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 62 of 82.
“Mr Deputy Speaker, on a point of clarification with the Minister. He quits rightly says that there is no dispute and that even this Bill will not become law until it is assented. But the Minister, however, misses the point. The point is this: that under the present law, nothing, may be done which is contrary to the Constitution. And what is Parliament doing this afternoon? What are you asking Parliament to do? You are asking Parlia- ment here as a body entrusted with the task of making law to pass a law which is directly in conflict with the Constitution. If I may give the Minister an analogy, it is like asking an Executive Officer, a civil servant, to do something which is in conflict with the written law of this country. To say that later on it will be ratified or may be ratified does not cure the defect. You are asking this House to debate and pass a Bill which is in conflict with the Constitution. It is as simple as that.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I wish to move an amendment to the Question, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." Mr Deputy Speaker, I beg to move, That the word "now" in the Question be left out, and to add, at the end of the Question, "on this day six months". Mr Deputy Speaker, if I may speak on my amendment to this Question.”
“All right, Sir. I will bow to you. I accept a show of hands.”
“And I say, Sir, that it is an abuse of the right of the voters in any constituency to deny them for more than three months their right to have their own elected representative in this Parliament.”
“You find that "a general election shall be called within three months after every dissolution of Parliament." So the Constitution requires that the electors in the constituencies in Singapore should not go unrepresented in Parliament for more than three months. After dissolution, you have got to call a general election within three months. You cannot govern without Parliament for more than three months. Havelock, in point, is a constituency with its own electorate. They have as much right as the electors in all other constituen- cies to send their representative into Parliament and you cannot deny them this right. To have denied the electors in Havelock to have their own representative in Parliament, a man chosen by them is, may I say to the Prime Minister (he is not here, he has walked out) but may I say to the Government, is to deny the electors in Havelock this right which the Constitution has given to all the voters in the constituencies. I think that we should now take this opportunity to restore into Article 49 those words "within three months of the vacancy occurring" which were, as I said, a part of the Article in the Constitution from 1963 to 1965. They entrench, what I say, the constitutional right of electors, voters, in every constituency to be represented in Parliament. Why should not the electors of a constituency where the incumbent MP has died as in this case, or where his seat has been declared vacant, why should they be denied representation? They can, in theory, I suppose, object to paying any taxes imposed while their representative is not in Parliament. [Laughter]. Members may laugh at this but if you are talking about parliamentary government and parliamentary process, then you have got to work the rules of parliamentary government.”
“' Sir, I am a little flattered that the Prime Minister equated the present situation in this House to the situation in August 1962 when the House was evenly divided. The suggestion is that with just myself being in the House, the House is evenly divided. I wonder whether he thought of that when he mentioned the position in August 1962. But the point is this, Sir. The Prime Minister is clearly wrong. There was an amendment, and if he would like the reference, it is the amending Act No. 8 of 1965. The Malaysian Constitution - and it was just not the Malaysian Constitution, it was our Constitution when we went into Malaysia in 1963 - required the filling of any vacancy in the House within three months. In 1965, a Bill was introduced in Parliament to amend this provision. So there was an amendment, and the Prime Minister would appear to have not known what he was saying in this House on 20th December 1983 when he said that there was no such amendment. Sir, I asked the Prime Minister whether he was standing the principle of parliamentary representation on its head by not calling for a bye-election in Havelock constituency and by appointing a caretaker Member of Parliament for that constituency. His reply then on 20th December 1983 was: 'I am standing no principle on any head. The lows are as set out in the Constitution. There is no reason why the people of Havelock should have a bye-election.' Those were his words, "There is no reason why the people of Havelock should have a bye-election." May I say, Sir, that the Prime Minister, in giving that answer, ignores the Constitution because if you look even at the present Constitution, with the amendment that was made to Article 49 in 1965, if you look at Article 66 of the Constitution, what do you find?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, In page 2, line 39, after "force", to insert "within three months of the vacancy occurring". Sir, if I may speak on this amendment. This amendment of the Constitution provides for the vacating of non-constituency Members, but I wish to take this opportunity now to move an amendment to the first part of this clause which deals with the filling of vacancies of Members of Parliament, not non-constituency Members, but regular Members of Parliament. Sir, I raised this at the sitting of this House on the 20th December last year when I asked the Prime Minister what were the compelling reasons for denying the electors in the constituency of Havelock their right to elect their own representative to Parliament following the vacancy created by the death of their former representative. I asked the Prime Minister then what was the reason for the amendment to the Constitution which was made in 1965 which took away the requirement that was in the Constitution that any vacancy in the House should be filled within three months of the vacancy occurring. The Prime Minister's reply was, I quote: 'Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, 1965 did not see such an amendment. He goes by what he reads. The Member for Anson, as a member of the learned profession, should not go by what he reads in the press. The legislation on elections was governed by lows which were promulgated in 1959, and I remember distinctly that when the then Member for Sembawang died in August of 1962, we did not have to hold an election because there was an evenly divided House of 25 Members on each side until we held the General Elections in September 1963.”
“May I call for a Division on this? Hon. Members: No.”
“Did you direct Radio Singapore to broadcast that lie?”
“Where is this statement? Have you got our policy for 1972?”
“If you think this is relevant, so be it, Mr Speaker.”
“On the same question as the Prime Minister's, Sir. What has all this got to do with the Bill before the House?”
“Sit down. Maj Fong Sip Chee: --- beg leave to say that I support the Bill. Even a PAP MP can agree with the Member for Anson. 6.20 pm”
“Isn't it? Maj Fong Sip Chee: If you want to have another contest with a second-class MP, by all means name the place, name the date. I have accepted your challenge. You have not made the next move. Sir, I do not think that I should waste the time of this House to entertain the Member for Anson. May I, Sir, ---”
“Bukit Purmei. Maj Fong Sip Chee: Really? Make a complaint to the Police and it shall be looked into. Again he would say this is a PAP police. Give them some respect. You have insulted the public gallery earlier in the House by alleging that the people up there are from ISD. Highly imprudent remark and it was uncalled for and unnecessary. You have got an uncanny ability to manoeuvre yourself into a jam. Sit, let us stop here and look at the Constitution. [Interruption] I mean not to stop the debate. Let us look at the Constitution in its true value and not allow ourselves to be misled by the Member for Anson as if the whole amendment to the Constitution was proposed out of fear of the Workers' Party and the Member for Anson.”
“Is that why you have been tearing down our Party banners? Maj Fong Sip Chee: Your Party banners? Where?”
“Do not get excited. Fair fight. Maj Fong Sip Chee: Let us get away from using this debate as a fight between the PAP and the Workers' Party. The PAP knows exactly what to do and how to win an election.”
“I said "a fair fight." Maj Fong Sip Chee: Sir, that is the height of the folly of a man! As I said, let us get away from ---”
“Fair fight. Maj Fong Sip Chee: What is so unfair about this? You mean you earned a seat here by unfair means? Was that fight not fair?”
“We will wait. Maj Fong Sip Chee: We will do everything possible, all within the law, to have a fair fight and we shall see the Member for Anson having to consider ---”
“What we seek to do here, Sir, is to ensure that in future, Parliament shall stand and shall remain respected as such as the highest policy-making body in the Republic. And here is the place where the grievances of the people can be voiced and the Government shall take heed of those views, instead of allowing those views to circulate in market-places as the Member for Anson has claimed. 1, too, received as many complaints .or grouses against the performance of the Member for Anson. Residents in my area having business there in Anson who were not attended to by the MP complained to me about resettlement. I am not going to publicize all these. This is not a debate between the PAP and the Workers' Party. It is a debate whether or not Singaporeans deserve a credible institution, a workable democracy for their own benefit. Sir, it is with those views, and with due respect to the Member for Anson, I hope that he will also come up with equally enlightened views, instead of using this House as a convenient place to narrate his woes or his historic and heroic win in Anson, that I support the Bill. Wait until the next general elections ---”
“Like you! Maj Fong Sip Chee: Mr Speaker, Sir, I will leave this to the people to judge, for the press to judge. I would not want to comment on that. I am not here to compete with the Member for Anson for classes. The question is how is a Member of Parliament classified as a second-class Member of Parliament? Sir, a second-class Member of Parliament is so classified by none other than the electorate themselves. So, in 1976, a second-class candidate or MP beat the Member for Anson. Do not take pride for being beaten in the polls by a second-class MP. You decide what class you fit in, having been defeated by a second-class MP. I would not want to label you. Sir, en MP is second-class only by his performance and by his askew perception of the problems of State, problems that are placed before him. That is a second-class MP. Of course, Sir, if I were to list out what the Member for Anson or his party can do or should do, I would be unwittingly giving him lessons as to exactly what to do. The debate here is not between the PAP and the Workers Party or for that matter any other political party in Singapore. The debate here is whether or not such provision in the Constitution would enhance the meaning of the parliamentary system as an institution, an enduring institution in Singapore. It is with that objective in mind that we move this Amendment Bill. It is not party politics. We do not have to do this in order to retain all the seats in Parliament. We did that in the past by our conviction, by persuasion and by our credibility. We have done that. We have met even more serious and vicious Opposition than one can find in any of the existing political parties. There is no need for us to go to that extent.”
“Why don't you sit down! Maj Fong Sip Chee: If the Opposition parties, particularly the Member for Anson's party, can do exactly the same thing as the PAP has done in the serious selection of candidates, then they would have done Singapore a great service. Then Singaporeans will be assured of a credible Opposition, able to take over from the PAP at any given point of time if we do lose out - not because of your credit but because of our default - you would have done Singapore a great service. Unfortunately there is no one for them to select from. Sir, in that process they would have earned the credibility of a serious party. In that process they would have vindicated them- selves of being a collection of people of dubious character. Why not? Do that. My strong advice to the Member for Anson is: do just that. Another allegation is that the non-constituent MPs are second-class MPs.”
“We are talking about your 1976 results. That was communalism. Maj Fong Sip Chee: Really? You have issued a challenge to me to fight me anywhere any time. I have accepted your challenge. I have asked you to name the place. The next move is yours. You have not moved, the Member for Anson.”
“Communalism. Maj Fong Sip Chee: Repeat that outside and give me the example. This is not the first time you have accused me of using communalism. This is not the first time. You issue the statement, you quote. me the example, and I will answer that. Just because I speak the Malay language, because I speak Mandarin and English, the Member accuses me of being a communalist because I speak Malay? You cannot even quote an idiom in this House. What you did say in Malay was "Ta' Patut". That is not a Malay idiom. That is a Malay term. I will give the Member for Anson a Malay idiom: "Otak Udang". That is a Malay idiom. Of course, there are people who are more competent and qualified to educate the Member for Anson in this language, in which he is sorely inadequate.”
“That is modesty, is it not? Maj Fong Sip Chee: Do not believe your contest in 1976 in Chai Chee was the beginning of your political career. It was a fight not compared ---”
“But I would say that we are equally concerned with the quality of Members on our side of the House. We could have solved that and we have devised a system. Each candidate has been subjected to a very stringent process of selection. I am afraid, Sir, if I were to sit for that test, I might fail miserably; except of course if there is a section on political acumen and sensibility,l might not return a blank paper. I might even score an average, having gone through the mill - not these tests.”
“One does not go to the extent of amending the Constitution for the sake of providing a sparring partner. One amends the Constitution for the sake of Singapore, and that is precisely what this Bill is all about. One can hardly call this arrogance, nor is the proposal repugnant, as some people felt. Proportional representation, Sir, sounds appealing and even desirable in theory. I do not want to go through the arguments of proportional representation which the Prime Minister had said earlier. It frequently, almost without fail, produces weak governments, coalition governments, an incoherent policy, not a cohesive group of people to run the country, as each one of them will be competing for his own political interests. Apart from all these, Sir, proportional representation is incongruous in the context of Singapore society. Because all that we have done, either by legislation, by convention, by practice, by persuasion and campaign, all that we have done all these years will be eradicated, and scoundrels will find a place in this House. Scoundrels will walk around with the respectability of a Member of Parliament. It is not for me to run down that system. It might work in some countries, but certainly it cannot work in Singapore because, in that process, our population will be stratified, polarized. That will be the result. It is not for want of better MPs or that our MPs, as I said earlier, have not been working hard. It is for the reason that we want certain views to be heard, and here is an avenue, a channel, through which people can channel their make-believe allegations against the PAP Government or for that matter any other government who is able to get the support of the people. Sir, we are equally concerned. I am not privy to certain information.”
“The Prime Minister must have also, at the same time when he made that statement, referred to hon. Members in this House who happen to fall in that age group, portfolio holders including. Sir, what does this current exercise mean, providing for an avenue where more views can be heard in Parliament in the event the PAP wins all the seats? Firstly, Sir, if the Opposition succeeds in winning whatever number of seats they can, so be it. But if they win less than three, or none, then this proposed provision in the Constitution will find its value. In this exercise of democracy, it is the usefulness that we recognize, certainly not for want of it. What are the alternatives? When this proposal was preferred publicly, it attracted a wide variety of reactions. The immediate reaction, not surprisingly, Sir, was ons of astonishment, Critics hardly believed that it was anything but arrogance on the part of the PAP, as the Member for Anson has alleged in this House earlier. They wanted full-fledged MPs, duly elected. Of course, if any candidate or candidates other than the PAP win the elections, good luck to them. However, non-constituency MPs are also elected in that their presence in this House will be under the provision of the Constitution. They are elected in that process, and as such they too earn their place in this House according to that provision. The question of arrogance, Sir, as has been insinuated, does not arise at all. The exercise will entrench in the Constitution a feature which will give the institution of the parliamentary system a more meaningful existence. It is not, as some people might have said - of course from our point of view it will be good to have some exchanges in this House - sparring partners as one might call them.”
“" That is the reason why until today I have not really crossed swords with the Member for Anson. How fair does the Member for Anson expect us to treat him? And it will do him good, Sir, if he knows that there is a limit - a limit to playing the underdog. You expect us to cut you down? Some Members here would have dons so with great pleasure, of course. But no. We were told to treat him for what he is worth, and I was asked to leave that man alone. Let him find his feet. He has found his feet, wobbling feet. In the process, Sir, infantilism has been glorified as heroic stunts, ignorance not very cleverly disguised as wisdom, and falsehood peddled as truth. Folly has been accorded sympathy. Hypocrisy passed off as sincerity. People of dubious character hailed as leaders of men. Singaporeans know better how to judge. Sir, as the Prime Minister said earlier, we had Opposition in this House and outside the House. And there was a time when the fight, as I said earlier, was more than verbal pyrotechnics in this House, more than the pleasantry of an orderly debate in this House. Rhetorics, histrionics, polemics, were augmented by physical contact in the streets. I remember one worker, Hassan, a Chinese Muslim who helped in the Kallang by-election. He came back to the Rochore Branch in 1958 with one hand dangling down, half-chopped by a parang. That was what it was. Sir, as one who was pan of that process, I know the serious business of what politics is all about, and I can tell the-serious and the genuine from the hypocrites and the charlatans. These are past history. To the young people, it may be academic. As the Prime Minister said, 60% of our voters who are aged 40 and below have got only a very vague memory of those days.”
“Lost your thoughts! Maj Fong Sip Chee: All the talk now, all the bravado by the Member for Anson claiming to speak on behalf of the Opposition Parties - I do not know whether Mr Chiam See Tong would agree to that proposition or that claim - all this talk will not be able to exonerate them for their disgraceful abdication of duty, for their disgraceful disservice to Singapore. They abdicated. And now, what happens when the Member for Anson found the favour of a few hundred voters to earn his seat in this House? What happens? When we have no Opposition, we were accused of all kinds of crime. When we won all the seats, insinuations abound. Now that we have an Opposition in Parliament, poison darts continued to be thrown at the PAP, and not even the Member for Anson has accused us that the election has been rigged. Indeed, it will be the height of his folly if he does that. He has been hailed as the champion of democracy. So he has a Democracy Day in Anson. He was the underdog. I do not know - again, when it comes to words - which part of the word would describe the Member for Anson best. Sir, the Member for Anson does not know that even before he took his seat in this House, there was a meeting - no secret has been let out, Sir - among the PAP MPs, not PAP MPs huddled as he said earlier - was it "huddled" that he used? There was a meeting called for the PAP MPs, and MPs were advised to treat the Member for Anson for what he is or what his arguments are worth. "Treat him as an Opposition. Do not go out of the way". And the poor Member for Chai Chee, Sir, was pulled aside by none other than the Minister for Law, a person known to be a very fair man - a gentleman of the Bar, he was given the title when he was practising - and he Fong, lay off that man.”
“Wrong. Not 1972. It was 1971. You have got it wrong. Maj Fong Sip Chee: 1972 general elections. I wrote a book on this, Mr Jeyaretnam, and, if you have not been referring to this book, I will give you an autographed copy. There were 65 seats, Sir, at that time. 8 were returned unopposed, better showing. So there were 57 seats contested. The United National Front (was it Vetrivelu's Party?) fielded 32 candidates, a very entertaining collection of people. The Workers' Party 26, not bad. Barisan Sosialis suddenly found that their boycott of Parliament was disastrous and suicidal. They fielded 10 and came out with a flimsy reason as to why they should rejoin the process of constitutional struggle. The People's Front, not the United People's Front of Mr Harbans Singh, fielded 7, the PKMS 2 and Independents 2, making a total of 79. That was in 1972. In the 1976 general elections, the Workers' Party fielded 21, 5 down. Barisan Sosialis had only 5 and contested in the Toa Payoh area. Would you bear with me, Sir, I lost my notes.”
“Look it up! Maj Fong Sip Chee: In 1972, Sir, there was an improvement. Again, thanks to the Member for Anson who joined the party, better showing this time. Out of 65 seats ---”
“Please do. Maj Fong Sip Chee: I am not like the Member for Anson. If he does not understand the meaning, he asks, "What is the meaning of this?"”
“Resuscitated. Do you know what that means? Maj Fong Sip Chee: If I do not understand the meaning, I will look up the dictionary.”
“Resuscitated! You do not know your language! Maj Fong Sip Chee: I do not have the benefit of training as a man of letters like the Member for Anson. Frequently, his problem of languages has got him into trouble.”
“And then came the British withdrawal and the more than imminent prospects of mass unemployment, problems of defence, problems of investment and, of course, as I said earlier, the building up of credibility as a nation state. The Opposition party abdicated their responsibility at that crucial point of time. I looked through the election statistics. In the 1968 general elections, there were 58 seats. 51 were returned unopposed. Of the remaining 7 seats, 5 were contested by independents and 2 by the Workers' Party. In 1968, long before the medicine man resuscitated the Party.”
“That is what the people want during an election. The people are not asked in an election whether they are for or against the ruling party or the opposition. No one is asked whether he should vote for the ruling party or should vote for the opposition, as if they are the two main points of consideration. People are asked to vote, to pick a representative who will safeguard their interests. And that is elections, not that you must elect an opposition otherwise there is no democracy. Who has been responsible for the absence of the Opposition in this House? I have no quarrel with their presence here. I have faced Opposition in this House, very fierce Opposition. We accused them of propagating Communist propaganda, which they did in their kindergartens. And here, a Member stood up and said: Mr Speaker, Sir, here is a textbook in my kindergarten. Let us see how much Communism there is in this book. It says, "A is for apple. B is for book. "Where is Communism? Fierce Opposition they were, word for word, argument for argument, no autobiography, but serious discussion in this House. Sir, in my view, they had themselves to blame. There were a combination of reasons. The Barisan Sosialis' boycott, which shut off their own forum in this House, was the main reason. At that time, Singapore underwent a period of crisis, a crisis which was beyond the immediate economic uncertainty at that time, It was a crisis of national confidence. Nobody, I reiterate, nobody at that time except the PAP dared to come forward to tackle the physical problems of post-independent Singapore. All the time, we were worried whether or not we could make it as a State, a people who deserve a place, a people who can influence and decide our destiny, in this part of the world.”
“Sir, I once had to tell a well-meaning foreign friend of mine who apparently must have swallowed a fair mouthful of the mud in the process of the slinging: do we have to lose in order to show that we win? Where in democracy does it say that the government should not win all the seats? Sir, the question we really want to ask ourselves is: should the people of Singapore throw away the security of a good government, and the services of good MPs, in order to satisfy some sceptics that there is democracy in Singapore? To these people, Sir, their experience in democracy is all too familiar with chaos in their own countries. Chaos like those in the economically advanced countries, or in the poverty-stricken Third world democracies. They are all democracies. At least, they claim to be democracies. Do we want that for the sake of democracy - bloodshed, violence, demonstration in the streets? Where is our buffer in Singapore? Where is our hinterland? In other countries, they can have riots in the cities. The country still survives because with the riots and grief stricken problems in the city areas, the rural areas will continue as normal. They have been in that situation for thousands of years. They cannot be worse. But it is not so in the case of Singapore. We are too small and without a buffer to withstand the kind of problems. People look after their own well-being and do a good job at it. This, Mr Speaker, Sir, is democracy at its best. Only those who refuse to acknowledge this are impervious to truth. When people go to the polls, they want to choose a person whom they think can represent their interests. And also, what this person and those behind him and the organization to which he belongs can do as a collective body, for the good of the people.”
“He complained earlier that the SBC - I have the privilege to oversee this portfolio - has not given him enough publicity. He was interviewed on television, Sir, merely a few days ago on the Feedback programme. One out of 75, he demands 50% of the time. I made a calculation. The press gave the Member for Anson 0.2% or 0.3% more coverage than our PAP Backbenchers. An hon. Member: He doesn't deserve it! Maj Fong Sip Chee: I think otherwise. I think the press should publish, verbatim, every word the Member for Anson utters in this House. That would do us a great service. Sir, that they were rejected by the electorate who exercised the franchise in accordance with the Constitution was made to look as if they were constitutionally deprived. Indeed, they have been constitutionally excluded by the exercise of the franchise but not constitutionally deprived or denied and their presence here is not as of right. What happened then, Sir, when we had no Opposition in this House? There were hullabaloos. There were incessant allegations by the Opposition parties that there was no democracy in Singapore. Some international press found it convenient to fault us. I hope that it has been for reasons of business sense and circulation and not of ulterior motive. Otherwise, the Member for Anson will be found guilty in following and gullible enough to fall into the trap of being a mouthpiece of the foreign press in this House. There was also name-calling, Sir, like "Singapore Incorporated"; the latest being the "State capitalist of Singapore." There was also mud-slinging like "One Party State" and numerous titles of all descriptions. These people are indeed very imaginative. All because we do well as a government and more important, as a people.”
“I made a check - the Prime Minister came out this afternoon and said there were 20 on the register - and each of them is headed by people of all shades: character and integrity. Even the Workers Party, Sir, was resuscitated. Formed in 1957 in time for the City Council election, four members were elected. Later, a member was ordered by the Communists to resign to create a by-election. That member's son, Sir, is one of the latest President's scholars, a Workers' Party member. The by-election in 1958, which I had canvassed, was a bloody by-election. Parangs were used. I would have appreciated if the fight was confined to speeches, perhaps with the beautiful diction of the Member for Anson. But that was not the case. People were chased around the streets. That was what opposition was all about. In the 1961 by-election, Mr David Marshall won the Anson seat by a mere 500 votes. In the general elections that followed, he lost his deposit. History has got a very ingenious way of repeating itself. May I caution the Member for Anson? It was not the first time that the people of Anson had rejected the PAP. But when they came back, they came back in solid numbers. An hon. Member: Hear, hear! Maj Fong Sip Chee: Do take note of that. The fact that the Opposition parties failed to win a seat in this House was not taken as their inadequacy. Instead the PAP was faulted for their failure. There have been complaints in the House about not enough time for election campaigns. After three years, the Member for Anson should realize that an election campaign is not fought over nine days. It is fought over four years. And an election is not fought in this House, however beautiful the speech. Election is fought right on the ground.”
“Therefore, Sir, we see various democracies emerged in their different forms and each subscribing to the basic tenet of that philosophy. But again each differs from another, having to take cognizance of the special requirements of the people - political, economic, demographic, geographic considerations. Hence, Sir, we have the American pattern, the Westminster model, the German pattern, the French system. And, even the totalitarian states have also called themselves democracies, giving both the word "demos" and the word "kratos" a very different interpretation. There, the ruling party rules supreme. Not in the case of Singapore. We earned a mandate. Let us remember that. Now, Singapore follows the Westminster model, yet not completely duplicating it. It is a fact but which the Member for Anson has much to belly-ache about. In the first place, Sir, none of the constitutions in the established democracies says that there must be Opposition in Parliament or in the legislature. Nor did Aristotle himself say this in his very pure and primitive form of democracy. So democracy does not stipulate that there must be Opposition in Parliament as of right. They are not there as of right. Who are the people to say that there must be Opposition in Parliament in order that you can have democracy? Only the Opposition members themselves say so. They have infringed the concept. Of course, Sir, constructive Opposition can enhance the value of the system. Sadly, very sadly, it is in this area of constructiveness that the Opposition has been found to be very sorely wanting. Opposition parties we do have. I thought it was 16.”
“You tell that to the marines. Maj Fong Sip Chee: Thirdly, Mr Speaker, Sir, it is not a question of arrogance, again as has been popularly alleged; and fourthly, non-constituency MPs are not second-class MPs, as the Member for Anson has said earlier. They are elected. They are elected on a certain provision in the Constitution or elected on those conditions, if one insists on describing them as such. Sir, I do not want to burden the House with a discussion on the concept of democracy. Suffice it to say, a brief run-through may be necessary. What is democracy? It is demos and kratos. I do not know Greek. I sought some references. "Demos" means people, "kratos" means rule. People's rule. That is what democracy is all about. The concept of democracy as envisioned by Aristotle in his very primitive concept has come a long way through the ages. But the basic concept has not been changed. However, what Aristotle conceptualized in his time had evolved in different manifestations through different systems, as the Prime Minister said, "tailored" to meet the peculiarities or idiosyncrasies of a given people or given community. Therefore, many systems have been devised to give life and meaning to that basic concept. A new element is that the modern concept of democracy is based on universal suffrage and not a minority democracy, as in the days of Plato and Aristotle, when only about 10% of the citizenry could afford the time and the luxury to indulge in public affairs, with a big chunk of the population still living under slavery. Those were the days of Plato and Aristotle and those were the days which the Member for Anson might imagine that we Singaporeans are now suffering from.”
“Do you stand up with confidence? Maj Fong Sip Chee: We will come to that. If we repeal Article 46 (2)(b) of the Constitution, do you think we will send you a membership form to join the PAP?”
“Say everything to praise the PAP Government.”
“My time is up. All right, Mr Speaker, Sir. 4.54 pm”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I think I have said enough.”
“If you take all these powers out from the Opposition Members, the so-called nonconstituency Members of Parliament, you are virtually depriving them of any efficacy or any usefulness in this House. Does tile Prime Minister want these Members here so that, in his words, there can be parliamentary theatrics? Is that his purpose? Because they do not really matter; he can enjoy parliamentary theatrics with them. Mr Speaker, Sir, the Constitution is the supreme law and it concerns everything in Singapore, the way Bills are passed and the efficacy of the Bills. The Opposition Members cannot vote on a Supply Bill or Supplementary Supply Bill. What this would mean is that they cannot vote in any Budget debate, and that is the most important function of Parliament - to supply monies to the Government, to sanction the spending of public money. And you are going to deprive them of any say in that. They cannot vote in any motion in the Budget debate. So what good are they? Neither can they vote on a Money Bill, and a Money Bill as defined in Article 68 is a Bill whose main purpose is to raise money, taxes, charges. Again, that is a very important measure. They have no say on that. And finally they cannot vote in a vote of no confidence in the Government. Does the Prime Minister seriously think that if he has got all his Members in Parliament, all 79, does he really think that one of his Members, with that Article 46(2)(b) staring at him in the face, is going to move a vote of no confidence? This is all nonsense. Does he seriously think that?”
“- because of what they had said earlier. But no. So may I tell the Prime Minister that if, as he now says, he is genuine, that he is sincere, I say, "Prove it." It is because the Prime Minister and his Government will be judged not by what the Prime Minister says or Government utterances but by its deeds. And that is a fact which every one has to accept. It is by one's deeds that one is judged. So there is to me, Mr Speaker, Sir, as I said, a far better way to bring about Opposition Members in this House. And we will get the right kind of Opposition Members into Parliament if you encourage criticism, if you do not put down dissent. Not this sham. Mr Speaker, Sir, I have said outside this House, but perhaps not clearly enough. Let me say it now: My Party will have nothing to do with this Bill. We will not accept any seat in Parliament by grace of the Government. We say that the right to come into Parliament must be earned by the Member and he must be sent here by the electorate who put their trust and confidence in him. Of course, the Government must have seen statements by Opposition parties. So what is the Government going to be left with? No Opposition party leader or member of any standing will accept this invitation. So that I say you will not get genuine Opposition Members. Now let us look at the sort of Members that the Bill seeks to bring into this House. If you look at clause 3, which amends Article 39, it says that: 'A non-constituency Member shall not vote in Parliament on any motion pertaining to - (a) a Bill to amend the Constitution; (b) a Supply Bill or Supplementary Supply Bill; (c) a Money Bill as defined in Article 68; (d) a vote of no confidence in the Government.”
“Have you finished? I would suggest, for one other thing, he could, as I said, consult all political parties on the rules governing the elections and extend the time for election campaign. One other matter is this. Mr Speaker, Sir, we have an Article in the Constitution, Article 46(2)(b), of which I am sure the other Members here must be only too well aware that if they resign or are expelled from their political party, they must resign their seat and the seat will be declared vacant. That, Mr Speaker, Sir, is an impediment to the growth of parliamentary democracy, for the growth of opposition. Is the Prime Minister prepared to consider repealing that Article in the Constitution so that persons who are genuinely members of one party and who are prepared to dissent from the policies of their own party can, with a good conscience, make their criticism and their Opposition to the government policies in this House? Mr Speaker, Sir, we have had debates in which Members have spoken against policies. I have spoken. But what happens when I call for a division, Sir? What happens? They might speak against it. They might say they do not like the idea. They may criticize it. Then when it comes to dissent, all we hear is a faithful "Aye". I had hoped against hope that one or two Members here might find the courage to stand with me in dissent - [Laughter]. An hon. Member: It must be a big joke!”