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 3 of 10.
“And therefore we will have such men, if elected, to be Chairmen of Town Councils. Therefore, voters have a choice, and I would say that they have to make the right choice. BG Lee Hsien Loong: Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, if I may respond very briefly to some of the substantive points raised by the Member for Potong Pasir. I do not think we should dismiss his speech lightly because he has made some points which, in fact, we have considered seriously in deciding on the Town Councils Bill. The key point is whether an MP operating at a national level, looking after the whole country, should also have a responsibility to manage his own constituency which elected him. The Member for Potong Pasir presented the opposing view, that he should not. The Member of Parliament looks after national matters. He pontificates on issues of wide importance. He debates in Parliament, and leaves these trivial, frivolous, municipal, bothersome issues to specialists. There is an element of truth there. But it is not de facto what happens. Which MP in this House, whether on the Government side or on the Opposition side, ignores the constituency he comes from? Pays no attention to it? Which MP in this House is not intimately worried about every bus stop, every hump in the road, every drain into which a child may fall if there is a monsoon and it floods? Every time there is a debate in Parliament on the Budget, the Minister for National Development is the champion marathon runner, because he answers five times as many questions on which there are five times as many experts in this House as any other Minister. Everybody knows it. Everybody wants his answer and presses his point. And it is not just at Budget time, but at every Parliament sitting. Just look at the Questions for Oral Answer, and tabulate.”
“And in the deliberations of a Town Council they would have to make decisions affecting the residents, and that is, in a sense, government of the HDB estates. On the second point, Sir, he did mention in his speech that there is nothing wrong to have construction workers, taxi drivers, factory hands to be Members of Parliament. But, Sir, under the Town Councils Bill, the Member of Parliament will be designated Chairman of the Town Council.”
“I hope the Member for Potong Pasir will read carefully the Bill. The Bill allows for the Town Council to control, manage, maintain and improve ---”
“Well, they have the authority as stated in the Bill, and the Member should read it carefully.”
“On the first point, Sir, the Town Council will be vested with power and authority according to the Town Councils Bill, although the power will be limited.”
“Secondly, the Town Council will be responsible initially for the common residential and industrial properties, including the recreational, educational and cultural facilities. In pursuing their responsibilities, there are bound to be conflicts between the Town Council and the HDB. How does the Minister propose to deal with these conflicts? I hope that whenever a dispute arises, the HDB will be helpful, flexible, tolerant and accomodative in its approach to the issue. Thirdly, the residents are expected to play a vital part in the local government of their Town. May I ask, will the proceedings and deliberations of the Town Council be open to the public? Can members of the Town appear before the Town Council and its committees so that they can raise questions, voice their views, and make useful suggestions? Sir, I hope every opportunity will be given to the residents to participate actively in the government of their own Town.”
“Hence voters should note that these people, if elected, would be potential Chairmen of Town Councils. And voters should ask: are they able to run the Town Councils? Sir, the Member for Potong Pasir is quite good at showmanship, coming to Parliament, raising questions, criticizing the Government, making speeches and generally playing up to the gallery. Yes, he can be critical of the HDB. But he has no responsibility at all for the running of the Town. He can come to Parliament, ask all kinds of questions but he does not have to find solutions to these problems. This is a very easy thing to do. But after the next elections, Members of Parliament cannot be irresponsible MPs because they have to run the Town Councils. Then the capability, dedication and reliability of the MPs will be put to the test. The Bill, in my view, is a milestone in our political history. The introduction of local government will lead to participatory democracy. Residents participate in the decision-making process and they have a direct role in the running of the town. Many residents will become Town Coun- cillors and others who become members of its various committees. Under the leadership of the MP, they will have to tackle various problems. Sir, at the beginning, there are bound to be teething problems. And on this point, I would like to raise three issues with the Minister. Firstly, for the effective running of the Town Council there must be adequate administrative and financial support for the Town Council from the Government. Will there be enough offices and staff? Will there be sufficient money to implement projects? I hope the Town Council will not be handicapped in their work by such limitations imposed on them.”
“In his view, Members of Parliament can come from construction workers, taxi drivers, factory workers and others. I ask him: is he going to field such candidates in the next general elections?”
“The voters will have a direct say as to who should lead the Town Councillors, responsible for the maintenance and improvement of their living conditions. Their physical comforts, quality of life, the social and cultural environment will be affected by their choice of the Chairman of the Town Council. Additionally, Sir, the residents have a role to play in creating the unique character of their Town. They can voice their views and opinions and many of them will have a direct part in the decision-making process of the Town Council. Many people have complained of the drab uniformity of HDB estates. Now they will have the opportunity to shape the Town in line with their aspirations and their creativity. Another important aspect of the Town Council is the test of the administrative and leadership qualities of the Member of Parliament. The Member for Potong Pasir in his long rambling speech, I think, wants to avoid this very issue. The Member of Parliament has a number of roles to play, including as the Member for Potong Pasir rightly mentioned, at the national level. But he is, first and foremost, a representative of the voters, of the constituency. He therefore has a vital role to play at the constituency level. The Member of Parliament as the Chairman of a Town Council will play that vital role. And voters have every right to ask the Member of Parliament: has the Member of Parliament the administrative ability to run a town? Has he the leadership to provide encouragement, guidance and advice, so that the Town Councillors will make the correct decisions which will benefit the people? Sir, you need capable persons to be Members of Parliament. I think voters should note carefully what the Member for Potong Pasir has just said.”
“Sir, the First Deputy Prime Minister delivered a very significant speech yesterday. From what he said, it is clear to me that what the Government seeks to achieve by the Town Councils Bill is to establish local government in the HDB town. Although the institution is to be called a Town Council, nevertheless, it is government at the local or constituency level. This is part of the process of decentralization of government and specifically it involves the devolution of power and authority from the HDB to the Town Council. Initially, the Town Council will be vested with limited power and authority, ie, it has the power and authority to manage, control, maintain and improve the common areas and certain facilities in the HDB town. But I can envisage that the local authority will take on greater responsibility in the years ahead. This will come about because of the experience of administering the Town Council and the town itself. Or it will be found necessary and rational to expand the power and authority of the Town Council. Viewed in this light, Sir, the Town Councils Bill is a watershed in our political development, as it is a significant step forward in establishing and nurturing sound and relevant democratic traditions. Democratic practice is enhanced through the gradual and pragmatic approach. Specifically, the Town Council will serve two main political objectives. Firstly, to allow direct participation in the political process for the residents and, secondly, to test whether or not the Member of Parliament has administrative and leadership qualities. The residents and particularly the voters have an important role to play in the local government of their town. They elect the Member of Parliament and therefore the Chairman of the Town Council.”
“I would like to quote what they have said: 'Whatever Lee Kuan Yew's justifications, [in other words, they accept that we have justifications for the action] the fact remains that some of his recent actions in regard to political opponents and the press run so counter to the traditions and values of both the Trilateral nations and Singapore itself that one can only view them with bafflement and sorrow, and hope that they will be temporary.' What is the implication of that conclusion? It is that our traditions, our values are similar to that of the United States. But this revealing statement also exposes the real crux of the problem. Americans like these co-authors feel that their traditions and values should be universal; and that all countries should embrace them for their political virtues. To me, Sir, this is the height of arrogance. Does this not show their superiority complex? The First Deputy Prime Minister was right when he stated clearly, during the press conference recently, and I quote: 'We are not going to be an image of you. If foreign governments understand that and accept that as a starting point of a mutual relationship with ourselves, then there will be no room for misunderstanding.' It seems to me, Sir, that Americans must treat Asians as equals, with dignity and respect, and recognize that we have different ways of doing things. Only then can misunderstanding be avoided. In conclusion, Sir, may I say that the Member for Potong Pasir has been misguided by moving this amendment by his political guru, whoever he is. I hope he will see where he has gone wrong and take remedial action. The least he can do, Sir, is to withdraw his unacceptable amendment to the motion standing in the name of the Member for Braddell Heights.”
“There are four authors to this report, two Americans, a British and a Japanese. Two weeks ago when I was in Japan attending a conference, I sought clarification from the Japanese co-author of this report, Mr Kazuo Nukazawa. He was frank enough to say that he did not approve of the "Freedom House Annual Rating" and that he would disassociate himself from it. The interesting point about the two Americans is that both had worked in the US State Department before. One is Richard Holbrooke, who was the Assistant Secretary of State for East Asian and Pacific Affairs during the Carter administration. This position is now occupied by Gaston Sigur, the superior of David Lambertson. The other American author is Evelyn Colbert, who was the Deputy Assistant Secretary for East Asian and Pacific Affairs between April 1978 and July 1980. This position is now occupied by David Lambertson, the superior of Hendrickson. The other co-author is Roderick MacFarquhar, who was a Labour MP in 1974-1979 in England. It seems to me that the anti-Singapore lobby in the State Department has its counterparts in former officials of the State Department who now are consultants and academics in prestigious institutions in the United States. What is pertinent is their comments in the concluding part of this draft report on the recent actions taken by the Singapore Govern- ment.”
“But we should note that such an assessment of states in South East Asia is used as evidence by very reputable organizations in the United States and I should refer to this in a moment. I hope the Member for Potong Pasir, after reading the table and what I have just said, has been enlightened about the human rights groups. These Americans, like Hendrickson and other human rights activists, are not concerned with political liberty. They are not concerned with political stability. They prefer political dissent, confrontation politics, weak government and anti-establishment movements. You are graded down if you score low in all these criteria. Sir, the Member for Potong Pasir does not seem to understand, and although my colleagues in Parliament have said it so often, that we Singaporeans want to be ourselves. Why does he oppose the Government's action against Hendrickson? This is implicit in his amendment. We have our own traditions and values, and we have to evolve our democratic institutions taking into account our situation, our physical limitations, the multi-racial character of or society and our strategic location in this part of the world. The Government and the people have shaped our political system to what it is today. In every general elections since 1959, the majority of the people have been with the Government. Thus, Sir, when Americans, like Hendrickson, interfere in our domestic affairs and want to mould us into their image, we have every right to tell them off and ask them: who are you to tell us what we should and should not do? We Singaporeans will decide for ourselves! Sir, I refer to the draft report to the Trilateral Commission from which this table which I have circulated has been extracted.”
“Looking at the table, Sir, you will notice that in the ASEAN region, the Philippines, Thailand, Malaysia and even South Korea, in East Asia, have better rankings than Singapore in 1987. In other words, in the view of Freedom House and, I suppose, other human rights groups, Singapore is an under-developed political state while the Philippines is near the ideal situation, just a point below the United States. So Hendrickson and his State Department colleagues feel that they should do something to help us develop politically, preferably along the lines of the Philippines and the US. Sir, I wonder whether the Member for Potong Pasir in moving his amendment wants Singapore to be like the Philippines. Does he really want us to be like the Philippines? According to the human rights activists and people like Hendrickson, the Philippines political system has evolved to be like that of the US. So it is regarded as the best in South East Asia. But they have not considered other factors, the threats to the Philippines, the Communist insurrection, the Muslim rebellion in the South, the urban guerrilla warfare, the insecurity in the capital. What about the social and economic problems in the Philippines such as unemployment, housing and the low standard of living? And in South Korea, which is graded better than Singapore, there are student riots. Even as we speak, there are student riots, demonstrations and political squabbles among the politicians, not to mention the anti-American marches and the assaults on American buildings. For that sort of activities, South Korea has been graded a better political state than Singapore. Sir, the Freedom House table is clearly very biased, narrowly based and highly subjective. We have to reject it completely.”
“The recent detention is a setback for the Marxists but this will not deter them from continuing their recruitment for their cause. Sir, in his amendment, the Member for Potong Pasir also rejected the recent action of the Government against what he calls "foreign interest groups". I suppose he refers to the human rights organizations. May I ask him and I hope he will reply subsequently: is he championing the self-appointed mission of these human rights groups to change the world into the image of the United States? Does he not know that when he rejects the Government's action against Hendrickson and company, he implicitly supports this group of people? So for his benefit, Sir, and others, allow me to cite an example of a human rights group in the United States to illustrate clearly what Hendrickson and his fellow human rights activists in the State Department have in mind. Sir, may I have your permission to distribute a table showing the "Freedom House Annual Rating". This is taken from a draft report to the Trilateral Commission, a report submitted in March of this year. The Trilateral Commission is a think-tank organization comprising academics and ex-officials from the United States, Western Europe and Japan. Freedom House, located in New York, produces an annual survey that ranks political liberties and civil liberties in each country in the world on a scale of 1 (which is the best) to 7 (the worst). Of course, the United States is ranked 1, in the view of Freedom House and like-minded human rights groups. The table which I have circulated indicates the rankings for the countries in East Asia since 1980, the top row indicating political rights and the bottom row indicating civil liberties.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the Member for Potong Pasir is not here. But I would like to make a point right from the beginning that it is very revealing that in his speech he has quoted faithfully and quite eloquently the statements of the US government. Yet, as a Singaporean, he has not taken into account the statements by our Government. In fact, he has raised questions doubting the credibility of the Government's statements. Sir, the Member for Potong Pasir has moved an amendment rejecting the recent action of the Government against, according to him, alleged subversive activities of Marxists, the US government and foreign interest groups. Why has the Government taken this action to detain the Marxist conspirators? The Member for Potong Pasir should realize that the activities of the Marxist conspirators are but another episode in the long protracted struggle of the Marxists and the Communists to destabilize Singapore and Malaysia, to create chaos, strife and eventually take over control. The present tactics are part of the relentless drive on the part of the Communists to achieve power in Singapore. What have been their strategies? Very briefly, between 1948 and 1960, it was the phase of the open armed rebellion. Then, between 1960 and 1968, the period of propaganda and reorganization. And since 1968, the return to the united front but this time focussing on professionals. In the first half of the 1970s, a number of professionals were recruited, including a ballerina and a managing director of a company. Now, in the 1980s, the target of the Communists is the English-educated professionals, social workers, church groups and other social and cultural organizations.”
“If any Singaporean wants to see for himself or herself what corruption can lead to, he or she should visit the Malacanang Palace in Manila and look at the Marcos' collection of various items. In conclusion, may I quote a public policy specialist who wrote about corruption, Prof. J. Patrick Dobel: 'Once corruption becomes widespread, there is very little possiblity of successful, significant reform of injustice in the state. Even a successful violent revolution becomes almost an impossibility. Any significant legal, political and even economic changes will be quite irrelevant since the citizens will either frustrate the goals or use the new arrangements for their own self-interest and benefit.' The Professor went on to say: 'Only consistent good leadership, real participation and abolition of massive inequalities will restore the state to its original principles of justice, fraternity and equality.' Sir, in Singapore, we have consistent good leadership, real participation by the people, and abolition of massive inequalities. We have them because the Government has insisted on the highest level of personal integrity, honesty and dedication of its officials and political leaders. We can continue to have these if all maintain their vigilance and eradicate corruption whenever and wherever it appears.”
“Foreign investors welcome the efficient, decisive and swift manner in which decisions are made. These foreign investors are not troubled by bureaucratic corruption which exists elsewhere. Would foreign investors be encouraged to come to Singapore if they know that they have to grease the palms of political and official leaders when they want to get things done? Sir, corruption is a cancerous disease. If it is not detected early enough, it will spread and attack the healthy parts of the body politic and eventually destroy the whole society. As someone has written, and I quote: 'If others, especially political and official leaders, indulge [in corruption] it takes iron will not to copy [for others not to be corrupt as well].' If many indulge in corruption, then they will all find it in their interest to conspire to protect one another, to cover up and to prevent exposure. In that kind of society, law and justice become a mockery. Sir, this has happened in some developing countries. Corruption in those countries is a way of life. People are no longer surprised by reports of corruption. It has become a habit and everyone in society expects corruption to exist even in high places. When this happens, it is the beginning of the end for that government. It is a matter of time before chaos and disunity break into open rebellion. Sir, we have many examples of corrupt governments being overthrown because of the corruption of its leaders. In the Carribean, there is the case of Haiti under the Duvalier family. In Africa, the example of Sudan under Numeiry comes to mind. And nearer home, we have the well-known case of the Philippines under Marcos.”
“Sir, I rise to support the Bill standing in the name of the Minister for Law. Sir, more than any other country, Singapore must ensure that corruption in any form does not sink deep roots into our society. Where it does exist, all efforts must be made to eradicate it. This Bill reinforces the legal mechanisms we have, namely, the Prevention of Corruption Act and the Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau. It emphasizes the point which the Member for Chua Chu Kang made before lunch that corruption like any other crime does not pay. Singapore has been fortunate to have a clean and honest Government since 1959, a clean and honest Government which is, in the words of a Commission of Inquiry, "the hard earned asset of the people". I would go so far as to say that our peace, progress and prosperity have been, in large measure, due to the effective Government we have and to the people's support for, and trust and confidence in, this Government. Where corruption had reared its ugly head, the Government had acted swiftly and decisively to eliminate it. Sir, it is vital that in Singapore we have a government which is clean and honest. This factor enhances our political stability which is so essential for our continued peace and prosperity. Without it and instead with corruption, our political stability will be undermined. This is because corruption, especially in official and politi- cal circles, will weaken the people's support for, and trust and confidence in the government. If that happens, there will be disunity and eventual chaos and even rebellion. We have seen this occurring in many developing countries. For Singapore, a clean and honest government is also vital for our economic growth, especially when we depend so much on foreign investment, trade and technology.”
“Sir, in view of the fact that many constituencies would like to have feeder services from the constituencies to the various MRT stations, would the Ministry consider having a joint discussion between the bus operators and, say, the CCC organizations of the various constituencies?”
“What should be done to solve these and other problems? Sir, it has been proposed that a Board of Special Education under the Ministry of Education be set up. I support wholeheartedly this proposal. The establishment of this Board should go a long way to achieve the following: (1) Sufficient finance, manpower and physical resources for the education of the disabled; (2) Adequate provision of specialist teachers, occupational therapists, speech therapists, physiotherapists, psychologists and other professional people; (3) Adequate provision of proper facilities, including special teaching aids and equipment; (4) Integration of the disabled student into the normal school system; and (5) Efficient coordination of the activities of the Government and voluntary agencies involved in special education. Sir, education for the disabled has long been neglected. It is time now for the Ministry to establish the Board of Special Education. This, in my view, is the only rational way to provide for the special education so desperately needed by our disabled children in Singapore.”
“In general, the welfare organizations are very dissatisfied with the Ministry's policy towards the education of the disabled children. The Ministry's policy seems to be that the voluntary organizations provide the special education and the Ministry will assist. It should be the other way round. The Ministry should provide the special education and the voluntary organizations will assist. Over the years, the unsatisfactory state of special education for the disabled has also been commented upon by the official committees set up by the Ministry as well as the Ministry of Community Development. For example, in May 1985 the Sub-committee on Special Education chaired by a Deputy Director of Education, and in March 1987 the Committee on Special Education chaired by the Member for Bo Wen, both concluded that the Ministry of Education must assume its responsibility to provide special education for the disabled. The arguments put forward by members of these committees include the following: Firstly, education for the disabled children should be part of the education system, not the welfare system. Secondly, the disabled students should be integrated with the normal children, ie, taught in different classes but in the same school. And thirdly, the Ministry's goal should be to prepare the disabled child to take his or her rightful place in society and even to be self-supporting. Sir, every child should have a place in our educational system. But in November 1987, only 2,070 out of the estimated 4,000 disabled children were in special schools. In 1978 a paper, which I referred to just now, stated that the Ministry should provide all teachers in special schools. But in 1987, only about one-third of the teachers in special schools were MOE teachers.”
“Sir, according to the Central Registry of Disabled People, in October 1987 there were 3,796 disabled children below the age of 18. This group constituted 31% of the total disabled people. Taken together with those who did not register, we can estimate that there are about 4,000 disabled children below 18 years old in Singapore today. All children in Singapore, whether normal, gifted or disabled, are entitled to receive education provided by the Government. No child, whatever his or her disability, should be deprived of every opportunity and equal access to achieve the highest level of education possible. Today, the education of the disabled children is provided by seven voluntary welfare organizations. They face an uphill task but they have not shirked their responsibility. Their performance has been admirable. But, however much they try to do, they cannot take the place of the Ministry of Education. Why? Firstly, the voluntary organizations, by their very nature, are voluntary. They have limited financial, manpower and physical resources. Secondly, they are welfare organizations. Their priority is to provide social counselling and guidance, placement in employment, accommodation and transportation, and other services. And thirdly, they are uncertain about the assistance given by the Ministry. For example, in 1978, the Ministry's paper on the Provision of Special Education - this was way back in 1978 - recommended that all teachers in special schools should be provided by the Ministry. But in 1985 there were only 72 Ministry teachers out of a total of 198 teachers in these schools. Even this number, the Ministry was gradually reducing with relief teachers.”
“Sir, in view of what was said yesterday, would it not be better to channel these students to the Polytechnic?”
“Sir, can the Minister of State comment on the performance of the 3-year Pre-U students at the 'A' level exams?”
“The developments which I have outlined above should be looked at seriously and their implications for our national interest examined closely. In general, Sir, I feel that we should adopt a more balanced approach in our policy towards these countries.”
“The recent statement by the outgoing Thai Ambassador to the United States, which was reported in the recent Sunday Times, made the following points: that the US is no longer interested in the security of Southeast Asia as they have done in the past, that the United States has not done enough to help solve the Cambodian crisis and that the United States is moving towards the recognition of Vietnam.' To the United States, the key problem with Vietnam is not the Cambodian issue, but the question of the US troops missing in action. If this can be resolved, then there is little constraint on Washington to proceed with the normalization of relations with Hanoi. Sir, on relations with Vietnam, I would stress that we together with the ASEAN states remain firm on the question of the comprehensive political settlement of the Cambodian issue, including the withdrawal of Vietnamese troops from Cambodia and the establishment of an independent and neutral government in Phnom Penh. However, our firm position on the Cambodian issue should not be an obstacle to the improvement of our bilateral relations with Hanoi. We have to consider this because the other ASEAN countries have not allowed the ASEAN stand on the Cambodian issue to prevent them from strengthening their diplomatic and economic ties with Moscow and Hanoi. Sir, Singapore has been singled out by the Soviet Union and Hanoi for very critical comments. The leaders of Singapore, the Soviet Union and Vietnam have not been able to exchange visits and conduct friendly discussions on various regional and international issues. I do not think that this is in our long-term national interest. Hence, my view, is that while our foreign policy has served us well, we should nevertheless begin to review certain aspects of it.”
“Sir, our basic foreign policy has served our national interest very well and will continue to do so. However, I feel that it is time for us to review certain aspects of our foreign policy, particularly our support for the US strategic interest and our strained relations with the Soviet Union and Vietnam. Sir, Singapore has been identified as a strong supporter of the US interests in the Asia-Pacific region. At the same time our relations with the Soviet Union and Hanoi continue to be strained. I ask, Sir, is it in our long-term national interest to continue with this state of affairs, especially when the United States is not appreciative of the support we give to them? Is it in our long term interest to continue the strained relations with the Soviet Union and Vietnam, which may result in serious political and economic costs for us? Sir, we view the US military presence in the Asia-Pacific as a positive factor for peace and security. But it seems to me, as I said just now, that the United States is not appreciative of this. On the contrary, the Reagan Administration and the US Congress in my view seek to harm our economic interests and interfere with our internal affairs. I cite such examples as the US decision to delete Singapore from the GSP list, the Congress criticisms of our domestic policies, including the detention of those involved in the Marxist conspiracy and the curtailment of the circulation of certain newspapers and journals. Other aspects of US policy, Sir, should concern us. The US is improving its relations with the Soviet Union. More significantly, the US seems to be moving towards normalization of relations with Hanoi, and the United States is lukewarm in its support for the ASEAN position on the Cambodian issue.”
“Sir, will the Minister of State inform the House whether there are figures indicating the percentage of teachers who have left the service as a result of stress?”
“Sir, the Government support for the endowment funds is a very positive move. Can I ask the Minister whether the Government support for the independent schools' endowment fund will be extended to other schools which would like to set up their own funds, regardless of whether they are independent or Government?”
“He did not tell the New York Times that the ISA should be abolished. I think this is significant. This is a New York paper. He did not press home the point. That he should champion the immediate release of the 15 who are still under detention, I think, is understandable. He is a Member of the Opposition and he has got to be seen to be making a case out for them. But does he really believe that these people once released may not go back to their activities which are detrimental to the State? Can he be sure that they will not go back to their activities? If he can be sure and we can be sure, then the detainees should be released. But we should not release them unless we can be very, very sure that they have been properly rehabilitated, that their likelihood of going back to their old ways is minimal, if not zero. He may have called them as he did in his interview with the New York Times "innocent young idealists". He may not believe that there is an internal communist threat because, to quote him: 'Our standard of living is 10 times higher than it was in the 1950s. Anyone would have to be mad to tear down what has been built.'”
“In other words, the mastermind on masterminds behind the 16. That would be the only reason for not moving against the 16 now. But ISD told us that even if we were to wait for another six months or nine months, it is unlikely we can discover that easily who are the people behind the 16, because they operate outside Singapore. They do not operate within Singapore. Hence, our decision to detain the 16 now rather than later. Singapore is an open country. People move in and out freely. Ideas move in and out freely - good ideas, bad ideas. They are part and parcel of our way of life. We are therefore vulnerable to security threats and to manipulation by people outside Singapore. We are a small country. If we are destabilized, it will be very difficult to right the ship so that it can sail on even keel. It is an unpleasant decision having to detain people under the ISA. But the Government cannot avoid unpleasant decisions if these are in the overall interest of the State. Like my other colleagues in this House, I agree with them wholeheartedly that we have to be vigilant against Communist threat. And I believe the Member for Potong Pasir understands this despite all his arguments against the continued detention of the 16. He has not called for the abolition of the Internal Security Act in this House. He might have called for the abolition of this Internal Security Act sometime ago when he addressed his May Day Rally gathering some three days after the first 16 were detained. But since then I have not read, in print, his calling for the abolition of the ISA. So I think he begins to understand, having seen one TV episode and maybe read the evidences in the newspapers that there is indeed a need for the ISD. He gave an interview to the New York Times on 21st June.”
“Next, the Catholic church may misunderstand that the action to detain Vincent Cheng and the other Church workers was aimed at the Church, as indeed it nearly happened. Had it happened, the Church and the Government would have collided, unnecessarily so. Lastly, if the Government fails to convince the people of Singapore that our decision to detain them now was right, we lose our credibility. If we lose our credibility, that is the end of the younger leadership in Singapore and perhaps even of the Government. The political price will be very, very high indeed. These were four arguments which we went through which suggest that perhaps we should not detain the 16 now but watch the plot thicken and perhaps catch some of them practising or threatening to use violence against the State. Then that is the time to move. But is that a compelling reason? The compelling reason for moving against them now is this. Communist cells are like cancer cells. They multiply very quickly and infect other healthy parts of the body. If we do not destroy them now, they will destroy us later. Do we take chances when we are convinced that there is a security threat, there is a plot going on, aimed at some time in the future when conditions could be ripe, when these plotters could press the button and destabilize the whole place? Our decision was not to take chances with the lives of Singaporeans. Do not risk the prosperity which they now enjoy or the political stability that is so essential for Singapore to attract investments and for Singaporeans to have a better future. There is, however, one important reason why we might want to defer detaining the 16, and that is, to watch the plot grow and, hopefully, to be able to identify and arrest or detain the people behind the 16.”
“Having agreed that they were involved in activities which would be detrimental to the interest of Singapore, we then had to decide whether to detain them now or detain them later. In other words, do we regard them as posing an immediate threat to Singapore? Would their activities be so dangerous that Singapore would be destabilized right away? To be frank, the answer is no. They pose no immediate danger to the security of Singapore. But the longer term threat to our security was obvious and real and I do not have to belabour this point. These people do not work by themselves. If there were only 16 of them working by themselves, they pose no grave threat now, and possibly even in the future. But they are not operating by themselves. Who are the people behind them? Is there a larger plot behind them? And from the traces which ISD could detect, there is a larger scheme of things involving others outside Singapore. The reasons for not detaining them now are straightforward. We went through the pros and cons. I can tell you the major reasons why we should not detain the 16 persons now and yet we decided to detain them. Firstly, we stand every chance of being accused of using the ISA to intimidate the opposition and to stifle dissent, and indeed this point has been made by several people both inside Singapore and outside Singapore and by the Member for Potong Pasir. He alleged that we are misusing the ISA to stifle dissent, to intimidate the opposition, to prepare for the next general elections. Secondly, as to be expected, there was protest and outcry against the detention. Do we want to risk unnecessary public criticisms by detaining the 16 now?”
“They do not even wear a badge, like the Member for Potong Pasir. Everyone knows that he is a member from the SDP. But would you expect a communist to go around wearing a badge saying, "I am a communist"? Has the Member for Potong Pasir met real-life communists? Has he met Ieng Sary, one of the members of the inner clique of Pol Pot? I have met Ieng Sary twice at international meetings. He looked gentle, chubby, cherubic. You will never imagine that he could hurt a fly and yet he is an inner member of the Pol Pot's clique which had caused senseless deaths in Cambodia, thousands of them. But had you met him at international meetings, you would never imagine that he was a Khmer Rouge leader capable of senseless genocide on members of their own population. When ISD recommended the detention of Vincent Cheng and the others, we did not just take their word for it. We asked many questions. We wanted to be very sure that the conspiratorial activities of the 16 were indeed prejudicial to the security of Singapore. This is the first time that the younger Ministers have to take a tough decision. This is the first time that we have to use the ISA to deal with a security threat. It is a big decision and because it is a big decision I asked the Minister for Home Affairs to discuss the subject with our other younger colleagues. So all members of the younger leadership were involved in deliberating this case. Each one of us gave our view as to what we should do with the 16 who have been discovered by the ISD for plotting, on a long-term basis, to subvert the stability of Singapore. All of us were satisfied that the 16 were indeed involved in some nefarious activities, as reported by the ISD.”
“When I read the ISD papers on Vincent Cheng and the other 15, I was even more surprised. These were English educated graduates from universities abroad, the University in Singapore, Polytechnic, holding good jobs. Some were church workers, social workers - no reason for them, on the surface, to be involved in a conspiracy to destabilize Singapore. Was the ISD not making a mistake? Were they not over-reacting? These were my personal initial reactions. I was concerned that the ISD should not make a mistake and confuse young idealists out to improve society for sinister Communists out to wreck Singapore. Then my mind went back to another security operation in mid-70s, early 1977 to be exact, when five persons were detained for their involvement in Euro-communism. Four were lawyers, one an Economics graduate. All were English educated. I knew four of them personally. We were together in the University of Singapore. Two were with me in Raffles Institution. They were my friends. I never knew that they were involved in activities that were prejudicial to the security of Singapore. Every society has its share of criminals, anti-social elements, child molesters, rapists, communists or communist-types. Singapore is no exception. It is difficult to uncover Communist conspiracies because they work in cells secretly, furtively, unseen, like termites. When you uncover them, you are often surprised that they are so innocent, so gentle. They do not look at all like a typical revolutionary or communist. As my colleague, the Second Deputy Prime Minister explained just now, they do not wear letters or tattoos on their heads to proclaim that they are communists. They are not like gangsters having tattoo marks on their arms or on their bodies.”
“Until they could show off their true identity, it usually would cause a great surprise to many people. Singapore's Opposition Leader expressed concern about this detention and said that these things are unbelievable and that such people could not be Communist! By the time these people have come to realize it, it is already too late, foregone and foreclosed beyond redemption and regret. By that time, the people of Singapore would have lost their freedom and democracy. Then to whom can they ask for accountability? Are Singapore people to ask the Member for Potong Pasir to be accountable? By then, unless the MP for Potong Pasir is a Communist, he would not be in the Parliament. Even if he is a Communist, he will not be able to come into the House and sway around to so brazenly criticize the Government in such a free and caustic manner.' Therefore, I support the Amendment by the Member for Clementi. 3.18 pm The First Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Defence (Mr Goh Chok Tong): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, permit me to share with you what went through our minds before we decided to detain the original 16 persons for their involvement in the Marxist plot. It may then explain to you the major considerations which we had to deliberate on and the caution which we took before we came to the decision to detain the 16 for their involvement in the conspiracy to subvert Singapore. When the Internal Security Department and the Minister for Home Affairs first briefed the Prime Minister and me in late 1986 on their discovery of the Marxist plot, I was a little surprised. I thought we had left all this behind us. Singaporeans are no more poor. Most own the homes they live in. They have good jobs. If they learn hard, study hard, work hard, they can climb up the ladder in Singapore.”
“If there is no democracy in Singapore, then the Member for Potong Pasir would not have been here in this House. If there is no freedom of expression, then today he would not have been able to criticize the Government here and do what he likes. So, he is slapping his own cheek. Another naive and ignorant view of his is that these young people seem to be very innocent. Many of them have just come from the institutes of learning and some are still in school. He mentioned that Tan Wah Piow is still a student in a University. He is not an ordinary student. He is an old student of 35 years old. He said, "How could they look like revolutionaries? How can they create revolution?" Talking about revolutionaries, he must have the impression that a revolutionary must be a creature of multiple heads and limbs standing 3 metres high with an insignia or symbol on his head, indicating that he is a revolutionist. This is a very peculiar and naive view. A Communist and a revolutionist looks just like you and me. You cannot differentiate him from us by his looks. Indeed, recently there is an article in a Chinese language newspaper in America called "Vietnam New Press". The article mentioned the name of the Member for Potong Pasir. This is an American Chinese paper. The article was possibly written by a Chinese who had lived in Vietnam and escaped from Vietnam and had moved to the United States. He has experienced life under Communist rule. He published an editorial in which he said: 'On the forehead of the Communist there is no name or character indicating that he is a Communist. Before these people have achieved monopolistic political rule and swing around their weight they would make use of various means and occupations to cover up their true identity.”
“He has been harping that rioting and demonstration are good. Let us consider the reason for the Government's action in detaining these young people under the Internal Security Act for Marxist conspiracy. The Government has acted mainly in the interest of the nation and the general majority of the populace. This is not an action that we are jubilant about or a matter to be celebrated. When we take this action, it is a very painful action to us. That in the 1980's in Singapore, such a thing could happen! These young people had confessed on TV and described how they intended to incite and mobilise the people through peaceful means leading to demonstrations, riots and turmoil to overthrow the Government and to change and set up a regime of another form and social order. Yet the Member for Potong Pasir kept on saying that rioting and demonstration is also correct, and good. He also quoted me as saying that not very long ago the rioting and demonstration in South Korea led to economic confusion and the investment atmosphere being dampened, yet he said that these are correct. Whether these demonstrations and riots in South Korea are correct or not, we need not touch upon because this is their internal matter. Even if it were right, we have seen that this turmoil and disquiet in a society have brought about economic recession and a dampening of investment climate possibly leading to an unstable society and economic degeneration. The Member for Potong Pasir said that possibly the PAP Government's action is aimed at suppressing the opposition or intimidating the young people because the Government is afraid of their criticism, and so in their view there is no democracy and freedom of expression in Singapore.”
“If we agree that these are the three fundamentals, we must guard against threats, then we have to be vigilant against communalists, communists, pro-communists and their fellow travellers. And we have, of course, the ISA. My colleagues before me have already explained the need for detention without trial because of the nature of the issue and the reluctance on the part of witnesses to come forward and provide the evidence. As far as the present case is concerned, Mr Deputy Speaker, clear evidence has been provided. That here you have a group of Marxist conspirators, evidence provided by the Government, evidence brought before the Archbishop, church leaders, and lay church leaders, the television interviews. All these have been well publicised. Those are the evidence before the public and it is quite clear that here you do have a group of Marxist conspirators. The Member for Potong Pasir apparently disagrees that these are Marxist conspirators who are there in place, who are there to undermine, infiltrate organizations, who are there and, if allowed to continue, would create chaos and disorder in the long run. He disputes those evidence. I think the onus is on him, Mr Deputy Speaker, to give evidence that this group of conspirators are not what they are. So I would ask him to come out and say where is the evidence to demonstrate that Vincent Cheng and company are not Marxists, that they are really people who advocate our way of life, who advocate and support the kind of policies which this Government has been advocating since 1959. 3.11 pm The Second Deputy Prime Minister (Mr Ong Teng Cheong)( In Mandarin): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the philosophy of life of the Member for Potong Pasir is sometimes really naive and innocent.”
“Again here, Mr Deputy Speaker, we have examples in the past of how Communists, Marxist, pro-Communists, pro-Marxist, have all attempted to undermine our development and created chaos and disorder. It was only not too long ago between 1948 and 1960 we had the Malayan Emergency. The effort on the part of the Malayan Communist Party to overthrow the legitimate Government then through armed revolution. In Singapore, of course, we had the urban form of interaction, infiltration, subversion, undermining of various cultural organizations. In the 1950s we had also the Communist Front organizations which created chaos in this country. They then infiltrated school organizations, trade unions and even cultural groups. So the attempt to undermine our non-communist way of life is a threat to our peace, progress and prosperity. And it is not new. It happened in the past and it happened just recently resulting in the detention of the Marxist conspirators. And I am sure it will continue to happen in the future. Thirdly, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the need for political stability. Political stability, in my view, is a vital asset that we have. We do not have natural resources. I think everyone knows that. But political stability is an asset. When foreign investors and others look at Singapore and say, "What have you got?" One of the things they look at is, "You have political stability. You have the enduring form of Government. The decisions you make, the policies you make, we know will be followed through. That is an asset. We will come in." So Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, we need to be constantly reminded of these three fundamentals.”
“Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for allowing me to join in this debate. I rise to support the amendment put forward by the Member for Clementi. Sir, in any discussion of this issue of the detention of the Marxist conspirators and the need to continue with the ISA, I feel that it is necessary to be reminded of certain fundamentals in Singapore, fundamentals which have assured us our peace, progress and prosperity. There are many, but I would like only to single three. Firstly, there is the need to maintain our multi-racial harmony. It seems so simple, yet it has been the main buttress, in my view, of our development. There have been cases in the past where various sources, within and without, have attempted to undermine our multi-racial harmony and in the process created instability in the country. One need only recall what happened in July 1964 and in September 1964, when there were the racial riots. The consequence of that was obvious for all to see. The damage to life and property, the flight of some capital and the reluctance of foreign investors to come in to participate in our economic development. So it is essential that we should be vigilant against any threat to this first fundamental, that is, the need to maintain our multi-racial harmony. Secondly, our non-Communist way of life. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, it is essential for us to adopt certain economic strategies which rely heavily on foreign investors, foreign technology, foreign experts, capital and so on. For this to be possible, we have to maintain our non-Communist way of life, we have to maintain our political stability. Any ideology which is against foreign capital clearly will be regarded as a threat to our long term development.”
“Sir, can I ask the Minister what impact the withdrawal of the New Zealand Forces will have on ASEAN military cooperation, especially cooperation with our neighbours.”
“If a foreign press here were allowed to publish irresponsible or biased facts which undermine confidence in our economy, in our society, then clearly this would have an impact on foreign investments and we cannot allow that to happen. Sir, I think the Government has been too patient with the Asian Wall Street Journal. All that amount of correspondence that has been going on, I agree with my colleague, the Member for Radin Mas, that the Government should not subsidize in any way the publication of the Asian Wall Street Journal in the form being suggested. In fact, I think we should take more effective measures, more decisive measures. When the amendment to the Newspaper and Printing Presses Act was being debated, there were reservations as to how this amendment would be effective in achieving its objective. And now we see a situation where a foreign newspaper has gone against our law and, in fact, is getting away with it in my view. We are allowing 400 copies of falsehood to still circulate in Singapore. I would suggest that we decide to take more stringent measures. I am wondering whether the Minister would consider withdrawing the licence to publish this newspaper.”
“Thank you, Mr Chairman. Sir, the Asian Wall Street Journal issue is not a question of fair play or otherwise. In my view, it is a simple matter of a representative of a foreign value system attempting to impose on us. The Asian Wall Street Journal being an American newspaper stands by what they mean by press freedom. And I would like to quote the aide memoire of the US Embassy in this regard. This is what they mean by press freedom and I quote: '... the press is free to publish or not publish what it chooses, however irresponsible or biased its actions may seem to be.' Hence, from their point of view, press freedom means not just the freedom to publish whatever they choose but also irresponsible and biased news. In Singapore, however, we view press freedom differently. As my colleague has just said, our Singapore newspapers are responsible. They report accurate information aimed at educating the public and presenting the news as they are. Sir, if in Singapore we were to allow the foreign press circulating here to adopt their interpretation of press freedom, it can lead to disaster for us. In our society, there are various constraints, there are various sensitive issues relating to race, religion and language. How can we allow statements relating to those issues to be published if they are irresponsible statements, if they are biased statements? In the view of the American press, even if it is irresponsible or biased, they can be published. That is what they mean by press freedom. But not in our society where multi-racial harmony is vital to our national interest. Take another example. It is vital that we have foreign investments, foreign technology, to sustain our economic growth.”
“Sir, my Parliamentary colleagues have just focused on the problem of the learning of Chinese language. I would like to refer to another area of study which I feel has been very much neglected in our school system, and that is the study of our neighbours, their history, their cultures, their traditions, their laws. I wonder whether the Ministry has any plans to introduce Asean studies in the secondary schools. In my view it is vital. It is, in fact, vital to our national interest for Singaporeans to understand the history of our neighbours, their cultures, their traditions and their laws. Because whatever happens in our neighbouring countries affect us directly. This, of course, has been emphasized at the official level. For example, the Ministerial visits to our neighbouring countries. One of the major objectives is to get to know each other better, to understand their thinking on various issues. Why is it not possible then for our school system to introduce Asean studies? When our citizens go out, they interact with our neighbours, they are involved in all kinds of businesses, all kinds of projects with our neighbours. And in the course of their dealings with our neighbours, I think it is vital that they recognize that there are certain sensitivities and that there are certain matters which have to be dealt with delicately. I have spoken about this before, Mr Chairman, about the disinterest on the part of the Ministry to emphasize the study of our history, not to mention Asean studies. But I would like to add on now the need to study not only our history, cultures and traditions of ourselves, but also those of our neighbours.”
“Finally, Sir, with regard to the independent schools, as the Minister has mentioned, it is entirely up to the school to offer its scheme to go independent. I hope, however, in the process teachers from the Government schools, ie, the good teachers, will not be drawn into the independent schools.”
“In this connection, I would like to comment on the number of in-service courses, relevant or irrelevant, to the teachers which are being conducted by the Ministry of Education and which teachers have to attend. It should be reduced. The Minister has just mentioned that immediately principals will be given the flexibility to transfer students from one stream to another. I think he is rather cautious here. I would like to see the Ministry give a little more authority to principals. For example, give them the authority to recruit a small percentage of the staff they require for the schools. If that were to be the case, the principals would have the opportunity to select the best of the applicants. Additionally, I think they should also be given the authority to employ one or two additional clerical staff to help the school in the administration. The Minister mentioned about the pastoral care and career guidance and the steps being taken. If there is any omission in our present school system, Mr Chairman, it is the lack of pastoral care and career guidance in the schools. As far as our academic standard is concerned, I think we should have no concern about that. The academic standard in Singapore is comparable to the best, in my view, of the schools in the Commonwealth and even in the United States. We all know how well our students compete with the undergraduates in the various universities abroad. But it is this area of pastoral care and career guidance, which has been missing from our school system and I am very glad indeed that the Minister has agreed to adopt that recommendation. I hope that the Institute of Education will accelerate the establishment of this Department and go ahead with the training of teachers in this particular area.”
“Sir, first let me congratulate the Minister for his prompt response to the recommendations of the principals. The principals made four major recommendations and the Minister has responded to all of them. I think what the Minister has just said is very reassuring, particularly to parents, teachers and students because he has reiterated that the Government emphasis now and in the future is to improve the present school system, to improve our secondary schools and achieve excellence. That is the emphasis of the Government. That I am sure is very reassuring to parents, teachers and pupils. May I comment on some of the points which the Minister has mentioned in his statement. With regard to the single-session schools, I hope that the Minister for Finance, and I see he is not here, will grant the Minister for Education the request to expedite the construction of schools so that the scheme to implement single-session schools can be achieved as soon as possible. But may I just add a word of caution that in the implementation of this scheme,that the single-session school should be spread across the country to ensure that in each of our HDB housing estate there will be at least one or two single-session schools. There should not be a concentration of single-session schools in any one particular place. With regard to the support which teachers will be receiving, I am glad to hear that the Minister has mentioned that the schools will get executive officers to lighten the load of the teachers, particularly to relieve them of the administrative duties. I would like to say that if the teachers are relieved of their administrative duties, the principals should not add on additional load to the teachers.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, can I ask the Minister, out of the 216 who had opted to return their flats to the HDB, how many were successful; how many belong to the category just mentioned by my colleague, that is, those who had indicated earlier that they have committed themselves to purchasing some other property and have had the permission of HDB to sell the HUDC flat?”