Lee Siew-Choh
Singapore
“Sir, of course, this is going back to old history. He is asking whether such a thing has happened? I say it has. That was in 1972. But it is no use my going back on what had happened then. In fact, I did consult a lawyer and was thinking of taking up an election petition. But, unfortunately, so many other things happened.”
“One final word, Sir. I can assure the Minister that many violations had been committed in past elections. Do you believe that if we make a protest, it will be published in the newspapers?”
“Sir, I beg to move, In page 4, line 12, to leave out "4" and insert "30". Sir, I have also other amendments (Cols. 291 - 294) to clauses 8, 9, 16, 22, 23, 25, 31 and 36. All my amendments are related to the process of election of the President, though on different aspects. Perhaps it might be convenient to consider all of them here.”
“Consequent on what the Minister has just said, the Government is very keen on market forces and they want conclusive results of the new system. Dr John Chen has already asked the question whether those people who make high bids be made to pay the amount of the bid so that they will not make high bids.”
“Sir, the date of the Observer article was 28th April and it states: 'Arms from China and North Korea are being shipped through Singapore where they are being reloaded.' Is that true or not true? BG Lee Hsien Loong: Mr Speaker, Sir, on a point of order. Standing Order No.”
“Has the Minister read of an article in the Observer in late April about shipments being transhipped in Singapore? BG Lee Hsien Loong: Mr Speaker, Sir, I do not know what Observer article the Member is referring to, but we have no records of transfers taking place.”
The complete record
Every one of 828 lines we hold for Lee Siew-Choh, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 17 of 17.
“If I might add one more, Sir. Does the Minister agree that in spite of all that he has said, since the Privy Council had already set aside certain parts of the convictions which the local Singapore courts did not agree with, and the Government did not agree with, nevertheless, is it not the proper thing, a decent thing to put right the injustice caused to Mr Jeyaretnam by the law, not allowing him to appeal, and to give him a free pardon?”
“Does the Minister then agree that if Mr Jeyaretnam had been able to appeal to the Privy Council for his convictions, the Privy Council would have set aside all the other convictions?”
“The Minister repeats that they were comments. But could he be certain that they were merely comments and not the findings?”
“Will the Minister agree then, Sir, that the Privy Council had made findings or a declaration that Mr J B Jeyaretnam was wrongly convicted on all four charges and that the Order to strike him off was wrong and should be set aside?”
“In which case, Sir, will the Minister say for what reason the Privy Council set aside the Order of the High Court to strike out Mr J B Jeyaretnam from the roll of solicitors?”
“Does the Minister then agree or does he not agree that the Privy Council examined every single conviction, going behind the judgments of the Singapore courts and declared that the convictions were wrong in law?”
“I just want to know whether the Minister has really read the full text of the Privy Council judgment.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the Minister has repeated some of the arguments put forward by the Prosecutor and it is a pity, Sir, that the Prime Minister himself is not here to answer some of the questions because I will follow up with some questions.”
“The British have a tradition, which I think they have discontinued, of having university members in Parliament, to represent Oxford and Cambridge. We could have representatives of trade unions, because the NTUC represents a large number of Singaporeans, workers, the working class. It could be employers who are concerned that they cannot get foreign workers and have to pay heavy fines, and would like to have their voice in the House. But there must be some way in which more people can come in and participate and contribute to the life of the society, to the political life of Singapore. If we can achieve that, and I hope that we will have the support of Mr Chiam in doing that, then I think Singapore democracy will be stabler. It will not be automatic. It will not be the same as other people's democracies, because our circumstances are different. We probably will not for many years have an alternative to the PAP, another team waiting in the wings to take over if we foul up or fumble. That is a matter of regret. But it will be a democracy as stable, as well supported and as feasible as we can contrive and, as Mr Reagan would say, for Singapore, "not bad, not bad at all." Question, "That the words proposed to be added, be there added", put, and negatived.”
“If indeed Mr Chiam shows that when he runs Potong Pasir Town Council he is capable of managing it to the satisfaction of his residents and people swarm to move into Potong Pasir New Town and house values rise, then we can consider whether to take another step forward and run even more things, perhaps including the community centre which he is so cut-up about. I say this not as a criticism, but to indicate very seriously that the Government is well prepared to work with a constructive Opposition. This is why the President's Address contains a sentence which I think Members have not picked up: "the Government will review the NCMP scheme to increase the number of non-Government MPs in the House." It is a carefully drafted sentence. What it means is the Government believes that a constructive Opposition has a role to play. They can contribute if they have the right Asian values, as Mr Chiam says. We believe that the NCMP scheme is one way to do this. We are not absolutely sure it is the best way, although this is what we have come up with after some considerable thought, because NCMPs are party-political and maybe too partisan. It is like Dr Lee who says, "I speak for 50% of the members of Eunos GRC." Maybe so, but he is not telling us the same thing he told the 50% of Eunos GRC who voted for him during the election campaign. ISA never figured during the election campaign. But having come in that way, the NCMP must take an adversarial relationship because he is hoping to win in Eunos next time, which is a laudable aim. But is there some other way? Maybe not necessarily an Opposition MP, but a non-Government MP? It could be a community leader, it could be somebody from the University.”
“The item which collects the lowest public approval - still a majority but the lowest of the four - is community over self. One person, unnamed, said quite frankly, "Singaporeans, we are too individualistic to have a National Ideology." That is precisely the problem, is it not? It is because we tend to be individualistic, therefore, we need a National Ideology. In setting these values we are trying to bring in a new generation of Singaporeans and lead them ahead, all Singaporeans as far as possible, including Members of the Opposition. We seek a constructive relationship with the Opposition - one in which we take comments and corrections and criticisms and attacks and one in which the Opposition does not automatically disagree with what we do, just because it is a Government proposal, but thinks through its arguments and presents its case why some parts are wrong, some parts can be improved, as Mr Chiam did yesterday. By focusing on the National Ideology, he implicitly agreed with us on all the other parts of the discussion. In other words, he has agreed with us that we want political stability, that we want to look after the poor, that we want multi-racial harmony and we want to preserve religious tolerance. Those are very significant agreements from a Member of the Opposition. If we have Opposition Members who are prepared to make such stands - we do not require that they sign an application form to join the PAP - I think we can make common cause and work together, from different sides of this table, but we can work together.”
“They travel, they see, they read, they think, they articulate, and we need to find ways to accommodate this in our processes of consensus and consultation. At the same time, we need to find ways to guide and channel this desire, with the values which we are now searching for, so that we can fly a straight and rising path. The National Ideology is like looking for a little bit of armour to put onto our aeroplane, so that if we fly into anti-aircraft bullets or rough weather or something strikes us, maybe as innocent as a bird, we will not crash. Which values to put into the National Ideology is like asking where on the aeroplane to put the armour. There is a precedent for this - real aeroplanes. In the Second World War, when the British sent bombers over Europe, they wanted to know where to defend the bombers so that the aeroplanes would fly back safely after being shot at and hit. British scientists examined many of the aeroplanes which had come back. They counted where the holes were, plotted them and so on. And then they put the armour where the holes were not. Think about that. They put the armour where the holes were not, because where the holes were, the aeroplanes came back. Where the holes were not does not mean they were not hit, but means they crashed straightaway. Therefore, the protection had to be in the non-obvious places. We are looking to see where we put our armour. Do we ask everybody where they think it should be and put it there? Or should we ask everybody where they think we should be and do precisely the opposite? For example, we conduct straw polls. I mentioned in my speech last week that one was about the items in the National Ideology.”
“Sir, could I have an explanation? Since when has he heard me? BG Lee Hsien Loong: I concede that I have not personally heard, but I have heard tell, and that is my point. It is as if Rip van Winkle had woken up and continued the conversation which he was having when he fell asleep a generation ago - the same worries, C-class wards, schools, subsidies, the poor, the army of unemployed waiting for work, presumably waiting to be put in touch with Mr Philip Tan. These are issues which have gone. They are finished. The Member for Potong Pasir is more in touch. He does not talk about them. He has done in his speech what no other speaker, up to this point in this debate, has done, and that is, to make a comparison with developments in many other parts of the world, as the world is now changing. India, with its problem of 700 million; maybe indeed democracy is not a solution for them. Sri Lanka, with its difficulty of Sinhalese and Tamil conflicts; again simple parliamentary Westminster rules may not have worked for them. China, big country; must have strong government. That is quite a significant statement. It is not what Fang Li Zhi says, and Fang Li Zhi may well be wrong. Russia, with a desire to change, perestroika, new motivations, new environment, the mood is not the same, policies must shift. It is a recognition of life. It is accurate, and it is our problem. It is precisely because of these changes which also affect Singapore that we now have to decide what we are going to do about the future. Indeed, our young are better educated. Indeed, our young wish to participate, wish to contribute constructively, want to be part of the process.”
“I think all these people who have spoken on the amendmenthave caught the wrong end of the stick. The important words are "will tend to". "Will tend to" means that it has not yet really happened, but that it can lead to certain events happening.”
“I suggest also that there should be an open debate, not just a debate confined to half an hour for the Opposition Member in Parliament House, so that the subject will be further ventilated and discussed. Yes, Sir, a National Committee to examine all the values, both Western and Eastern, to be incorporated in the core values and an open debate. To summarise, Sir, in all its 30 years of rule in Singapore, the PAP has not lived up to the principles and ideals of the National Flag and National Pledge. Its motivation behind the newly proposed National Ideology is highly suspect. Therefore, I wish to propose an amendment to the Motion before the House. Sir, I beg to move, "That at the end of the words 'this Parliament', to add: but regret that the programme outlined in the Address will tend to produce a thought-controlled society which will be detrimental to Singapore's prosperity."”
“Worse, it lost another 1(r)% of popular votes in spite of the gimmicks like the GRC, town councils, treats to the young in the two "Swing Singapore" sessions and free promises of "more good years". If this downward slide should continue, then it is only a matter of time before the Opposition would take over the government. For the PAP, this was an emergency, a crisis of major proportions. Somehow or other it must try to stem the tide of the downward slide. Since the study of Confucianism and Eastern values had been stressed when the PAP promoted the campaign to get all Chinese Singaporeans to speak Mandarin, what better idea than to link the Eastern values to a National Ideology - get the whole population to support it and gradually shift the support for the National Ideology into a support for the Government and the PAP? This is the method now attempted by the Government and the PAP. This is the method of what the Chinese call yi hua jie mu ( ), a sleight of hand, to achieve the goal of the PAP becoming a mass movement. Such is the motivation behind the idea of the National Ideology. It is intended to regain mass support for the PAP and so consolidate PAP rule. Hence, the vaguely phrased "core values" which, on the surface, appear good and reasonable and which would therefore find general acceptance and support, but which the PAP would be able to use to compel the people to accept only PAP values and policies, and of course PAP rule for years to come. This will not be in the interests of the people. Since the Government has already set its mind on the National Ideology, I suggest that a National Committee be formed to examine all values (not any committee but a National Committee) both Eastern and Western to be incorporated into the core-values.”
“Since complete suppression of the Barisan Sosialis and total control of the unions, mass organizations and mass media from the early 1960s, the PAP has reigned supreme in Singapore until the end of the 1970s. Then in October 1981, for the first time after 18 years, the PAP suffered a telling defeat at the hands of J.B. Jeyaretnam of the Workers' Party in the Anson by-election. The PAP suddenly realized that it was beginning to lose mass support. In an attempt to regain this mass support, it began a chain of activities. It started feverish reorganization of the local press to tighten conntrol. It declared the PAP a so-called "national movement" in order to inveigle the people to join up with the PAP and become part of that movement. It got the RCs into action. Still tighter control was imposed on the unions and mass organizations. It started propaganda about the so-called "Vision 1999" and so on. But despite all its efforts, in the 1984 elections the PAP suffered a stunning loss of more than 12% of popular votes with the two candidates specially sponsored by the Prime Minister losing to the Opposition in Anson and Potong Pasir. The signals were clear. The writing was on the wall. Renewed attempts had therefore to be made to win back the votes that had been lost to the Opposition. A massive propaganda campaign was mounted. A PAP Youth Wing was inaugurated to capture the young voters. Sham consultations and feedbacks were instituted. Ministerial walkabouts stressed on the National Agenda and attempts were made to soften the PAP's hard arrogant and uncaring image. But in the 1988 elections, the PAP still could not make up lost ground.”
“But have not the schools been teaching our children (now grown into adults) civics, ethics, moral values and social studies all these years? And has not the PAP been preaching these ideals in their very many campaigns? Today, most people already know what moral values are needed - diligence, thrift, family ties, courtesy, honesty, tolerance, loyalty to the nation, pursuit of excellence and so on. But our problem is not that we do not know what values we need but how to get everyone to put these values into practice. For instance, our National Flag and National Pledge both stress democracy, justice, equality. Does the Government lead the way and practise democracy? Or allow the Opposition facilities and opportunities to place their view- points before the people so that there may be fair, open discussions and debate in the interests of the people? The answer is No. Let us not forget, Sir, that what are called national ideals and values are in the final analysis all personal ideals and values. Groups of people gather together in a state to form a nation and personal ideals and values of the groups together make up the national ideals and values. Since we have the ideals and values epitomized in our National Flag and National Pledge, so we already have, or should have, such ideals and values as our personal ideals and values. So what further need is there to identify a new set of values? Or what personal values Singaporeans must have? Is that not just so much poppycock and eyewash, all in an attempt to cover up the real reason why the National Ideology has been proposed? What then is the real reason? The real reason is not difficult to fathom, Sir. Let us take a quick peep into history and see how the PAP thinking process works. It has to do with gaining mass support.”
“That is most important. There is presently no freedom of opinion, no freedom of association and assembly, nor an easy access to information in the Government and foreign press. How then consensus? By imposition of PAP will on other people? The consensus bally-hoo is a big PAP humbug. "Stressing-racial-and-religious-tolerance-and-harmony" - commonsense dictates that this be an unwritten law in Singapore. That is the only way to peace and progress, but tolerance must include tolerance to criticism from political opponents, and there must be non-harassment of legitimate, peaceful activities of Opposition parties. Political opponents should never be arbitrarily arrested and detained without charge or trial. Political stability should not be built on total suppression of poltical criticism and opposition. Few people believe the Government's story about the Marxist plot, especially after the Government Ministers backed out of their promise to hold an inquiry to clarify certain important issues. And the Hendrickson affair, Sir, has made the PAP Government a laughing stock of the world. And Chia Thye Poh, my colleague, now qualifies to be the second longest-term political prisoner in the world, after Nelson Mandela. It would appear, Sir, that the PAP Government is vying with the racist South African government to see which government can be more cruel and heartless to political opponents and their families. Sir, we have the National Flag and we have the National Pledge. Why then do we need a National Ideology? We are told that we need a "new set of values", that we need to identify "what personal values Singaporeans must have" "to redress the balance a little", to bring about the realization of the ideals already stated in the National Flag and the National Pledge.”
“But it is important to remember that we do not identify the society or nation with the Government of the day or the ruling party or its leaders. A patriot may well sacrifice himself and die for the nation when the situation demands. But he may not be willing to be loyal to, or die for, the ruling party or its leaders. Therefore, calling on any racial group of our people, like the Malays, to identify themselves with the ruling party - not the society, not the nation - is totally wrong and indeed contrary to the spirit of the proposed core value. "Upholding-the-family-as-the-basic-building-block-of-society" is a principle few people can quarrel with. This is a principle that holds true everywhere in the world, East or West. But there should be non-interference by Government of the basic rights of individuals on questions of, I quote, "whom to marry, when to marry and how many children to have". The Government has created enough problems with its disincentives and its anti-poor social engineering policies. "Resolving-major-issues-through-consensus-instead-of-contention" - the question is, Sir, how do we reach consensus? By having ministerial walkabouts, elaborately arranged forums and discussions, in which dissenting views are shut-up or shut out by excuses of shortness of time, and in which ministerial monologues take the place of two-way debates? The PAP has trumpeted that it sports a new style of government, that there will be consultations, discussions and debates before implementing any major policy. All Singapore would applaud that, if sincere. But Dr Arthur Beng has exposed such humbug consultation. Consensus through consultations, discussions and debates must mean that the people have the freedom to take part in political activities of the country without fear.”
“I now come to their pet subject - the so-called National Ideology; certain aspects of it. I applaud the PAP again for its correct diagnosis and assessment of the dangers of absorbing some harmful aspects of an increasingly westernized society in Singapore. But here again we find a problem that to a great extent has been created by the PAP itself. It is a problem basically caused by incorrect education policies that elevate English to the prime position of Language 1 and that relegate mother tongues to the secondary position of Language 2. The problem is compounded by the gradual disappearance of vernacular schools and the rapid influx of western culture that has closely followed economic development based mainly on foreign investments as well as by some of the harmful aspects of tourism and our local TV. If the Government had heeded early warnings that from time to time appeared in the local press in years gone by, concerning the ill effects that those incorrect education policies had caused, instead of labelling all such warnings as chauvinism, the present situation might well have been averted or at least rendered less serious. I applaud again the PAP, Sir, for this awakening to the importance of the use of the mother tongue to learn and retain traditional values. These values once inculcated and ingrained in a person take root and become very difficult to displace or replace. I believe this is one of the reasons why Japan has been able to retain its Japanese character all these years in the face of westernization. What are these core values? Let us take them briefly one by one. "Placing-society-above-self" is undoubtedly a noble and admirable virtue sung and eulogized by societies and nations both East and West throughout the ages.”
“I applaud the PAP leaders for having awakened, though belatedly, to the problem that has been created by the PAP itself. Let us remember that. Its policies of liberalized abortion and sterilization as well as its unfeeling and callous policies of disincentives have drastically cut Singapore live births to a new low. But believe it or not, this was hailed as the PAP's greatest achievement, and by whom? None other than the Prime Minister himself. Had the Government heeded the early warnings sounded by our Singapore's best obstetricians about the serious population trends, already evident then in 1975, not 1985, the present problem would not have arisen. This is but one example of what dire consequences PAP arrogance, intolerance to criticism and interference in the private lives of the people can bring about. Nevertheless, with the present reversal of population policies, those dangers that follow a declining population may still have a chance of being averted, provided of course the PAP puts an immediate stop to its pet, harebrained theories of eugenics and social engineering. The present slogan of "three or more if you can afford it" is discriminatory against a large section of the population. It should be shortened to only "three or more". If the Government persists in its elitist and discriminatory and even divisive policies, then the so-called reversal of the population policies today may yet prove unavailing, and we shall be confronted with problems in years ahead that may well prove insolvable. The responsibility to avert such a catastrophe rests entirely on the shoulders of the PAP leaders and no amount of cover-up propaganda will be able to conceal the PAP's guilt from the annals of history.”
“Only a small number has the opportunity to higher education. Clearly, the present education system does not give the child the opportunity to be educated to the limits of his or her potential. With the creation of elitist Independent Schools, education benefits will become even more lop-sided and unequal. The vast majority of students will be doomed to education that is not the best available. How could such a system help to create a better life for all Singaporeans? If excellence in education is our goal, surely it would be better to improve the quality of education for all students rather than to selectively benefit only a few. Raising the standard all round would certainly enlarge the talent pool and at the same time help towards a more equal society. Health care becomes a major problem for the low income groups. Hospital charges have increased again and again. ClassC beds have been drastically reduced in number and those who are sick have been forced to opt for Class B2 beds and, of course, pay higher charges. With privatization of the hospitals, the sick will have to pay still more for medical care. It is a terrible shame that the British colonial government and the Lim Yew Hock government of the past had shown more care, consideration and responsibility than our own elected Government in the care of the unfortunate sick. Medisave is merely a device designed to collect payment before treatment. It is a living monument to our uncaring and irresponsible nature of the Government. In the circumstances, how can the people enjoy "meaningful fulfilling lives"? I agree that the population trend of declining births despite the euphoria of Dragon year will bring about serious dangers of fewer working people to support the aged and chronic sick in the years ahead.”
“I form part of the constructive Opposition. But, of course, whether or not what I say is considered constructive, will depend very much on whether or not the authorities and powers that be are willing or unwilling to accept criticism and tolerate criticism that may at times seem somewhat unpalatable. The Government has stated that its "goal is to create a better life for all Singaporeans". It is a most laudable goal. But going from past records of PAP promises and PAP goals, it is most likely that those who pin their hopes on the PAP promises will end up chasing rainbows. The Government has put up a facade of affluence. Skyscrapers, modern hotels and office buildings are indeed very impressive, Sir. They make a pretty picture on postcards. But look beneath the surface and we discover the affluence has benefitted but a small section of the people. Tens of thousands of workers are still unemployed and those who have found employment, Sir, have jobs that need hardly any skills and are poorly paid. The vast majority of the people have to struggle hard to keep both ends meet. 15-20% of the people of Singapore still find it difficult to put their downpayment for purchase of the least expensive of the HDB flats. Already taxes have been imposed and when the tax system is revised, as promised, I am sure yet heavier burdens will be imposed on the people. The PAP policies have made the rich richer and the poor poorer. Our society becomes more unequal, the gap between the rich and the poor keeps on widening. For many people there will be no better life. They will suffer more hardships instead. In education, children are channelled into different streams at a very tender age. Many are doomed to be mere artisans, technicians and supervisors at best.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, being an NCMP, I rise to speak not on behalf of any particular constituency, but together with Mr Chiam who is not here, on behalf of all those who voted for the Opposition in the recent elections, near 40% of the total electorate. And I dare say also on behalf of a good number of the 60% who voted for the PAP after they have seen how the PAP raises taxes the moment it has won the elections, before the Budget day, before Parliament sits, and they are quite disillusioned I think at the way that the PAP is conducting itself. I speak, of course, also for the near 50% of the Eunos GRC voters who have courageously given the Workers Party their solid support in spite of all the PAP scare tactics, threats and intimidations and in spite of all its dirty gutter politics, of indiscriminate smears and character assassination. I might add, in passing, Sir, that it is the hope of the near 50% voters of the Eunos GRC that we set up an area office in the Eunos area so that we may better help or serve the people in whatever way we can. We asked the HDB in mid-September 1988 to provide us with a void deck office. But until today we have not received a positive reply to our simple and legitimate request. It is also indeed sad, Sir, that circumstances have led to my NCMP colleague, Mr Francis T Seow, not being here with us in Parliament today. He certainly would enliven proceedings in the House. In his absence, Sir, I will have to shoulder heavier responsibilities which I hope to discharge to the best of my ability. I wish also to respond to the hopes of the Leader of the House and to the editorial of the Lianhe Zaobao of 11th January 1989. Let me assure the House and the Lianhe Zaobao that my role in Parliament will be a constructive one.”
“No, Sir. I just want you to clarify the situation because this is a question that is of public importance to the people of Singapore, and they would like to know that since he has appealed the sentence, whether he has really vacated the seat.”
“At the sitting of Parliament on the 9th January, you announced that Mr Francis Seow, NCMP, had vacated the seat by reason of his conviction and sentence of a fine of more than $2,000 before the District Court. Mr Seow has appealed ---.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to speak on a point of order.”