute these distinctives and settle for a weak vanilla flavour. Our various cultures are like tributaries originating from the sources of different great rivers, all converging in a lake, each bringing with it rich harvests of marine life, peculiar to that source, a rich diversity but one lake. When cross-fertilisation of the life forms occurs - these life forms in our analogy would represent cultural attributes - well, new forms of marine life emerge which are of a higher order, stronger, more hardy, that is a bonus. Before this happens, each marine life in itself is a rich addition to life in the lake, which is home to all. In the meantime, the lake like Singapore will develop its own distinctives because of its geographic location, because of the quality of its water and so on. However, as we know, discovering one's roots is only one process. Two other processes are involved. One is that Singaporeans are also encouraged to discover each other's heritage, and I think that is important. For knowledge of each other's cultural heritage would lead to yet a third process, an appreciation of the commonalities such as the common values or possible overlapping historical origins of the various cultures. Knowledge leads to understanding, understanding to appreciation, appreciation to harmony.”
“I am sure that Singaporeans will agree that in order to maximise precious space there is a need to prioritise use, and that social and community needs should rightly have precedence over political ones. In any case, Opposition Members are not the only ones who are unhappy. PAP MPs have to make adjustments too. On this point, Mr Ling talked about a contract being formed between him and the Government. Yes, I think any first year law student will know that the acceptance of an offer may lead to a contract. But in any case, without going into the nitty-gritty as to whether indeed there is a contract between him and the Government, I think all of us also know, even as laymen, that before one enters into a contract one must examine the fine print carefully before signing on the dotted line. I am afraid Mr Ling has not done this or, worse still, he has misread the fine print. In complaining or criticising, I say let us maintain a balance. The complainant should not only focus on his rights but also on his duties as well. At the same time, he should also appreciate the rights of the other party. In one clear instance, as consumers, Singaporeans should be prepared to complain when aggrieved. There are retailers in Singapore who deal unfairly with consumers. Whether Singaporeans or tourists, this is unacceptable in a Singapore that prides itself as a shopping paradise. In this regard, echoing the call of the Consumers' Association of Singapore, I urge the Government to set up an office with some of the functions of the Office of Fair Trading in the United Kingdom to deal with such errant retailers. Here, I declare my interest as Vice President of CASE. The second area where we should continue to maintain a balance is in our drive to discover our cultural roots.”
“Sir, I guess I must get used to interruptions by the Member for Potong Pasir. Returning to my point on complaints, I urge Singaporeans to maintain a balance when they criticize the Government. After all, the Government is composed of individuals. They, like us, need affirmation. Let us not take for granted our political leaders. Like teachers, I hope Singaporeans will continue to hold our political leaders in high regard. But please do not get me wrong. I am not saying that we must always agree with the Government. What I am saying is that even if Singaporeans are quick to criticise policies they disagree with, they should be as fearless to speak out for policies they agree with. That is the first point. Secondly, I feel there is an art to complaining. Complaints should not demoralise. No doubt, they should have a chastening effect but the overall impact should be one that builds up. A good feeling is generated that the system has become a better one without personal feelings being unnecessarily hurt. Words should be chosen wisely and one should not over-state one's case. Thirdly, if we are complaining against an existing practice or situation, we should consider the alternatives as part of the process of thinking through. We should put ourselves in the position of the other party and empathise with his concerns. May I suggest that both Mr Cheo, the Member for Nee Soon Central, and Mr Low, the Member for Hougang, and this morning, in fact, the Member for Bukit Gombak, also raised the same point, look dispassionately at the reasons given by HDB as to why MPs cannot have offices at subsidised rates in void decks.”