J. B. Jeyaretnam
Singapore
“And even if he did not know, as the Court of Appeal said, he was wilfully blind to that fact. This cannot be a defence because you cannot prove knowledge on the part of the accused. But what the court can do is to look at all the circumstances of the case and then conclude that it is beyond reasonable doubt that he had that knowledge.”
“Sir, as I now understand it, the payment to Mr Olds was compensation or gratuity, and not salary for the year 2000. If it was gratuity or compensation, may I ask whether there was any term in the contract of employment with him for the payment of gratuity, how long was he employed for, and why did he leave?”
“Maybe there are other areas in which we can think of similar useful schemes so that those who are unable to upgrade themselves sufficiently can still have good employment. It is a complex problem. And I think all Ministries and economic agencies would have to think harder how to address this problem.”
“May I make it clear that I shall talk about the aspects of the case which should have been considered by the court. So, in that way, it might reflect on the court's decision. But I do want the Cabinet, when it comes to advising the President on the clemency petition that had been sent to him, to take these points into consideration.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, with respect, I do not quite understand your restriction because, as I understand it, all court proceedings are now over. So there are no pending proceedings in court. The court is now functus officio. Mr Deputy Speaker: You did not listen to me carefully.”
“Mr Noris Ong Chin Guan asked the Minister for Manpower, given the current economic climate, will his Ministry consider encouraging local employers to give priority to employing Singaporeans who can perform equivalent jobs, including our healthy elderly, rather than to resort to engaging foreign employees too readily.”
The complete record
Every one of 4,058 lines we hold for J. B. Jeyaretnam, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 51 of 82.
“That joke is lost on me, but it does not matter. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, would the Minister enlighten this House about the complaints? I asked about the comments on policies. What happens to these complaints? Are they investigated or are they merely given curt replies?”
“Sir, does the Ministry propose or have in mind any public discussion, not only just from the persons who sent in their comments, but public discussion on the comments or proposals submitted by any member of the public to the Feedback Unit?”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of State. May I know about the comments on Government policies that are received by the Feedback Unit? I understood the Minister of State to say that they are evaluated by officials. The question is, what happens after the evaluation? Is there a discussion initiated with the persons who have submitted the proposals? Or does the Ministry merely write back and say, "Well, we accept your proposals" or "We reject your proposals"?”
“Sir, apart from this clarification from the Indian government, would the Minister say whether any protest was received from any other country?”
“(2) Times Publishing Berhad and the Straits Times Press (1975) Limited, and their Board of Directors and their Solicitors Godwin and Co. be punished under SeCtion 20 of the Parliament (Privileges, Immunities and Powers) Act Cap. 49.' The directors of the companies mentioned are Mr Sellappan Ramanathan of 122 Ceylon Road, Mr Tan Chye Cheng of 7C Balmoral Road, Mr Lyndley John Holloway of 42 Nassim Road, Mr Michael Y. 0. Fam of 36 Fifth Avenue, Mr Tang I-Fang of 20 Jalan Merbok, Mr Benoy Kumar Sen of 23 Cluny Hill and, finally, Mr Peter Lim Heng Loong of 81 Tiong Poh Road #03-53. May I now hand the petition to the Clerk. To lie upon the Table. ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I have the privilege to present a petition to this House. The petition asks the House to declare its privileges and, particularly, the question whether any proceeding before the House or a Committee can be questioned outside the House. The petition is from one Mr Sivadas s/o Sankaran who resides at No. 7, Lorong 7, Toa Payoh #02-245. The petition, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, relates to an action brought by nine persons against Mr Sivadas s/o Sankaran in respect of a memorandum that Mr Sivadas submitted to a Committee of this House. That Committee was the Select Committee appointed to consider the Companies (Amendment) Bill. Arising out of his representation to that Committee, he was subsequently sued in the High Court in respect of his representation made to the Select Committee. Mr Sivadas now asks this House to declare its privileges in respect of proceedings in the House and, particularly, whether his proceeding, and submission of a memorandum is a proceeding in the House, can be questioned elsewhere outside this House. Those, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, are briefly the material allegations in the petition. I will now, as required by Standing Order 17, read the prayer of the petition. It is signed by Mr Sivadas, and perhaps I should have said that the Clerk has certified that it is in accordance with paragraph (5) of Standing Order 17 which deals with petitions. The prayer of the petition is this, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir: 'By this petition I humbly pray that: (1) The legal proceedings commenced against me in Suit No. 5888 of 1984 in the form of a defamation action arising from my taking part in a Parliamentary proceeding be declared a breach of the privileges of Parliament.”
“All right, Sir. 4.30 pm Question put, "That this House regrets the obstructionist attitude of this Government to the growth of a genuine Parliamentary Opposition in Singapore in accordance with the will of the electorate."”
“I thought I have answered that so many times. We have been denied permission to hold our rallies. The Press has been muzzled. That is how you deny the free-play of ideas. The trade unions have been muzzled and manacled. I thought it was quite evident how you have prevented the free-play of ideas. Even in universities, there is the muzzle. The Prime Minister was complaining in 1956 about thought control at the university. What is happening today at the university?”
“Thank you. That reminds me that the First Deputy Prime Minister has not answered any of the questions that I have put to him. But may we have answers to two questions at least, First Deputy Prime Minister, because these are very important questions. Does the Government propose to amend the Constitution to give executive powers to the President? Is the Government going to amend the Constitution to change the one-man-one-vote system? Will he please answer these two questions, at least? And what was his question to me?”
“Because, since 1981, there is a new spirit in our people. There is a new awakening. And here is a chance for us to start anew again. Because, I am sorry to say, we have failed. As the Prime Minister put it in 1966, we have failed in this vital test to create a democracy. So we can start afresh. The question is, are we going to start afresh or are we going to continue along the same road? That is what I tried to bring up in this motion. Finally, before I sit down, because there will be a vote on this, may I give a piece of advice to the Member for Kolam Ayer, and that is that a little learning can be very dangerous. He ventured into the proper role of conduct of lawyers and then he ventured into some constitutional questions. I would tell him that he should perhaps study a little bit more before he embarks on these things.”
“You have got to trust our leaders and our workers and I am sure they have their sense of responsibilities and they will not fail the people of Singapore, if you only trust them. But, apparently, the People's Action Party is not prepared to trust our people of Singapore. The People's Action Party and its leaders take the view that only they and they alone know what is good and what is right and only they have a sense of responsibility. Nobody else has a sense of responsibility. Why has there been a brain drain from this country? The Prime Minister mentioned this two years ago or three years ago. Why? Singapore is a good place materially, especially if you are a professional. There are many golf clubs. You can go around playing golf. You can have a good life, and yet they leave. Why? Because they find it inhibiting, inhibiting to their personality as human beings. That is the question that is at stake in this motion, not whether you should give the Anson MP special privileges. That is not the point in this debate. The point is, what is the direction that we are taking? The Member for Kolam Ayer asked how the Prime Minister after uttering those words in 1956 in three years could have become the Prime Minister and has continued till today. I thought I gave the answer yesterday. The answer is because he used very effectively, totally, the means that he outlined in his speech in 1956 and which he complained that the then government was using against him and his Party. That is how this Government has managed to retain itself in power from 1959 onwards. I say that quite seriously. The question is, how long will this go on? The question is being asked, not by me in this House. The question is being asked outside, in the market place.”
“Well, I will be coming to that as well one of these days. You will be asked about it. The other institution, if I may call it, of democracy is the trade unions. Again, no mention has been made about this Government's policy or future policy towards trade unionism in this country. There you have it, I am afraid, Members of Parliament, an inability to grasp what is at stake in the motion. Because unless you have all these institutions free to play their part, you are not going to get a constitutional Opposition in this country. That must be grasped. It is no good saying, "Because we have non-constituency MPs sitting in Parliament, we have got an Opposition." It is a farce. It is a phoney. It has been said that trade unions have a role to play besides looking after the welfare of their workers. They, as I said once before, have a wider role and a debt to society. This has been said in Poland by the Solidarity movement that they are there to guarantee or to secure the rights of all their citizens. So a strong trade union movement is essential, is a valuable aid to the guaranteeing of the democratic rights of the citizens of that country. This has been recognized by a number of countries. But what is the position in Singapore today. I said, was it in my speech on the President's Address, about the appointment of a Cabinet Minister as Secretary-General of the NTUC, and the Prime Minister, speaking on that Address, was candid enough to admit that it would not have worked anywhere else. He referred to the position in Britain where a man who was a leader in the trade union movement came into the Cabinet and then found that he could not stay and he got out. Trade unions must be allowed to play their role and not be manacled by the Government.”
“Democracy is not merely dependent on having Opposition Members in Parliament. Democracy is dependent on a number of other factors and I tried to outline this yesterday when I spoke on this motion. I spoke about the restraint on the Press, on the clamp-down of the freedom of the Press in Singapore, that the PAP Government lost no time in bringing about. And today we have a Press which completely serves the Government, to the shame of Singaporeans and to the shame of Singapore. So what is the Government's policy towards the Press? That is at stake in this motion. I see no one has mentioned this. What is the Government's attitude? I asked in this House last year whether the merger of the two newspaper companies was directed or initiated by the Government. The Minister for Culture, as he then was, said it was not directed or initiated. The question is: did the Government have anything to say about it? Did the Government see the merger as a convenient method of control, and so welcomed it? Or did the Government see it as prejudicial to the independence and freedom of the Press?”
“Well, I will not continue with that matter. But I will at some time move a motion of censure. I give notice,”
“Yes. He has had ample time to explain. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, may I say that we have had answers from the Minister for Home Affairs which have been misleading. I have only yesterday drawn attention to his statement made in this House when he moved the Second Reading of the Adoption of Children (Amendment) Bill and I said that he grossly misled the House. And I quoted his statement then.”
“" He called a press conference to protest that this was a restriction on the freedom of speech. You have your own leader saying that in 1955. So there is this violation of the freedom in the Constitution.”
“So that is what is involved in this motion. Are we set towards that kind of society? Or are we going to set our face towards a society that will deny our citizens the rights? The Minister for Home Affairs comes up again saying, "Oh, where is the breach of the constitutional right?" Well, if I have heard it once, I have heard it six times! Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the Minister for Home Affairs and Second Minister for Law should know, if anybody should know on the Government Benches, perhaps excepting the Prime Minister always, that there is such a thing as "constitutional conventions". There is such a thing as "government practice" which you perhaps do not find in any written constitution. A lot of the constitutional conventions are unwritten, if I may inform the Minister for Home Affairs. The Constitution says there shall be freedom of speech. But the Constitution also goes on to say that Parliament may, by law, legislate, providing for conditions for the exercise of that power. Today, in Singapore, the position is that nobody can call or hold a public meeting without first getting a Police permit. Well, that I should have thought is the very antithesis of freedom of speech. Because you have to first satisfy the Ministry of Home Affairs, the Commissioner of Police, of the need and of the reason for your expression of that right which is given to you under the Constitution. So where is the freedom? As I said, in 1955, the Prime Minister, when he was in the Opposition, was complaining because the Commissioner of Police was saying, "You must bring all your public rallies to a close (and it is not election time, this is after elections) before 7.00 pm. You can have your public rallies before 7.00 pm, but not after 7.00 pm.”
“Are we going to set our face towards a constitutional orderly progress, development towards a parliamentary democracy, a democratic State where every citizen knows his rights, and every citizen knows where he can get his remedies for those rights and he is afforded remedies for those rights? And, more importantly, where he is allowed maximum participation in the governing of this country. When I say that "he is allowed maximum participation in the governing of this country", I am not saying that he should be invited to the Cabinet room. He is not asking that. He is asking that he should be allowed his say, to put across his point of view. And we come back again and again to this, so that there is a free play of ideas, ideas competing with one another and the best emerging.”
“We are not asking the Government to help the Workers' Party, Nor do I think my colleague on this side of this House is asking the Government to help the SDP. We have done without any help from the Government, and we have come this far in spite of all the obstructions and the obstacles put in our way. So we are not here appealing to you to help us, the Workers' Party. That is not the purpose of this debate. But may I say in passing, talking about the difficulties under which we have laboured, we had premises in Hill Street which we occupied. We were the sub-tenants of the tenant of the premises. The property was acquired by, was it the HDB or URA, it doesn't matter. Every other tenant was given alternative accommodation. And we asked, "Could we have premises. We are prepared to pay at the rates that the other tenants who had moved out were being asked to pay?" But we were told, "No, you can't have them." We had to go to Court because there was a summons against us, and the Court said, "It is not for us to say whether they should give you alternative premises or not." You see, that shows the whole thinking of the Government. A government which is seriously interested in the growth of a viable democracy in Singapore, a government which says that it cares about people having enough opportunities to make their views known, a government which says that it is concerned that people should have these opportunities, would have seen to it that a political Party was given alternative accommodation when it was forcibly moved out. That is at stake. We are not asking for any special treatment. We are asking to be treated like any other ordinary tenant, any business tenant or any other tenant, occupying the premises. But we were denied that. So what is at stake is this.”
“They are a spirited lot in Anson and I am very glad to note that the council is making plans for Anson. We wanted to use the conference room for the meetings so that there could be no suggestion that they were somehow associated with the Workers' Party. And that has been denied. Why? They are Anson residents. They want to do a job in Anson. They want to promote the welfare of Anson residents. Why are you denying them the use of the conference room? You see, Mr First Deputy Prime Minister, the motives are suspect. Why are you denying this? Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I said that there was a failure to understand what is at stake. May I try and spell out what this debate is all about? This debate is not, I repeat, about whether the Workers' Party has got effective leadership or whether the Workers' Party has done this or whether the Workers' Party has done that. May I say here that it is not for the Members on the opposite benches and those behind us to judge the Workers' Party. The judgment will be made by the electorate, by the voters, and we shall be quite happy and content to leave the judgment to our electorate. We do not need the judgment of the Government or the PAP Members. So it is not that. Nor is this debate about any particular policy or policies. The First Deputy Prime Minister - I thought he would at least have an appreciation of what was at stake in this debate - dwelt on the defence policies. But that is not what we are debating. There will be time for that. If you like, table another motion, and I will answer that. But what we are debating here today is: are we providing for political growth, not of a particular political Party, or not?”
“The children are taught simply English and Mathematics for the PSLE and Primary 3 classes. There is no doctrinaire teaching. I was very amazed that the Member for MacPherson - I see that he is not here - could suggest that we were trying to use the children to exploit their emotions and their parents against the Government. That is furthest from the truth. I need these classrooms in the Anson Community Centre not for the Workers' Party's use, not for my personal use so that I could go and relax or do my writing there. I need them for the children of Anson constituency so that they may be taught better and the teacher, may I tell you, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, is a retired teacher who is very qualified. He was for long in the Government education service and I think he resigned. There is nothing bogus about these classes. The question is: are you going to obstruct? Is this how a responsible Government behaves? A Government that is sensitive to the needs of its people. Is it because those children come from an Opposition constituency? Is that the reason why you say we cannot use the classrooms in Anson Community Centre? If that is so, then announce it. They will still have their classes even if you deny us the classrooms in the Anson Community Centre. It is not as though they are going to go away without having the classes. But is that how a responsible Government which believes in democracy behaves? I would like you to ponder over that, Mr First Deputy Prime Minister. Again, the conference room is not for the Workers' Party council meetings, as was reported by the Straits Times and which I had to correct. It is for the use of the council that has come into being in Anson.”
“There is clearly, as my colleague on this side of the House has pointed out, double standards and this is something that the public cannot fail to see. The public are aware. Our voters in Singapore are, as has been acknowledged by the Prime Minister, a sophisticated lot. We have a very high rate of literacy in Singapore. So they are not fools. They are by no means dumb on political issues. Indeed, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I have been very agreeably surprised at the political acumen shown, not by our professional men, but at the political acumen shown by the taxi driver, by even the stallholder or the ordinary factory worker. He goes immediately to the root of the problem and the issue. He does not waste his time circling round it. They can see the double standards employed by this Government. I was saying that I am not asking for special treatment. May I say a little bit about these classes because I see that the Straits Times again makes the mistake. No doubt it thought that it would serve the Government better, that I wanted the classrooms in Anson community centre for Workers' Party's classes. For the last time, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, and Members, may I point out that these classes are organized by me as the MP for Anson. They are not organized by the Workers' Party and they are meant for the children from poor families in Anson. The parents do not have to pay a cent when they send their children to these classes. A Member suggested that the People's Association cannot allow any classes to be held unless they are satisfied that it is run by professional teachers. May I assure you, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, and the Members of this House, that Workers' Party propaganda is not being taught in these classes. Nor are the children being taught to run down the Government.”
“So let us not be told again and again that PAP MPs are in the same position. We had, not very long ago, this statement by the Minister for National Development and which was reported very briefly as a bald stupidity of the Minister that PAP constituencies will get favoured treatment. So there is from the Government side clearly an attempt made to distinguish between Opposition MPs and PAP MPs. As I said yesterday, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, it boils down to this. Do we believe in democracy? Do we believe in the choice of the people, in their wishes? Or do we take every step at our disposal to deny them their right to the choice? I referred yesterday to the Government's reaction to the choice made by Anson voters. A Member speaking here said perhaps that I was upset at not being invited to dinner on that National Day occasion. Let me assure the House that I personally was not upset. It did not matter to me whether I was invited or not. But it is the voters in Anson. They elected me. And what do they find? That a Government that professes to pay heed to the wishes of the electorate, a Government that says, "We will respond to the voters' wishes", blatantly saying, "We will not have your elected representative." Mention was made about RCs. One Member said that there is nothing to say that MPs should be the advisers to RCs. I said yesterday that the position in the rules, before I was elected on 31st October 1981, was that normally the MPs would be appointed advisers to the RCs. And so it was. Every PAP M P was appointed adviser to the RC in his constituency. So it was in the rules. But the moment Anson voters decided not to elect a PAP MP, the rules were changed and the decision as to who should be the adviser was then left to the choice of the Prime Minister's Office.”
“If the First Deputy Prime Minister is going to keep constantly interrupting, I have to carry on.”
“This man is being paid illegally out of public funds. He is sent to Anson and he has the full run of the Anson Community Centre. For what purpose? To make propaganda for the People's Action Party and to improve his chances in the 1984 elections. He himself admitted it. I referred to a statement made by him and it was reported in the papers. He said, "PAP's chances are now improving. The response is good to all functions organized here." So what are we talking? He was accompanied on his rounds by officials from the HDB. I see in yesterday's paper, or was it this morning's paper, that the Member for Telok Blangah, on his rounds on Sunday, was accompanied by HDB officials. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I have been trying to get the Senior Executive Officer from Tiong Bahru to come and look at something which I said needed doing, and his answer is, "No, I am not coming. I do not think it is necessary for me to come." I have made so many attempts to get them to come and look at something in my Constituency. But here we have the PAP Member for Telok Blangah accompanied, on his official rounds or on his Party rounds, by HDB officials. Mr Goh Chok Tong rose -”
“No, I am going to carry on. Mr Goh Chok Tong: Then you do not get the answers.”
“So it is giving each and everyone of our citizens an opportunity to play his or her part in making Singapore into a country that they would be proud of, that they would be prepared to die for and to defend. And I say that the policies of this Government have denied our citizens their role and I do not say it without reason, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir. Before I move on, let me deal with one or two suggestions that PAP MPs are treated likewise, as the Opposition MPs are, As I said, I am not asking for any special privileges. But are PAP MPs treated similarly? Sir, I was the Member for Anson before the general elections. There was someone sent to contest the constituency for the PAP in the 1984 elections, the man who is illegally paid out of public funds. I have raised this question of the legality of his appointment as Political Secretary and I still have not had a satisfactory answer. And may I say that there are people outside who are waiting for this answer. I have been asked by a number of people, "Mr Jeyaretnam, they still have not given you an answer, have they? Was this man's appointment legal or illegal?" I still say it is illegal. So you have this man who was appointed and paid illegally out of public funds. Mr Goh Chok Tong rose -”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I will answer that before I sit down. As I said, I wish to clear, first of all, the misconceptions, the bogeys that have been set up arising out of my motion. The first misconception is that I am suggesting that Opposition MPs should be allowed to have a part in Government decision-making or to share in the Government. This was even suggested by the Minister for Home Affairs. I am surprised. I know that it is the duty of the Government to govern. It is not the duty of the Opposition to say, "Let us take part in the governing of the country." It is the duty of the Government to govern. It is the duty of the Opposition to hold the Government in check. It is the duty of the Opposition to see that Government is made answerable to the elected representatives of the people, that is Parliament. So I know quite clearly, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, what the functions of the Opposition are. I am not asking that I be invited to Ministerial meetings or to take part in Government decisions. Nor am I asking for special privileges, either for myself or for the Party. That is another misconception. It follows from a complete misunderstanding of the motion and what is at stake. I am not asking that I should be appointed to Residents' Committees or any other committees. I am not asking that I be given special privileges. That is not what I am worried about. That is the least that worries me. I am not asking that the Workers' Party should be given any special privileges or advantages. What I am saying is this. For the future of Singapore, we must make sure that our citizens are given their rightful role to play their part in building Singapore into what they would like it to be.”
“It is only in a democracy which allows the free-play of ideas - the term that I have been using, and what the Prime Minister had been using in 1966 -that you can have political leadership emerging. And we do not have that today because there has been a ban on the free-play of ideas from 1959 onwards.”
“That is the issue, and that is at stake, not only for us, but for our children and our children's children. The whole future of Singapore, what direction are we going to take. That is what is at stake in this debate. And I say there was no appreciation at all of these issues involved and what was at stake. One man could have perhaps dealt with this, but he has chosen to stay away. Now, may I clear, first of all, the misconceptions that have been created out of my motion. It is very easy. It is the easiest thing to do when you cannot meet a man's argument, you create bogeys and then begin to demolish them. That shows that you fail to grasp what is the import of the man's message. Sir, I do not want to dwell too long on this. But, if anything, from what we have heard in the past two days, from the time that I moved this motion, has emerged it throws up clearly one thing, and that is the serious problem of political leadership in this country. I am sorry to have to say this. It may sound unpalatable to the Members on the opposite benches. But truths, however unpalatable, must be faced. Who is responsible for this state of affairs - that today in Singapore we do not have a political leadership that is able to take over from the older leadership and see the issues that concern Singapore and its future? Who is responsible? The responsibility must be laid quite clearly, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, at the door of this Government. The Prime Minister in 1966 said that "the real test is whether we succeed in creating a democracy that is viable." Because it is only in a viable democracy that you will have political leadership emerging. Make no mistake of that, Members of the House.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, may I say that I did not expect my task to be so easy this afternoon. I am sorry it may sound patronizing and condescending. But I thought there would be some appreciation of the issues involved in this motion, in this debate. Alas, I hoped in vain, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir. Last night, on reflection, I thought perhaps I had been a little uncharitable to the First Deputy Prime Minister and his present colleagues in the Cabinet, excluding the Prime Minister. After all, the First Deputy Prime Minister inherited this system. He is not responsible for what happened in 1968, 1969, 1970, and the years that followed. I had hoped that the man who was responsible for this would have agreed to take part in this debate and to answer the complaint, but I see he has chosen not to take part in the debate. Well, that is his decision. But, as I have said, may I say again that he understands the issues. He spelt them out in 1956. So he has a very clear grasp of the issues. And I am sorry to say that listening to the Members these last two days, has convinced me one thing: that the speakers who spoke against this motion, perhaps with the exception of one (I am sorry that suggests that I am being invidious), have no conception of the issues involved and what is at stake in this motion. They failed to grasp what was at stake in this motion. Instead of that, we heard from speaker after speaker about whether the Workers' Party was a good Party, whether the SDP was a good Party, whether their policy is a good policy. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, we are not here in this motion debating any particular policy, or any political Party. We are debating the political system for Singapore.”
“This is what constitutional struggle is about.”
“That is me. Dr Arthur Beng Kian Lam: - the Second Deputy Prime Minister who bothered to attend. Who was insulted? Was it the people of Anson or was it the MP for Anson who was not invited by the grassroots leaders? Was he insulted? Who in Anson was insulted? Was it the residents of Anson or was it the MP for Anson who was not invited by the grassroots leaders of Anson? I think it must be his ego that must have been affected. The point has been raised also about the MP's office. The Member for Anson said that it took him eight months to get his office. I have now waited five months, next month will be six and I do not see my office coming in the seventh month either. I hope that I can get my office in the eighth month. An hon. Member: Discrimination.”
“On a point of information, Mr Deputy Speaker.”
“What evidence has he got? I had made it very clear that these are classes in English and Mathematics that are being provided for these children. Let us have some sanity in this place.”
“Yes, he is giving way. Thank you. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I am sorry that the Member for MacPherson should also attempt to mislead the House. He says I asked for the community centre classrooms to hold classes to exploit the emotions of the children. An hon. Member: No, he did not say that.”
“Well, to save the time of the House, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir -”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, on a point of clarification.”
“It was under study two years ago. Dr Arthur Beng Kian Lam (Fengshan): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, there is a Unit in Woodbridge Hospital looking after the chronic sick. In the redevelopment plans of Woodbridge Hospital, will this Unit be retained or expanded?”
“Sir, I am sorry, but would the Minister of State be good enough to answer whether there is any plan to proceed with the setting up of halfway homes for people who are not too ill to be in hospital but who perhaps are not safe to be kept at home, especially where children are present?”
“If I may move away from the fees to the question of patients who may not be too ill to be in the hospital but it may not be safe to keep at home. I understood from the Minister of State that the tendency is to try and keep them out of hospital. Two years ago, there was a suggestion that half-way homes might be set up. May I know whether any progress has been made in this direction?”
“May I know further from the Minister of State the class of patients who have been exempted from payment of fees? Do they come from the public assistance cases only or do they range beyond that?”
“Supplementary question, Sir, for the Minister for Finance. Does he not think that the proper thing now would be to revoke the decision to implement the diesel tax as in the view of the Ministry of Communications, there has been a totally unexpected drop in taxi drivers' earnings? And then consider whether a diesel tax should be introduced and, if so, by how much?”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, with your permission, may I ask whether the House could sit tomorrow in the afternoon because I have an application in the High Court tomorrow morning at 10.30 am? Mr Deputy Speaker: The adjournment motion will have to be moved by the Leader of the House.”
“What is most regrettable to me is that the Member for Potong Pasir who has hitherto earned my respect as being a reasonable man has also fallen into this abyss by supporting the motion. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, once again, may I ask, has the alleged restriction on the freedom of speech, freedom of choice, resulted in his garnering less votes? Is the question of obtaining the use of classes in community centres a matter that will determine the democratic pattern of Singapore in the future? On that note, Sir, I oppose the motion. 4.29 pm”
“The second point is that he demands that the Government declare its stand. He asks, what is the political direction that Singapore will take in the future? I feel that the reply has already been given to the Member for Anson to the effect that every four or five years the PAP Government return to the people for its mandate, through clean and open general elections without the necessity of inviting observers from the United Nations to corroborate this state of affairs. We return to the people in order to get a fresh mandate. That is the quintessence of the democratic process which has been enjoyed by the Opposition Parties. What is the course of the future democratic development that he wants? We accept the verdict of the people in the general elections. If the general elections held recently showed that 13% did not approve Government policies, we have demonstrated our sensitivity by reassessing several policies and it shows that as a Party elected by the people, we are sensitive to the needs of the people and are ready to adjust accordingly. The Member further alleges that the PAP Government employs several threats including the numbering of ballot papers. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, to me this is absurd because throughout the campaign in the last general elections, the Member never raised this point of numbered ballot papers as a threat because he was aware that by that time it was no longer a valid issue. Why then did he again harp on this point today? So if we scrutinize carefully the debate and the points put forth by the Member for Anson, in truth, I am amazed at the confused state of his mind in moving this motion.”
“Member for Anson has moved his motion. The important point that he wishes to raise in the motion centres around his inability to have access to facilities. Complaints of difficulty in getting permits, I consider to be the travail experienced by any Opposition political party in Parliament. In the past, the People's Action Party had experienced similar difficulties. In fact, in the 5O's, opposition to the PAP was very much more intense. The Member for Anson recalled that in the 5O's, the Prime Minis- ter, Mr Lee Kuan Yew, had expressed his views. This had been made in the confidence that the Opposition in Parliament should be capable of presenting credible alternative views, which should be laid before the people for acceptance or rejection. In 1959, three years after the contest of ideas, the PAP obviously had better ideas. Since the Member for Anson had been elected in the by-election, having been defeated for many years, and again re-elected in the last general elections, has he offered credible alternative views that can convince the people that the Opposition can offer better views to the people of Singapore? I do not think so. So let us examine the arguments advanced by the Member for Anson. First, he says that the PAP Government is determined to crush or to muzzle any form of criticism put up by the Opposition Parties. He says, "to silence the critics". It was under such conditions that the Members of the Workers' Party and the Singapore Democratic Party had been elected. Where then is the justification that there is no freedom of choice, no freedom of voicing opinions, no freedom to conduct campaigns? If these freedoms are really absent, it certainly follows that the two hon. Members would not be in this Chamber.”
“In 1963, the late President Kennedy of the United States said: 'We stress not the individual liberty of one, but the indivisible liberty of all.' He was emphasizing the freedom of the greater universal self but not of the smaller individual self. It is something which we Singaporeans should learn, particularly our Opposition Members ought to consider well. I am raising these examples of Shima Kuan and John Kennedy to show that even in Singapore, with differing political views coupled with Party contentions, sometimes it may be of benefit to our people but sometimes it would be harmful. This depends on the motivation of Party leaders. John Kennedy was a great leader, yet he ended up by being assassinated by his political rivals. To the people of the United State and to the world, this is of no good. There could only be harm. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, on this major question of national survival and the future of Singapore, I hope both the Government and the people will be able to learn from past episodes in the political history of the world so that our small nation in this corner of the world may be able to survive and enjoy security and peace and a better life. Encik Yatiman Yusof( In Malay): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, when the Member for Anson moved a motion to express regret at the obstructionist measures adopted by the Government towards what he alleged to be the growth of genuine parliamentary Opposition, I thought that he was raising a very important issue which would determine the future course of political development in the Republic. Regrettably, Sir, I am compelled to oppose the motion not because I am sitting on this side of the House, but because the matter which is beautifully packaged, in fact, exposes nothing. Let us ponder why the hon.”
“In the past 20 years, we have held five General Elections and on each General Election, the people voted to decide the Party they want to form the Government. The Member for Anson has stated that he has been taking part in General Elections since 1972. This is the success of our democracy. At this juncture, I would like to reminisce on an episode in the history of China. In the Sung Dynasty, there was one person by the name of Shima Kuan. From my study of the Chinese history, he was one of the great leaders of the opposition in pursuit of democracy. He vehemently criticized the then Wan Ang Shig administration. What he did was levelling criticisms at something factual and not making groundless allegations. What he said was meant to unite the people to build the nation, but not to divide the people and to destroy the country. In Volume 1 of the voluminous Chronicles that he wrote, he said: "For those higher to rule the people lower, it is like the mind and heart ruling the limbs, as the roots supporting the branches and leaves. And for the people lower to service those higher, it is like the limbs guarding the mind and heart, as the branches and leaves sheltering the roots. Then there will be mutual protection between the two and the country will be secure and peaceful." Of course, the world of Shima Kuan was very different from what it is today. His thoughts had limitations. Although he relentlessly criticized the Wan Ang Shig government, in the end he still emphasized mutual protection of each other for the security and peace of the country. This spirit is something which merits our emulating, and which our Opposition Parties ought to consider well.”
“But the great English philosopher, Russell, having studied some political events in the world, once said, 'Some incidental event in the world that could have happened just by chance, but it could have significantly changed the whole situation of the world.' From his saying I have this in my mind. If in 1945, when the Japanese had lost in the Second World War and the British were still outside Singapore, had the then leader of the Malayan Communist Party, Chin Peng, made the declaration that Singapore and Malaya had broken away from the U.K. and become independent and sovereign entities, then I believe the histories of Singapore and Malaya Peninsular would have been quite different now. Our situation would be quite different. If, for example, some 20 years later, in 1965, the leader of the Indonesian Communist Party, Aidit, had been successful in the coup, then I believe Indonesia would not be what it is today. Today, the Indonesian Government does not completely follow the parliamentary democracy system of Holland. Singapore and Malaysia do not completely follow the democratic system of the United Kingdom. Likewise, the Philippines does not completely follow the American representative system. Similarly, Thailand is also different. However basically, the countries in the ASEAN region have been quite successful with their own democratic systems. ASEAN has been a stable region. Is this not a good thing? Do we want the world to be in a messy turmoil? We have been successful. We can see this very clearly. It is because in the past 20 years, since 1965, we have been holding General Elections as required by the Constitution that we hold one election once every five years.”