Hong Hai
Singapore
“Sir, Government has in recent years taken a bold step of restructuring nearly all the public hospitals. As I understand it, the restructuring provides each hospital with a certain amount of autonomy in determining its quality of service and its emphasis on specific areas of excellence.”
“Sir, on a point of clarification. The point on subsidy, if I may clarify, is that the level of subsidy has fallen from previous years. The point I wanted to make was whether it is necessary to reduce the level of subsidies. I do not deny that subsidies still exist. The question was: Is it necessary to reduce them?”
“I would like to thank the Minister and Minister of State for their very comprehensive answers. Since the budget allocated to Health is already so meagre, I do not think we can afford a $100 cut. In the light of that, I withdraw my amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.”
“It is a foolish government that leaves the majority of its people feeling not appreciated or respected for their individual talents and contributions. If these people become plagued by a sense of inferiority or failure, the government too would have failed.”
“If that were to happen, it would do little for our standing as an information centre, or for our own self-esteem. As long as we have a Government that is honest and rules with high standards of integrity, which this Government does, the new Bill will not be subject to abuse.”
“In which case, I shall proceed directly to the questions. I presume there is no quota on the number of questions I may ask! Sir, in proposing the quota system, the Select Committee had opted to leave all implementation details to the Ministry.”
The complete record
Every one of 106 lines we hold for Hong Hai, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 3 of 3.
“I believe he has not to this date renounced the use of force for political objectives. Sir, threats to national security are quite real. For all our economic progress, ours is a fragile and a volatile society. I remember vividly as a child during the school holidays travelling through Johor in the days of the emergency. Communist insurgents lurked in rubber plantations through which we drove. We passed through many security blocks and we saw trucks with bodies of soldiers and innocent victims. I have myself witnessed one racial riot and have been curfewed as buildings around me were burning. Sir, these events happened not so long ago and could happen again if we ever slipped into complacency and relax controls over national security. Sir, in restoring to the Minister for Home Affairs the power of subjective discretion in internal security matters, we are doing no more than to affirm our trust in Cabinet and Parliament. To be sure, the Government can violate our trust and abuse their powers. But are there sufficient safeguards against such abuse? Members in this House have mentioned various safeguards that already exist. I wish to add that ultimately the safeguard is with the people. It is within their power to remove unjust governments by the use of the vote. Cabinet and Parliament cannot afford to forget and has never forgotten that we are accountable to the people for running a fair and just government. Has there been abuse of the ISA to suppress the opposition? The answer is obvious. If we look at the last general election and compare it to previous elections, there have been more opposition candidates in the last election and of better quality.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to speak on the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore (Amendment) Bill and the related amendment to the Internal Security Act. Sir, I am not a lawyer and I am not familiar with legal technicalities. So I would like to limit my remarks to the concerns of the man in the street. The main concern is this. Do the amendments to the Bills affect their civil and political liberties? Are they not subject to abuse without recourse to the courts? Sir, it needs to be emphasized that neither the Internal Security Act nor the proposed amendment to it infringes on the right of every citizen of Singapore to take part in political activities, be he for or against the government in power. The ISA exists as an instrument against those who threaten our security through subversion and acts of violence, and against those who gamble with our way of life, our family and our property. Unfortunately, there has been some confusion in some quarters of the public, and I believe also in the mind of the Member for Potong Pasir: some confusion between a political opponent of the Government and a subversive who seeks to overthrow the Government. A political opponent, Sir, works within the system. A subversive uses unconstitutional means to achieve his objective. This confusion may have arisen partly because some subver- sives in the past had been members of the political opposition. We need to constantly remind ourselves and assure the public that they were arrested not because of their political beliefs but because they posed a threat to national security. The Member for Potong Pasir has mentioned Mr Chia Thye Poh. I believe that the Government has stated its position before that if Chia Thye Poh were to renounce the use of force, he could be considered for release.”
“I thank the Member for Potong Pasir for the correction, "and the hardworking people of Singapore". Thank you.”
“What housewives want is not just food, but also the convenience and the freshness of wet market produce. There may be less costly ways of retailing food. But these may not be as attractive or as satisfactory to housewives. Economic efficiency consists of satisfying rational wants in the least costly way, not of denying these wants. Sir, I am not advocating a soft-headed approach to politics. When our Government overcame the crises of the 1960s, it was with tough and pragmatic politics. We must continue to be hard-nosed and pragmatic. But we do not have to make a virtue of appearing tough. In this regard, it is interesting to note that the American sociologist, Ezra Vogel, whose lectures at Harvard I attended some years ago, characterized our ruling elite as a "macho meritocracy". Vogel is a keen observer of Asian societies, and I thought this characterization of Singapore was quite telling. Sir, we can be tough but we do not have to be macho; we can be firm but gentle; we must be pragmatic, but never lose our sensibilities.”
“Sir, it is not difficult to find other labels and terminology that do violence to our social sensibilities. Permit me another example. Some weeks ago, our newspaper ran a competition for the best term to replace "void deck" for the ground floor of an HDB block. It was a laudable effort and long overdue. Sir, an HDB block is not an array of concrete and voids. It is home to hundreds of people. The ground floor is the venue for social and communal activity and is anything but void. Sir, these may appear to be frivolous examples but they are symptomatic of a certain attitude of mind. Sir, still on the subject of being tuned to the hearts of the people, I would like to touch on government policy. In our zeal to pursue economic excellence, we occasionally lose sight of the ultimate goal of economic activity - the satisfaction of human wants or desires. We should satisfy these desires in an efficient way but we must take into account taste, tradition, and cultural habits. Consider, for example, the issue of wet markets. It is well known that the wet market is an institution beloved of Singapore housewives. To go there in the morning, press the fish to test for freshness, hold up the fruits and vegetables for inspection, and bargain with their favourite butcher are rituals of near-psychic significance. I understand that we want to get rid of wet markets because they are not efficient and are subsidized. But, Sir, if we got rid of all things that were subsidized or inefficient in the narrow cost-sense, we would probably lose our museum, parks and many other social amenities. In brief, Sir, I am arguing that the desire by the Singapore housewives for wet markets is a rational want.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I propose that Mr Abdullah Tarmugi be elected as a Deputy Speaker of this Parliament.”