Lau Teik Soon
Singapore
“So, in fact, you can have a situation where a new solicitor who has three years' practice can have one person who has not got three years' practice to be a partner, both of whom have of course not gone through the legal practice management course. I do not know whether or not that is desirable.”
“Sir, first, I would like to thank the Minister for his positive reply. May I ask the Minister that, in view of the unique structure of the food centre, his Ministry officials consult the Management Committee of the food centre with regard to the actual requirements concerning the roof?”
“Sir, in the event the Ministry concerned is not going to pull down the homes after full compensation has been paid and therefore the homes are left vacant, will the Ministry then consider allowing them to stay on at nominal rates? Because the homes are just being left vacant. Assoc. Prof.”
“And more than that, under the revised scheme in June 1996, owners of acquired shophouses who are doing business in the shophouse will also be entitled to ex-gratia payment. So I hope the Member will appreciate this.”
“Will the Minister review the situation in view of the fact that we are here discussing moneys which are rightfully that of the home owners and it is with a statutory board, not a commercial bank, and also that the home owners will return the money to the CPF after they have received the total compensation?”
“Sir, I agree with the Minister that if it is a charge by a commercial bank, the home owners will have no choice. But in view of the fact that this charge is by the CPF Board, which is a statutory board, and it is a matter of time that they will eventually return the moneys to the CPF Board, will the Minister reconsider his decision?”
The complete record
Every one of 491 lines we hold for Lau Teik Soon, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 2 of 10.
“My view is that we must be concerned about the sensitive issues. For example, when assessing the response of a community towards an issue related to its religion, the question is; is it obvious what the response is going to be? If so, then it should not become a matter of public discussion. The publication of such a view can only lead to dissatisfaction of the community. This does not promote racial harmony in any way. The recent Straits Times survey concerning Malays' response to the Gulf War is a case in point. The discussion of sensitive issues should be low profile and controlled. I think if the discussion takes place among community leaders who understand the issue, then it may not result in dissatisfaction. But, I would not support such issues being aired in public for the impact of this will be a wider rift between the communities. Sir, we know that the new Government has much to deal with in the next lap. But I would suggest that for the long term peace and development of our country, nothing is more important than building a nation-state. Twenty-five years have passed since Independence; must we allow another 25 years to pass before tackling this problem?”
“Government must encourage and promote multi-racial activities. After all, are we or are we not a multi-racial society? Sir, in the Addenda to the President's Speech, I notice that both the Ministries of Community Development and Information and the Arts are still promoting the path of separate development of the communities. The Ministry of Community Development stated that it would, and I quote: ' ... encourage ethnic communities to preserve their cultural identities while fostering a greater sense of being Singaporean amongst all races.' The Ministry of Information and the Arts stated that it would, and I quote, 'help the different communities develop their own heritage centres in ways which promote mutual understanding and national unity.' This is what I call the path of separate development. Why will not both Ministries promote multi-racial and multi-cultural activities? For example, the Ministry of Community Development can organise multi-racial clubs and multi-cultural groups in the community centres and clubs instead of having separate cultural groups. The Ministry of Information and the Arts should have a Singaporean or multi-racial heritage centre, a national heritage centre, not separate heritage centres. Do we want to unite or continue to be divided? I would suggest that the Government should organise a Singaporean or multi-racial and multi-cultural month during which social, cultural and recreational activities representing all communities - Chinese, Malay, Indian, Eurasian and others - can come together and be displayed all at the same time in the same venue. This is what we should encourage if we are serious about nation building. Finally, Sir, there is the question of how sensitive issues should be handled in Singapore.”
“If I may suggest towards the promotion of this, the Government should adopt an appropriate approach towards various issues. The elements of this appropriate approach could include the following: equal treatment of all languages and cultures; Government's promotion of and involvement in multi-racial activities; and a low profile in dealing with sensitive issues related to race and religion. Sir, the first element has to do with the equality of treatment of the various communities, especially their languages and cultures. Can we say that one culture is dominant than others in our society? Should we allow for the dominant exposure of one language or one culture and overshadow the others in our society? If the Government's answer is "No" to both questions, then it must ensure that in practice, Government ministries and statutory boards do not allow themselves to be so money-minded that they succumb to activities which do not promote nation building. I need only bring up the example of SBC again. Why should Channel 8 be a Mandarin Channel? Someone told me, "That's because SBC is money-minded. Advertisements bring in money and since they want to advertise for a Mandarin-speaking audience, they go to Channel 8." Now my question is; what is the result? Well, on a certain day, and if you check up, you will find that you have all Mandarin programmes over Channel 8 except for a small slot for the Tamil news. What will be the impression of a tourist or foreigner when he turns on to Channel 8? Is that the impression the Government wants to create upon the minds of others outside Singapore? Another more important element of this approach towards racial and religious harmony is the focus on the part of Government on multi-racialism.”
“They should write to various journals, including daily newspapers, to express their views. Singaporeans should not be passive people, leaving the Government to do all the thinking for them. They must contribute towards this important aspect of Shared Values. Sir, the President's Speech has dealt briefly with two of the Shared Values. But a very important value which has not been mentioned is that of "Racial and religious harmony". I think this subject is very important and it should have been a point of focus in the President's Speech. I expected it, especially after the Prime Minister had highlighted the problem of nation building in his speech on the eve of the Lunar New Year. The Prime Minister in his opening statement in that speech said, and I quote: 'We must press on with our work to build a nation by gradually increasing the common ground among Singaporeans.' He stated that the acceptance and practice of Shared Values would speed up the process of nation building. Sir, nation building must be a top priority in the next lap. The new Government should focus on it. Yes, of course, we should continue with the development of material assets like better houses, education, roads, hospitals, and so on. But what will be a distinctive contribution of the Goh Chok Tong's Government will not be these. It will be the construction of a more cohesive and united people of Singaporeans. If in the future I am asked: what have been the achievements of the Goh Government, I hope to be able to say: the most significant is that we have a more united people. Specifically, Sir, the Government must give more attention to this Shared Value: racial and religious harmony.”
“Sir, I rise to support the motion standing in the name of the Member for Toa Payoh GRC. Sir, the President in his speech mentioned how and why we should move forward in the next lap, ie, we must work closely together. And we do so because we have to build a common home. Sir, such an expression as "Singapore is our home" is in line with one of the Shared Values which the Government has agreed upon and which has been adopted by this Parliament, ie, the value of "Nation above community and society before self". Sir, if the attachment of Singaporeans towards nation and society complements or is even greater than that towards community and self, then we will be making progress towards building a common home in Singapore. We will have taken a significant step towards becoming a nation. Sir, another reference to the Shared Values in the President's Speech is the need to build a consensus on national policies. Towards achieving wider consensus, the Government has created many opportunities for Singaporeans to express their views. These include the Feedback Unit forums, Select Committee hearings, discussions of grassroots organisations, discussions during Ministerial walkabouts, and so on. Now, the Government proposes to widen the role of the GPCs and create the Service Quality Improvement Unit. The latter will give Singaporeans the channel to comment on the services provided by Government departments and statutory boards. Sir, Singaporeans must take full advantage of the opportunities to contribute towards reaching a consensus on national policy. More Singaporeans should speak out on national issues at various public forums and when they have the occasion to speak to Members of Parliament.”
“(2) to strengthen values consistent with universal and Islamic teachings in order to contribute to wholesome family and social and cultural values. The Malay becomes not only an active participant and contributor but, more importantly, a leading-edge resource in the effort of making Singapore a more dynamic and vibrant multi-racial society. (3) to help identify economic opportunities for the Malay community to take advantage of and aim at creating, say, a pan-community financial base. How are we going to do this? I suggest two approaches. (1) Government, Malay MPs and Mendaki can develop rapport and support by bringing together family, students, professionals, Malay/Muslim, grassroots organisations and outside organisations, including the non-Malays, into an integrated system. (2) Build up the required research, administrative and support services to attain the mission objectives of Yayasan Mendaki, as mentioned by many of my colleagues yesterday. Mr Speaker, Sir, I firmly believe the three-pronged approach, plus the two, will lead more and more Malays into the mainstream of our society - Singapore society. It will also lead to the creation of a sophisticated Malay (Kewujudan Masyarakat Melayu Canggih). Malays that can manage to keep pace with time, with the future - the Singapore future. Because we are moving to a new plane of sophistication, respect and dignity, and these must be earned, cannot be given or taken.”
“As Mark McCormak once said in his book "What they do not teach you at Harvard Business School" - "Not enough to work hard or smart, but work hard, long and smart". This I think we should pursue. The Malays should pursue. Pursue excellence to improve our standard of living and continue to strive for excellence - an intrinsically worthwhile goal to pursue. Sir, since Mendaki has accepted the proposal, let it formulate and implement the projects to help those with greater needs. I am confident we will see results in the foreseeable future. In order to achieve this, what should Mendaki do with the Government grant? This is purely my own assessment, my own suggestion. At this stage, I would like to suggest immediate action in three important areas: (1) Provide additional financial assistance to those students at tertiary level with family income less than $2,000 or who are below the poverty line. (2) Provide assistance to Malay pupils who have gained admission into the independent schools so that no bright Malay pupil would be deprived of the opportunity of studying in an independent school due to financial reasons. (3) Work closely and wisely with existing schemes available in schools and outside schools, such as work with established kindergartens, find a good kindergarten, and tuition centres, to improve the academic attainment of Malay pupils. In the final analysis, the Malay's aspirations should be, as far as I am concerned: (1) to further create a well-educated Malay community by having a total and comprehensive programme involving each and every Malay. Every child and every person attains the highest possible level of education in both the secular and spiritual dimension and be part of the national educational effort.”
“And with all the machinery, initiative of the Government, Ministry of education, Mendaki, MMJC and the push and the pull of the society, Insya Allah, we will succeed. Let me give you the figures that I have. In 1979, NUS/NTI, we have only 45 Malay graduates, percentage-wise of all graduates, 2.4%. After 10 years, in 1989, we have 153 graduates, percentage of all graduates is 3.3%. In the Polytechnics, the number of Malay graduates was 70 in 1979, percentage of all graduates, 3.1%. Last year, it was 200, percentage of all graduates, 3.8%. And something quite significant is that the number of Malays reading Honours, we started with four in 1980/81, but in 1989/90, we have 11. In terms of percentage, it is a 175% increase. The details are as follows: 1980/81, 4; 1981/82, 4; 1982/83, 6; 1983/84, 7; 1984/85, 8; 1985/86, 8, 1986/87, 14; 1987/88, 12; 1988/89, 12; and 1989/90, 11. Sir, the fee proposal is a difficult issue. It is a sensitive issue. We believe, however, that a well-thought out implementation plan will receive the Malay community's support. This is why we recommend that the proposal should be implemented gradually so that the community has ample time to prepare for it. The gradual introduction of the scheme will also give Mendaki sufficient lead time to get itself established. To me, this is a turning point in the attitude of the Malays. The concept of the "haves' helping the "have-nots" will be heightened. More and more will be in the mainstream of society, in shorter time. This I have no doubt. As Lord Denning once said: "I may make mistakes, and sometimes am, but I was never in doubt." Of course the Malays must do more than hard work.”
“Assurances have been given by none other than our First Prime Minister, and if I am not mistaken, twice already, and in another instance by Minister for Trade and Industry, BG Lee, himself. At this juncture, I think it is worth our while to ponder what the Deputy Prime Minister of Malaysia said. The DPM of Malaysia twice made a point regarding their version of Article 152. In their case, it is Article 153 of their Constitution with all the imperative language. Mr Ghafar Baba said that the Article is useless, is meaningless, if the Malays in Malaysia do not pursue education seriously and reach the tertiary institutions. Because high calibre people, high calibre individuals, are needed to run the country. Another caption "Bumis should not depend on special rights. (Ghafar)." I quote: 'Bumiputras should try to achieve success without depending on the special rights available to them under the Constitution.' Again, on 5th February, early this year, he said: 'Bumiputras, he stressed, should stop thinking in terms of special treatment accorded to them as the indigenous people of the country so that they could be truly proud of their achievements.' Hence, I think what we should be concerned with and consider as a problem, should there be, is that, if no Malay Singaporean ever graduates, then there is a problem, a very serious problem. Maybe our education programme is a failure. But as it is now, even with stiff competition, with keen competition, they not only survive, but make the grade. Mind you, while we are looking at the cohort, a few managed to get straight As in ten subjects. I do not advocate ordinary students offer more than eight subjects, but some did.”
“The Government has from the time Singapore became independent taken a policy decision to offer free education to members of the Malay community regardless of their means. This is a specific measure which benefits the Malay community alone. Of course, the Chinese and the Indians are given free primary education. It is saved from being in contravention of Article 12 because of Article 152 of the Constitution. Sir, when we discussed the matter, the question at that point of time was whether the Government should continue its policy of providing free education to all members of the Malay community regardless of their means. Whether or not this policy of the Government should continue, to me, must depend obviously on whether the circumstances which led to the introduction of this policy still subsist, still exist, and continue to exist. It should be obvious to anyone who has lived in Singapore that circumstances have changed considerably over the past 25 years. This is especially so for the Malay community and the relationship between the Malay community and the other communities of Singapore. As a result of the policies of the Government, especially the policy of providing free education up to the tertiary level, the Malay community in Singapore has made economic progress. In fact, some of them have made tremendous economic progress, and we are talking about this particular group of Malays, not the ones who are less endowed. But the cynics and the churlish never think so or simply do not want to think so. Sir, the more important point to be made to the Malays is not about Article 152 because it will be there and it is safeguarded.”
“I am indeed privileged to be asked by Dr Ahmad Matter, as the Minister-in-charge of Muslim Affairs and Chairman of Yayasan Mendaki's Board of Directors, to be the Chairman of the Mendaki-MOE Joint Committee (MMJC), and more so when he requested the MMJC to study the issues raised by Malay Singaporeans on the fee proposal. Since its establishment in September 1989, the MMJC has worked very hard to find ways to improve the education of Malay pupils. As for the fee proposal, after three months of deliberations with various Malay/Muslim organisations, MMJC had worked out the tertiary fee proposal. A significant feature of the proposal is that Malay students will pay full tertiary fees, if they can afford it. This will allow more financial resources to be channelled to projects which will benefit the needy Malay pupils. I am indeed encouraged by Mendaki's bold decision to accept the proposal as well as the positive and generous gesture of our Government. Critics have contended that the tertiary fee scheme tantamounts to the Government's abandoning of its constitutional duty to safeguard the special position of the Malays as laid down in Article 152. Whether this is so is a matter for constitutional lawyers, not just any lawyers. If need be, they should ascertain whether it is a mandatory one with imperative language which guarantees right or is it an enabling provision, an enabling clause, that allows the Government of the day to pass laws or introduce administrative measures in favour of that particular community, in this case the Malay community, if the Government wants to do so. Sir, this Government is noted for its fair play and it will be unthinkable for it to introduce something which is unconstitutional.”
“Sir, the President's Address and the Addenda by all the Ministries pointed to one direction, and that is, forward to the future. It is forward looking with the ingredients befitting the challenges that face a city state. For instance, we need leaders who are strong, have character, possess the greatest sense of sympathy and who are fair to all regardless of their race, creed or religion. We have such leaders, namely, our own Prime Minister. I would like to share the sentiments expressed by my colleagues about our Prime Minister. I would like to consider all the speeches made by them about our PM as if it is mine, with one addition at this juncture, and that is, Singaporeans are indeed fortunate and privileged to have a person of his calibre. I also have full confidence in our First Deputy Prime Minister and his consultative style, and of course his colleagues, our colleagues, in Cabinet. Sir, the city state also needs quality people within and without to ensure the dynamism of the city state. A dynamic society or a strong society must strengthen its vital structures, namely, the structure of its faith between men, social, cultural, administration, economic and, of course, politics. This can only be achieved through education and upgrading of education, in fact, constant upgrading of education. And this is exactly what the President said in his very first sentence when he addressed this August Chamber. Sir, permit me to concentrate on this particular area, education, with particular reference to the Malay society.”
“We should not play the number game, ie, because we have 76% Chinese, 15% Malays, 8% Indians, then we should have the same ratio of cultural programmes or whatever. This will not promote, in my view, a Singaporean identity. Instead, it will reinforce separate cultural development, as in the case of the bilingual policy being implemented in our schools today. This will not only be detrimental to the evolution of a national identity, ie, if we play the number game, it will also have an unfortunate impact on our relations with our immediate neighbours. Sir, towards the evolution of our national identity, we must take into consideration our external environment. If we develop a national identity which is in stark contrast with that of our neighbours, especially Malaysia, we may be on a collision course with our ASEAN neighbours. To put it bluntly, we cannot be a predominantly Chinese city state. We have to be a Singaporean or multi-racial nation. We have to make sure that Singaporeans of whatever ethnic background will feel that they belong here. As I stated at the beginning, we have made progress in the economic and political fields, but we have yet to evolve a national identity. Policies affecting the various communities are very sensitive matters. But we must tackle the problem head on. Our leaders and all Singaporeans must think multi-racial or Singaporean whenever they formulate policies. In that way, the Singaporean national identity will be achieved earlier. Then national unity will be forged and less Singaporeans will want to leave the country. The Senior Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Education (Encik Sidek bin Saniff): Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of the motion in thanking the President for his Address in this august Chamber.”
“Personally, I would prefer to see on display multi-racial colours, sounds and faces, and not just those of one community. Another area I would like to touch on is the bilingual policy. My colleague, Mr Chandra Das, has mentioned a very significant impact of this bilingual policy on our children, ie, the awareness of ethnic differences. Sir, I would like to raise this question. Why should children of Singaporeans be forced to opt for a second language not of the parents' choice? If we are truly Singaporeans, does it matter if we opt for one official language besides English? Let the bilingual policy be a flexible one. Let Singaporeans decide what the second language of their children should be: whether it be Malay, Tamil or Chinese. In this connection, I would be very interested to know how many non-Chinese children are studying Mandarin, and how many Chinese children are learning Malay or Tamil. If we are Singaporeans, we should be bilingual, ie, English and one other official language, whether it be Malay, Tamil or Mandarin. The third area concerns the weightage of programmes for different communities drawn up by the Singapore Broadcasting Corporation, especially SBC TV. The ques- tions I would like to raise are: Why should there be so much more of Chinese programmes than non-Chinese? Why does SBC have English and Malay programmes over Channel 5 and Chinese and Tamil programmes over Channel 8? Why not mix them all up? On such matters, may I say that the cultural dominance of one community is not a positive contribution to the national identity. Sir, I have stated enough to show that if we want to be Singaporeans, we have to think and act Singaporean, ie, multi-racial, instead of race.”
“Over the years, I think the inter-racial approach has been a significant factor in decision making by Government. Particularly, it has been a basis for many cultural policies, ie, they have been influenced by the nature of our demographic distribution, especially the relative strength of the three major communities. In my view, it is time to change such an approach: multi-racialism must be a stronger element as a basis for policy making. In politics and public administration, we have managed to reduce the impact of inter-racialism. In politics, the GRCs as well as the Single Member Constituencies (SMCs) provide the opportunity for a truly Singaporean representation based on multi-racialism and meritocracy. In public administration, meritocracy ensures that multi-racialism exists in various statutory and Government departments. But as far as decisions in the cultural field are concerned, I think the Government still regards inter-racialism as an important determinant for policy making. It still relies on inter-racialism, or the relativity of the various communities. I would like to refer to three specific areas where I think multi-racialism should prevail and that policy changes would be necessary in order to forge a national identity. Recently, the Government encouraged the holding of separate Malay, Indian and Chinese cultural months. On this matter, I agree with my colleagues who have said that we should have a Singaporean or multi-cultural month instead of a separate cultural month for each racial group. Why not a Singaporean cultural month, when all items in the programme, whether they be the display of food, traditional dances, cultural artifacts, will all be mixed and multi-racial in character?”
“Sir, I rise to support the motion standing in the name of the Member for Tanglin. The President, in his Address, stated that we have yet to evolve a national identity. This is an important and crucial task which we have to tackle immediately. We have made so much progress in the political and economic fields, but we have yet to evolve a national identity. If we have a national identity, I am sure it will bind Singaporeans more strongly. In the meantime, more and more of our citizens are emigrating. Did they leave because they did not have a sense of national identity? Can we reduce the flow of Singaporeans out of the country if we do have a clear national identity? So, if we do have a national identity, hopefully it may forge unity and slow down the flow of Singaporeans out of the country. But there is another vital reason why this task should be tackled urgently. It is that nationalism is becoming a more assertive factor in international politics. And to withstand the pressures from outside, Singaporeans must be strong and united. Lately, Sir, Singaporeans are becoming more aware of the need to have a national identity. In my view, towards creating this identity, I would suggest that we adopt a more multi-racial and less inter-racial approach towards various issues. We should emphasise multi-racialism as a vital element of our national ideology. Sir, by multi-racialism, I mean the emphasis on the integration of our various cultures. Whereas inter-racialism recognises the relative strength of the racial groups and allows for the separate development of the different cultures. In my view, multi-racialism will promote our national identity, whereas inter-racialism will slow down the evolution of our national identity.”
“This proposal for the Elected President gives powers to the person in two main areas, mainly to safeguard our financial assets and reserves and the integrity of our civil servants. The proposal has also stated who can be eligible for candidacy for the Presidency. I recall the White Paper mentioning that such a candidate should be one who has ministerial experience, moral authority and personal integrity. More importantly, Sir, the power of the President is a custodial one, it is not executive. The Elected President, as I recall, does not initiate or make decisions. These are left to the Prime Minister. Another point which one may to recall is that in the event of a dispute between the Elected President and the Prime Minister, the Prime Minister may refer the matter to the people, ie, through a referendum, or make a constitutional amendment. In view of all this, I would think that any right thinking Singaporean would not oppose this proposal. The proposal has been discussed widely in line with our participatory democracy. The Bill will be introduced by the end of the year. The provisions for implementing the principles behind the proposal would be made clear. There will be ample time for the NCMP, the other Opposition Member, and others to debate the Bill. And I am sure that it would be referred to a Select Committee and that there would be widespread public debate on the issue. In view of what I have said, Sir, in my opinion, it would be unnecessary to have a referendum; it would be a waste of expenditure in terms of finance and manpower. And as such, I would propose that this amendment be defeated.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to participate in the debate on the President's Address but, in view of the amendment, permit me to speak on the amendment first. In a way, Mr Speaker, Sir, it is quite predictable that the NCMP would put some sort of amendment to the motion before the House by the Member for Tanglin. From the outset, Sir, I would like to oppose the amendment and propose that a vote be taken on it so that we can dispose of this amendment and resume debate on the Original motion. Mr Speaker, Sir, the amendment merely re-opens an issue. It is not a new issue. The NCMP may not be aware that the proposal for the Elected President was mooted in 1984, and that the Government leaders had deliberated for a long time before coming out with a White Paper, which was debated in this House. As the NCMP mentioned, the White Paper was presented to this House in July 1988 and it was fully debated. It was debated not just in this House, but also outside of this Chamber. There were discussions at constituency level, there were letters, views expressed in the press. Then, of course, in September 1988 at the general elections, the First Deputy Prime Minister put this issue before the people. And I recall him saying that he wanted to seek the mandate of the electorate so that this proposal could be put forward before the people. We all know the results of that general elections. The mandate has been given to the PAP Government to proceed with the Bill. And I am sure the NCMP does not deny that the PAP has the mandate to proceed with this Bill. May I, Mr Speaker, Sir, just recall a few points with regard to this proposal?”
“After weighing the pros and cons, I no longer oppose the fact that the Bill does not provide that NMPs should not be appointed as Ministers. I am not quite sure as to whether any future government would make use of the system of NMPs or their votes to consolidate the position of the Government. On this question I should say that the NMP system is only a man-made system. If, in future, any government should abuse the original intention of the system, we cannot prevent it anyway. So the most important thing is that at the general elections, the electorate must vote for those candidates who are of integrity to form the Government. That, is the way to truly ensure our future. Sir, I support the Bill.”
“On the second point, the First Deputy Prime Minister indicated at the last session he would not oppose the idea of a provision in the Bill that NMPs should not be appointed as Ministers. Let us give this new system a trial. If the selections are not ideal or not desirable, or if there are enough Opposition MPs in Parliament, then by that time Parliament can decide how to deal with the situation. I had thought that if one day when there is a situation where the party in power may have a very slim majority in Parliament, then there is the temptation for that government to make use of the NMPs to consolidate their position and even appoint them as Ministers. Would it be against the will of the people? I think it is likely. But after careful consideration, I feel that under such circumstances, whatever the Government may be, whether it is the PAP Government or any other party in power, the most important question is the stability of the Government, and not the interest of the political parties. If at that time, the governing party does not have enough talents within its rank to be appointed as the Minister for Finance or other important ministerial posts, then under the premise of the interest of the nation, I would agree to appointing NMPs as Ministers. The government under those circumstances and the Ministers will be very careful in carrying out their policies. Just now I mentioned that there would be a worry of Ministers having great powers. In such a situation, when NMPs are appointed as Ministers such worry would no longer exist and such appointments would be quite all right to me after all. The First Deputy Prime Minister has said that in the present circumstances, there is no need for our PAP Government to appoint NMPs as Ministers.”
“Dr Wang Kai Yuen (Bukit Timah)( In Mandarin): Sir, during the Second Reading of the Bill I suggested that there are three points which should be considered. Firstly, we should consider the merits of NMP in the light of the ratio of Government MPs to Opposition MPs in future Parliaments. At present, the great majority of seats are occupied by the Government Party. Under these circumstances, I agree with the First Deputy Prime Minister's view that NMPs can help reflect the people's views because they are not like the PAP Members who are subject to the Whip's direction. But I feel that when Opposition MPs increase in number, the NMPs would lose their most meaningful justification and the number of NMPs should be reduced. Secondly, I do not think that an NMP should have the right to be appointed as a Minister. This is so because our Parliament has vested in our Ministers very substantial powers. Presently the Ministers are like other MPs. They have to go and face the electorate every five years to find out what the people think of their policies. Every Minister has this concern in his mind when exercising his power. Therefore, I support the idea expressly stipulating in the Bill that NMPs should not be appointed Ministers, which is very appropriate. The third point is how to prevent a future government from making use of NMPs to strengthen their political power. The Select Committee had several suggestions incorporated in the amended Bill. Here I have two points to highlight. First, allowing every new Parliament to decide on the question whether they want to have NMPs or not. Second, giving the right to NMPs to be appointed Ministers.”
“But since we are making a Constitutional amendment, then there should be no problem if we think it is desirable that the shortlisted candidates be subject to a secret ballot by this Chamber. The second issue relates to the information to be made known to the public concerning the shortlisted candidates. I think the public should know who these shortlisted candidates are, their qualifications, background, their experiences and so on. If members of the public through various forums would want to make strenuous objection for very strong reasons, then I think they should be given the opportunity to make known their objection. They are not voting on the shortlisted candidates. But if they have a serious objection and they have information which the Special Select Committee does not have, then it would be a useful exercise if we allow the public a say in the list of candidates to be put up. I hope this is possible. Thirdly, the question of their political affiliation. The original intent of this proposal, Sir, was that non-partisan independent people would come into this Cham- ber to debate on various issues, to make recommendations, and they should not be constrained by any party or political affiliation. Here again, I agree with Dr Arthur Beng that the shortlisted candidates should resign from any party membership of any political party. Otherwise it would compromise their position. Party membership may be known to his friends or her friends and the word goes around that he is a member of this party or that party. He is no longer a non-partisan person. So the integrity and the non-partisanship of such nominated MPs must be maintained.”
“The Select Committee's recommendation that each Parliament will have the discretion whether or not to have nominated MPs, in my view, is a correct and wise move. If a resolution is passed in Parliament that there be Nominated MPs, then the nominated MPs would be made more welcome in this Chamber. The decision whether or not to have nominated MPs would be the decision of the Members of Parliament. Additionally, such a resolution means that the nominated MPs will have some kind of legitimacy. After all, if it is a new Parliament passing a resolution that they be nominated, then to that extent they do have certain status, legitimacy, in this Parliament. So in my view it is an appropriate move to make. But, Sir, I have three questions which I would like to raise with the First Deputy Prime Minister and seek his clarification. The first is the procedure for the nomination of NMPs. I agree that it would be cumbersome to debate the qualities, the characters, the experiences of all the names which would be submitted by members of the public. That is not desirable. But if the Special Select Committee short lists from the nominations of the public, then I would suggest that the shortlisted candidates be made known to Members of Parliament and that their names and their qualifications be discussed in various forums. The Special Select Committee should shortlist more than the required number of NMPs. And this short list, in my view, should then be put to a secret ballot. I agree with Dr Arthur Beng that the shortlisted candidates should be put to the vote so that each Member of Parliament can then decide for himself or herself which of this list of candidates should be nominated NMPs in this Chamber. The Report mentioned that this would be a radical departure.”
“When he was head of state in Cambodia before 1970 when he was overthrown by a coup, Prince Sihanouk kept his country free and independent and neutral in his foreign policy. Prince Sihanouk is no puppet of any foreign government, unlike Hun Sen or Khieu Samphan. Prince Sihanouk needs all the foreign, economic and military assistance he can get in order to strengthen his hand. In my view, the Government should continue to support strongly Prince Sihanouk as the head of a future government in Cambodia. Finally, Sir, with regard to the third issue, Singapore and the other ASEAN governments must ensure that the Vietnamese settlers in Cambodia would have to be repatriated back to Vietnam. If this is not done, then in future general elections, the Vietnamese settlers could assume Cambodian citizenship and become voters, and thereby they would swing the election to favour the pro-Vietnamese faction, namely, the Hun Sen group. Sir, there should be a UN mission to survey the areas where the Vietnamese settlers are and to arrange for their repatriation back to their homes in Vietnam. I hope that the Government will stand firmly on these issues and persuade all parties to the conflict to agree to abide by them.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, in making this amendment, the Chairman of the GPC, Defence and Foreign Affairs, touched on the Cambodian problem and I would like to speak on this subject. Sir, the latest effort made to resolve the Cambodian problem took place late last month when interested parties met in Jakarta. Unfortunately, for the Cambodian people and for ASEAN, there was no agreement reached and hence the conflict continues. There are many factors which can explain the failure of all the efforts made to try to reach a comprehensive political settlement of the Cambodian problem. These factors will continue to obstruct all peace efforts. There are three issues on which I would like to touch on and to hear from the Minister what the position of the Government is on each of them. The first issue has to do with the role of the Khmer Rouge in a future Cambodian government. The world community knows that the Khmer Rouge practised genocidal policies when they ruled Cambodia between 1975 and 1979. More than a million Cambodians died at their hands. No one would like to see a return of the genocidal practices of the Khmer Rouge. Hence all guarantees must be drawn up in any settlement to ensure that the Khmer Rouge, while having a share of the government, will never have the opportunity again to dominate any sector of government or, worse, to be a dominant partner in any future government in Cambodia. The second issue relates to the role of Prince Sihanouk in the national supreme council to be set up and in the future government in Cambodia. No matter what others may say about Prince Sihanouk, in my view he is first and foremost a Cambodian nationalist.”
“So these sea lanes must be kept free so that merchant ships, oil tankers and other ocean-going vessels can passage through the sea lanes without hindrance. May I ask the Minister whether, in his view, we have the capability to keep the sea lanes open, either on our own or in cooperation with our ASEAN and other friendly countries, and whether we should not give priority to the upgrading of the weapon systems of the Navy.”
“Sir, I would like to touch on one aspect of the modernisation of the SAF, that is, the hardware side of the modernisation. Sir, early last month, I was privileged to be present at the commissioning of the F16s, the Fighting Falcons, which are the latest addition to the hardware of the RSAF. The F16s, as everyone knows, are the most modern and sophisticated fighter aircraft that we have, and they are not cheap. They are very expensive. Each of these aircraft costs more than $30 million. But, Sir, I would argue that this expenditure is necessary, if not imperative, in order that Singapore can meet our goal of a strong and credible air defence system. Further, the acquisition of the F16s meets our twin objectives of enhancing our deterrent capability and improving our position to contribute to ASEAN and regional defence. Sir, the modernisation or upgrading of the RSAF seems to have been achieved up to this stage. But may I ask the Minister: what about the modernisation of the weapon systems of the Army and Navy? For example, the tanks and the surface-to-air missiles that the Army possesses, do they not need upgrading? They need upgrading, in my view, because the Army needs to have higher mobility and efficiency. In thinking about the modernisation of the SAF, Sir, my view is that priority should be given to the Navy. Why do I say this, Sir? The main reason is that the security of the sea lanes is absolutely vital to us. The sea lanes leading to the Singapore ports and shipyards from Europe, Middle-East, South Asia, from the west coast of the United States and Japan and from our ASEAN countries - they are our life lines.”
“Sir, when I used the paraphrase MPs are MPs, I mean to say that there are various categories of Members of Parliament, but they are all Members of Parliament, whether elected MP, Non-Constituency MP or nominated MP. So MPs are MPs. Do you need further clarification?”
“Sir, if the Member for Potong Pasir still does not understand, I shall continue. Mr Speaker: You still do not understand, Mr Chiam?”
“The mandate comes, as I said, from Parliament. Parliament has conferred on him an indirect mandate. [Mr Chiam See Tong interrupted].”
“Sir, I think he is giving me the opportunity to give a lecture on the various categories of Members of Parliament, their responsibilities, their accountability and so. The point that I have made is that once a person has become a Member of Parliament through whatever procedure, he is thereby accountable to Parliament and to the people at large.”
“By this procedure, the nomi- nated MPs will then have an indirect mandate, in the way the NCMP has an indirect mandate. This is because they would have been proposed by the general public and as well as elected by the people's representatives. Sir, I am glad that the Bill will be committed to a Select Committee so that the procedure for nominating MPs can be discussed and finalised. For the moment, I support the amendment which will give the Government the flexibility to have nominated MPs in our unicameral Parliament. But I would suggest that the Government considers seriously the establishment of a Senate in the future.”
“Exactly. If so, if he is suggesting that, then he is the one who has the colonial mentality. Now he says it is absurd. We will be nominating Singaporeans. So what is so colonial about that? Sir, there are some MPs who imply that nominated MPs have no right to be in Parliament. That is ridiculous! MPs are MPs no matter how they have come into Parliament. No one has objected to the presence of the NCMP, Dr Lee Siew-Choh who is not an elected MP - he was defeated in the general elections. Dr Lee went through the election process. Yes. But he was not elected. He does not have the mandate. I must inform the Member for Fengshan - he is not here - that simply going through the election process does not give one a mandate. If it were to be so, then all the candidates who have taken part in elections before can now say, "We have the mandate. We can do this and that." So why oppose the proposal to have a limited number of nominated MPs here? Many of my colleagues have given all kinds of reasons why they think nominated MPs should not sit amongst us. But I would like to suggest that they should consider accepting nominated MPs and work out what the proper relationship between elected MPs and nominated MPs should be. In this regard, I would like to make the following proposal, following on the one made by the Member for Thomson. We should adopt a three-step procedure for nominating the MPs. Firstly, the general public will submit the names of those whom they would like to be nominated MPs. Secondly, the Special Select Committee will shortlist from, say, eight to 12 candidates, from the names submitted by the general public. Thirdly, the elected MPs as well as the NCMP will then elect the six persons to become nominated MPs.”
“It will serve as a check on the Lower House which the critics of the Government want and allow for nominated MPs to serve in the upper level Chamber. If such an Upper House were to be set up, the government would have more flexibility, say, appoint 20 Senators, representing a wide cross-section of our country. Why should this not be considered? I would suggest that the Government should look into the examples of Canada and the United Kingdom, if they want to change the structure of our Parliament from a unicameral to a bicameral one. Sir, if my suggestion is not taken up and if we are not yet ready for an Upper House or Senate, then in the meantime why not have the flexibility to have nominated MPs in this unicameral Parliament, ie, have the nominated MPs in our midst. This is what the amendment is all about. In my view, it is a step towards what could eventually be an Upper House. Sir, having nominated MPs in a unicameral legislature is nothing new, as the First Deputy Prime Minister has pointed out. Persons who have distinguished themselves can be nominated. The Member for Potong Pasir objects to this because he said that such a Parliament woukd be a colonial one. I think he was referring to the Legislative Assembly of the colonial period where there were nominated Members. Is he suggesting that we nominate British officials into this Parliament?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, some Commonwealth Parliaments accommodate both the flexibility which the government wants and the check and balance which some Backbenchers want by having a bicameral structure of Parliament: a Parliament with a Lower House or a House of Representatives, and an Upper House or the Senate in the case of Canada, or House of Lords in the case of the United Kingdom. In most cases, the Lower Chamber has elected MPs and the Upper House nominated MPs. Whether a person is in the Lower or Upper House, he is a Member of Parliament. Many of the Backbenchers must have met the Upper House MPs of these countries when they attended meetings organised by the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association and the Inter-Parlia- mentary Union. So whether they are from the Lower House or Upper House, they are all Members of Parliament. Sir, many Backbenchers and the Opposition MPs make the fallacious argument that having nominated MPs will erode the prestige and the stature of our Parliament. In my view, such a thinking manifests a narrow conception of what Parliament is. The problem lies in the fact that we have had no experience of a bicameral legislature where nominated MPs have as much right and stature, and in some cases more rights and stature, than elected MPs. Such is the case in Canada and the United Kingdom. What these critics of government should do is to realise that nominated MPs for a very long time have been part of the parliamentary process in the more developed parliaments. Sir, I would like to suggest that the Government considers legislation to set up an Upper House of Parliament. This is a more decisive change in our parliamentary system and it will satisfy both sides.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the proposed constitutional amendment when passed will make a significant change to our parliamentary system. But it seems to me that in the view of some MPs, especially the critics of the Bill, the change will not go far enough for them. This seems to be a strange statement to make. Let me explain what I mean. Sir, the Government proposes by this amendment to introduce a certain flexibility in the membership of Parliament. Such a flexibility is reflected in the Government's desire to have persons who have, among various qualifications, distinguished service and successful career, to be nominated Members of Parliament. If this amendment is accepted, it means that in our unicameral structure, Parliament will have MPs, Non-Constituency MPs and nominated MPs all in the same House. Some Backbenchers, however, Sir, want to go further than this step implicitly. They want to have a system of check and balance introduced into our parliamentary system. For example, the Member for Ayer Rajah made an unusual and may I say, Sir, an unparliamentary proposal, ie, that a body outside of Parliament should provide the check on this Chamber. I think that if the Member and others are serious about introducing a system of parliamentary check and balance, then they should propose the establishment of an Upper House. But if they propose this, then they would have to agree that there should be nominated MPs. This is because in most Commonwealth Parliaments where you have an Upper House, such a Chamber is filled up with nominated MPs.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to seek certain clarifications from the Minister of State. While agreeing with the general thrust of his statement that we should consider hosting certain facilities of the US, I am concerned as to the extent which we will host US facilities here. I would like to ask the Minister whether the ASEAN governments have been made aware of the present position of the Government and whether the Government has taken into account the sensitivities of some of the ASEAN governments concerning foreign military bases or facilities in our territory. I would like to ask the Minister of State whether this is the beginning of a formalized agreement with the US, ultimately leading to some kind of bilateral security arrangement.”
“Sir, may I ask the Minister of State what is the sex ratio of the new recruits and what efforts are being made to make sure that more men enter the teaching service?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, before Abdullah Tarmugi introduced his amendment, I have listened carefully to the other three amendments and have felt uneasy about all of them. I am glad that Abdullah Tarmugi has introduced an amendment which has put me at ease. Hence, Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to urge my colleagues to vote for the amendment proposed by Abdullah Tarmugi. His amendment meets the desire of most of the MPs, that is, to call for a review of the measures which have been introduced to curb car usage and to call for a review on a regular basis. And I think that is the desire of most of us. It is also, Sir, a very fair and reasonable amendment because it does not carry the emotive words which the others have, words like "too hastily, too harshly, too onerous," and so on. So, Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like my colleagues to support the amendment introduced by Abdullah Tarmugi.”
“On this issue, I would like to express a word of caution, that is, that the peace process should not in any way weaken ASEAN cooperation and unity. Specifically, I hope that the ASEAN governments will not discard their united position on the Cambodian problem. This united position not only has obtained for ASEAN strong international support but it has also contributed to the strengthening of ASEAN unity. I express concern about the weakening of ASEAN unity because of certain developments in certain ASEAN countries. For example, the visit of Hun Sen, the PRK's Foreign Minister, to Thailand. Such an event may give the impression that Bangkok has elevated Hun Sen to the same position as Prince Sihanouk. In my view, such a move must surely undermine ASEAN resolve to support the CGDK and at the same time threaten ASEAN unity. Sir, it is my view that ASEAN must seek a comprehensive political settlement of the Cambodian problem, one which is in line with the ASEAN-sponsored UN resolution. Singapore should stand firm and ensure that the comprehensive political settlement of the Cambodian problem will include the following elements: (1) that Prince Sihanouk should be Head of the new Government of Phnom Penh when it is established; (2) that both the Khmer Rouge and the Heng Samrin groups should not have a major role in the new government; and (3) that international support be provided to maintain the new government's independence, sovereignty and territorial integrity. The support could take various forms, including an international peace-keeping force and a financial and economic aid package.”
“Sir, in the present international political environment, certain assumptions are made about the behaviour of certain states, especially the major powers. To name some of these assumptions: firstly, that ideology is no longer a significant factor influencing foreign policy; secondly, that the major powers seek to disengage from military involvement in regional conflicts; and, thirdly, that the Communist governments are very concerned about economic development in their own countries. Whether these assumptions are valid or not can be debated. But the thing to bear in mind constantly is that the major powers seek the same goal: to expand their power and influence in the international community. The means may change, but the goal remains the same. The Chairman of the GPC for Defence and Foreign Affairs has already referred to the conducive international climate which has led to detente or peaceful coexistence in the relations between certain states. There seems to be opportunities for establishing bilateral ties between Singapore and other countries, opportunities which did not exist before because of ideological, political and economic considerations. In this connection, I would like to raise this question with the Minister: are we initiating changes in our foreign policy, taking into account the favourable international climate? And, specifically, are we going to improve our relations with certain countries, not only with the Soviet Union but also with China and Vietnam? More importantly, the changing international climate has impact on regional security, particularly on the Cambodian problem. Because of the improved international climate, all parties to the conflict are involved in a peace process aimed at achieving a comprehensive settlement of the Cambodian problem.”
“For example, Singapore participates in joint exercises with our Asean neighbours on a bilateral basis. We contribute to the Five Power Defence Arrangement. But there are new demands which have to do with the changing strategic environment. The strategic environment is changing and changing very fast. Specifically, Sir, these changes may demand from us a contribution to share the burden of defence of the Southeast Asian region. We may have to bear financial responsibility for joint usage of certain facilities and purchase of compatible equipment meant to facilitate cooperative endeavours. The changes in the strategic environment affect the balance of power in the region and the states in Asean may have to share the burden of defence of Southeast Asia. Specifically, we may have to do more to promote defence cooperation with the United States. We should be ready to do our part to contribute to regional security. Sir, to meet both national and regional security needs, the Ministry of Defence should be provided with adequate financial resources. Again, I would like to ask the Minister whether or not the present allocation is sufficient to meet those requirements.”
“Sir, over the past 10 years, the annual defence expenditure has increased from $1,035 million in 1979 to an estimated $2,916 million for FY89, a jump of about three times. In recent years, the allocation for the Ministry of Defence has been averaging about 30% of the annual budget or about 6% of the GDP. It increases by about 10-12% each year. Hence, Mindef takes a large slice of the annual budget. Even so, I would like to ask the Minister whether or not the defence allocation is adequate to meet the defence needs and to support the various activities of Mindef. Sir, Mindef has to implement various policies which require heavy financial commitments. Such programmes as the purchase of appropriate equipment to replace outdated or worn-out equipment and to provide more sophisticated defence systems require a lot of money. Likewise, the training of defence personnel - recruitment, training, upgrading of skills. In order to ensure that we have a robust, efficient and defence force means that large financial resources have to be expended. Further, Mindef has to build up sufficient reserves, both equipment and personnel, to meet any contingency. It is vital that the SAF maintains and enhances its status and prestige of being an alert, efficient and powerful defence force - one which is equal to the best, if not, better than the forces from comparable countries. We must have an SAF which can safeguard and even guarantee our national security interests. Our national security interests extend to matters of regional security. May I ask the Minister: are we in a position to respond to changes which affect regional security? Of course, we are already contributing to regional defence.”
“On the basis of the hearings the Government can then draft the Bill which will then be debated in Parliament, and at that stage I hope it will be referred to a Select Committee. Only after detailed discussions and consultations can consensus be arrived at and hence the issue carefully considered. Sir, this is a matter of utmost national importance and we should not be rushed into making a judgment on it.”
“For example, let us say that two-thirds of the Senate votes are required for concurrence in these two vital areas. Then if the government fails to get the vote, the matter should be referred to Parliament for further debate. After that the matter can be sent up to the Senate once more. If it fails again, then either the government accepts the decision or resign. Then both parliamentary and senatorial elections can be held and the people can then decide for themselves. That is the usual practice in most parliamentary democracies where there are two Houses of Parliament. Fifthly, the will of the people will prevail. Both Parliament and Senate members are elected by the people. They are the people's representatives and they should act in the national interest. Sir, if a Senate is created for the purpose of safeguarding the two vital assets, then the President can continue to play his present constitutional role. As stated, the President would be required to give his assent before Bills become law and such assent will be given on advice. But more importantly, Sir, the President can continue to be above politics. He is the symbol of national unity. And in any situation of national crisis, he can be a stabilizing force. This is a valuable asset which should be also safeguarded in our present Constitution. Sir, I agree with the rationale behind the need for constitutional amendments to safeguard our national reserves and integrity of the civil service. But I would prefer that Government examine carefully all possible forms of check and balance to be introduced for our parliamentary system. Even before the Bill is drafted, I hope the Government will conduct public hearings on the subject.”
“Sir, let me express my views on this question of an Upper House or Senate, which will have limited membership and has the specific function of safe- guarding our national reserves and integrity of the civil service. In my view, it is an option worthy of a second look. Such an Upper House would take into account the key considerations mentioned above. Sir, in my view an Upper House or Senate comprising, say, 10 to 12 members elected by the voters has certain features which should be given their due consideration. Firstly, the country and people will have the valuable services of a group of men and women who will have administrative, management and professional experience at the highest levels of government as well as the public and private sectors. This means that they should possess certain qualifications before they can offer themselves for election. But what you will have, Sir, is a group of men and women with such experience and expertise. Secondly, their concurrence for any government decision affecting the national reserves and integrity of the civil service will have been arrived at following careful deliberations and debate before the public, since debate in an Upper House should be open to the public. The public will then be aware of the manner in which they have arrived at their decision or concurrence with the government decision. Thirdly, there will be a clear division between Parliament and the Senate so that each is independent of the other. No candidate can stand for both Parliamentary and Senatorial elections. Fourthly, disagreement between the government and the Senate can be resolved by Parliament and the Senate without having to resort to a referendum.”
“Sir, I understand fully and agree with the key considerations which have guided the Government in their deliberations as to which form of safeguard mechanism should be introduced. These key considerations are: Firstly, the Parliamentary system should be preserved, that is, the Prime Minister and his Cabinet should keep the initiative to govern the nation. Secondly, the safeguard mechanism must enable quick action, that is, the procedures should enable gravely damaging decisions by the government to be blocked swiftly before it is too late. Thirdly, the person must have moral authority, that is, the official or agency entrusted with the task of exercising such checks must have, and be seen to have, the legitimacy and moral authority to block the government. These are the key considerations I agree with. Sir, these considerations and others were taken into account when the Government decided on which form of safeguard mechanism to adopt. In paragraph 18 of the White Paper it is stated that the Government had considered a number of alternatives, including "an upper legislative body". Sir, what I would like to know is, what are the views of the Government on the various alternatives which they have considered to provide the constitutional safeguards? In particular, why did they reject the other options? Sir, my other Parliamentary colleagues have dealt with various aspects of the proposal relating to an elected President, as contained in the White Paper. For the purpose of this present debate, Sir, I would like to express my reservation concerning the elected President and call upon the Government to reconsider the option of an Upper House.”
“Why then is it necessary for Parliament today to debate on the Government's proposal to introduce constitutional amendments to safeguard the financial assets and the integrity of the public services? What is the rationale for the Government's proposal? For a small country with very limited land and no natural resources, the future of the country must be anchored upon certain vital assets which we have accumulated over the years. And the assets must be permanent assets. Other countries have huge masses of land upon which agricultural and animal resources can be produced, and vast gold, oil and other mineral reserves which they can draw on. What have we got? Nothing in the way of natural resources. But we have our national reserves, at least $30 billion. Hence it is vital that we safeguard these national reserves. At the same time, Sir, many countries have bountiful agricultural and mineral resources and yet they have not been able to achieve the same rate of progress as we have. Why not? The answer lies in the utilization of our human resources. In Singapore, we have a meritocracy in which the highest premium is placed on political leadership and the civil service. Both have contributed tremendously to the success of Singapore. Both are assets to be preserved. But political leadership is a decision of the electorate: we get the kind of political leaders we elect. It is up to the people to decide. However, the integrity of the civil service can be entrenched by the government. It is vital that we do so. Hence, Sir, I find myself in agreement with the Government's rationale for wanting to provide constitutional safeguards for our sizeable national reserves and the integrity of the civil service.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, our present Constitution has served the country and people very well indeed. The Constitution provides for a Cabinet form of government with the Prime Minister as the Chief Executive in charge of running the country. Sir, since 1959 Singapore has been fortunate to have a Prime Minister and a Cabinet second to none in the world. They have exercised their powers firmly but fairly, decisively yet judiciously, and have done so for the good and welfare of the people. That they have served Singaporeans well can be seen in the expression of the people's will and support in every general election since 1959. Sir, the Constitution has also provided for some kind of check and balance in the political system; for example, the Parliament and the Judiciary. The Prime Minister and his Cabinet have always been constrained in the exercise of their powers by both Parliament and the Judiciary: by Parliament because it is Parliament where the people's sovereignty resides and where the expression of the people's will is expressed, and by the Judiciary because it is the Courts which arbitrate on the correct interpretation of the laws made by Parliament. Sir, this kind of check and balance which has been enshrined in our Constitution has worked well for the country and people. The smooth functioning of these institutions, the Cabinet, Parliament and Judiciary, have not been impaired in any way and we have benefited from it. This is seen in the political stability, the multi-racial harmony and economic progress we have enjoyed all these years, especially after independence in 1965.”
“Stations, bus services, roof leakage, traffic lights, location of wet markets. Which MP is not concerned? Even the Member for Potong Pasir. He has forgotten now, but the night he was elected, I remember watching him on television. He said, "We shall make Potong Pasir a model constituency."”