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 4 of 17.
“The only tax cut that may be said to benefit wider sections of the people is the across-the-board once-off rebate of 5% on personal income tax for the Year of Assessment 1991, with estimated revenue loss of $65 million. But as in all across-the-board tax rebates, those who benefit most are those who earn high incomes. A worker who pays income tax of $100 will get a tax rebate of only $5 (hardly enough for a plate of mee), whereas a person who pays income tax of $10,000 will get a rebate of $500 (at least he can spend that money on something). Government has frequently stated that it will help the low-income group. It should therefore give higher rebates to them instead of to those with higher incomes. Of course, when Government gives away something with one hand, it also makes sure it takes back something with the other hand. Thus, duties on cigarettes and tobacco are imposed. Of course, these duties may be justified from the public health point of view. But a small increase in the prices of cigarettes will not really deter people from cigarette smoking. It would only add to the burden of those who cannot kick the habit, and they are mostly from the low-income group. If Government's intention is to really stop our youths from cigarette-smoking, that is, if Government's intentions are genuine, then much more will have to be done. If persuasion and public health education should not be able to stop our youths from smoking, then as a first step, selling cigarettes to youths should be made illegal and a punishable offence. Then there is the water conservation tax in addition to the existing 5% tax on PUB bills, with a promise of further increases in water rates within the next few years. There is already the water-borne fee.”
“But with most families already opting to have two or at most three children in present day Singapore (for whatever reason), there are not very many parents who will be able to really benefit from this tax deduction for contributions to the Edusave account. Moreover, many parents have low incomes, and they are in no position to contribute anything. If the Government's intention is to encourage parents to have more than three children, it would be much more helpful to waive all hospital charges for the fourth child. I hope the Minister will accede to that. Tax relief of $3,000 for the handicapped dependant is now extended to the handicapped spouse. The Minister says that revenue loss from this is estimated to be about $1 million. From this, it can easily be seen that those people who may benefit from this scheme will not exceed 300, less than a handful. Similarly, the number of those who may benefit from the deductions for CPF contributions by self-employed persons must also be very small. The reduction of entertainments tax from 10% to 5% will benefit entertainment enterprise-operators or proprietors more than those seeking admission to such places of entertainment. The refund of property tax on vacant residential buildings undergoing building works is a consolation in that at last Government has recognised that it should not have imposed such property tax on vacant residential buildings in the first place. And tourism cess rate reduction by 1% affects only a limited number of people. Thus, only small groups of people benefit from all these tax deductions.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the 1991 budget, described as a "Shenton Way Budget" in the Straits Times front-page headlines, has been warmly welcomed of course by the financial sector. Big business, big shipping, investment companies will all benefit from it. And the big four local banks, already reaping thumping profits year after year, get yet another windfall. All this fits in very well, Sir, with what the Minister says, namely, that "Government will continue to provide a conducive environment for business to thrive and prosper." But the Minister obviously does not have our small and medium business enterprises (SMEs) on his mind. And not unexpectedly they are all disappointed, as are the vast majority of the people in Singapore. Badly hit by the US recession, many local SMEs and retail trades have already been troubled by a rising cost of doing business, with rents rising everywhere, including those controlled by the URA. Their woes become compounded by the Gulf War for a good period. And now many are concerned with further rising business costs with the increase in the employers' CPF contribution rate by 1% point. Workers of course, Sir, benefit from the increase of CPF contributions by employers. But many will still have hardly any increase in their take-home pay. Apart from the CPF increases, there are also small tax deductions for which the people have not much to enthuse about. Thus, for example, parents will be able to contribute annually a sum of $100 rising to $500 eventually to the Edusave account of the fourth child for some tax deductions.”
“I, therefore, make an amendment to the Motion before the House as follows: "That, at the end, to add: but regret that several important aspects of wider participation in policy-making, including the institution of holding referendums on issues of national importance, and consideration of Proportional Representation to rectify Singapore's presently unequal and unfair electoral system, have not been incorporated and seriously considered".”
“In the 1988 elections, the Opposition parties together won nearly 40% of total popular votes. Yet only one Opposition MP was elected in the first past-the-post electoral system. The Government with only 61% of the votes won 80 out of 81 seats. This blatantly unfair, unequal representation explains why so many people who voted for the Opposition became so frustrated. The Government has instituted the system of NCMPs, and more recently of NMPs, in an attempt to meet the demands of the people for more Opposition Members, and to show that the PAP is so-called democratic and would wish to have more Opposition Members in Parliament. But that is no solution to the problem of unequal representation. It is time, therefore, that Government seriously considered instituting changes to the present electoral system. Another opportunity for the Prime Minister, if he should be here, to institute "change and continuity." I suggest that the Government seriously consider instituting a system of Proportional Representation (PR) in Singapore. As a start, we could have combinations of first-past-the-post plus PR. That is the only way to put right the unequal representation in Parliament. Today, almost all European countries have some form of PR. Japan is seriously considering instituting PR. Even in UK, there is a growing agitation for incorporating PR in the electoral system, all in order to better represent the will of the voters in Parliament. The first-past-the-post electoral system has too many flaws and inequalities which should be put right. PR should be incorporated in the Next Lap. Unfortunately, although the Government speaks of a new style of open, consultative and participatory Government, it has neglected this important aspect of wider participation in policy-making.”
“That would certainly encourage more and more people to participate freely and without fear (that is the main thing - without fear; quite a number of speakers today and yesterday have touched on the "fear" that the people have, and even the Prime Minister himself has admitted that) in the political affairs of the country. Political detainee, Chia Thye Poh, arbitrarily detained without charge or trial for 26 1/2 years, should also be immediately and unconditionally released, and not be further confined to Sentosa island. I wonder how our Ministers will feel if they should only be confined for 26 weeks, not to say 26 1/2 years. Let them have a taste of what it means to be incarcerated. They do not know what it means. I have, and I know. Since Government has spoken of a new beginning, it is only appropriate, Sir, that the Goh Chok Tong administration start with a completely new slate with all political detainees released. That is the way ahead with "change and continuity". Already all the restrictions on well-known and prominent Communists have been lifted. Many political opponents have been allowed to return and live in Singapore. It is therefore time that all political detainees be given their freedom. Revocation of the ISA would certainly be the most important step towards creating a favourable and genial political climate for wider participation in the political affairs in Singapore. It would also help remove some of the fears that have caused the skilled and professional Singaporeans to emigrate to other countries. Finally, Sir, in connection with wider participation in policy-making, there is yet another very important issue that has been neglected and not been touched upon by Government. I refer to the issue of unequal representation in Parliament.”
“It must mean that all the people, each and everyone, must actually be given the opportunity to take part in decision-making itself on all important national issues. And the way in which the people may do that is to be allowed to vote in a referendum. I would suggest, Sir, as Mr Davinder Singh has done, that even in non-national issues, the people who are interested should be encouraged to express their concerns and be given the opportunity to air their views publicly. There is already too much of behind-the-scene hush-hush debate on issues that concern the people. Even university dons dare not speak their minds openly. Therefore, many things will have to be done concerning widening of policy making. To widen the participation in policy-making, Sir, of course means also that the people must be better informed with facts provided by Government. It means also that the tight control of radio and TV by Government must be relaxed. Radio and TV should not be spouting PAP propaganda all the time. Opportunities must be given to the people and the Opposition to ventilate their views. Similarly, the local press should be encouraged to publish more non-Government viewpoints. Many people have called the local newspapers "PAP newspapers". That is not good for Singapore. And even the foreign press should be given, I think, some freedom to comment on local events. Mr Shanmugam has touched on that. The people need variety. They want to read what other people think of us and of what the Government policies are like. Most important of all, Sir, Government should revoke the ISA, if not in toto, then at least all the provisions which give Government the powers of arbitrary arrest of political opponents.”
“The question is: How does Government "widen participation in policy-making"? True, there have been ministerial walkabouts, feedback forums, and Select Committee hearings, and now GPCs. But these are more propaganda exercises than real attempts to truly seek the views of the people as to whether or not to carry out certain policy proposals. Although Government has sometimes accepted suggestions made by those who attended such discussions, in no instances, Sir, (for example, on the issues of the GRCs and the Elected President) has Government allowed the main principle behind the issue to be challenged. One would have thought that controversial matters of national importance, especially of drastic proposed changes to the Constitution, the people would have been given an opportunity to really participate in policy-making by being given a chance to vote in a referendum. But no. All sorts of excuses have been given to explain why referendums cannot be held. But all this cannot cover up the fact that decisions have already been made by the PAP leadership, and that the PAP simply fears that it might not succeed in getting the people's support in a fair and democratic referendum. And that is why the people have not been allowed to participate in a referendum to give expression to their viewpoints in a vote of "Yes" or "No". The decision is made only by the PAP itself. How then does the PAP "widen participation in policy-making" when it simply is not willing to accept viewpoints, however reasonable, logical and popular from the public, if such viewpoints should challenge a decision the PAP leadership has already made in the matter? Participation, Sir, in policy-making must mean more than mere opportunities to express views. This has been touched on by a few speakers.”
“Obviously nothing much has been done in the matter. New schemes are now supposed to be introduced "to enable as many of them as possible to own their homes before they are 45 years old". What schemes are not revealed. But whatever schemes Government may propose, it has to be remembered that these poor families are those who have helped to build Singapore into what it is today. They are poor because of their poor education and lack of skills and have thus not been able to earn enough. Although Government says that its "philosophy is to provide many helping hands to those in need", nevertheless it is obvious that all these years no real helping hand has been extended to these poor families. If it is intended to try to "give every citizen a more direct sense of ownership, so that he will feel that he in fact owns a part of Singapore", then I suggest that one way to help achieve this is to allow their monthly rentals, and I hope the Minister will listen carefully, paid to the HDB to be deemed as instalment payments for the flats in which they are presently staying. This appears generous. But Government does not lose anything in such a scheme. Those who have paid rentals for 15 to 20 years have in fact already paid, with their monthly rentals, sums large enough to cover the actual original (I emphasise the word "original") price of the flats. Would Government consider this simple plan to help the poorer families own their own homes? Now, I come to a most important subject, Sir. It is about the widening of participation in policy-making. Government says that "it will widen participation in policy-making". And I say this is most praiseworthy. This is supposed to represent the new style of Government of participatory democracy.”
“I also ask: Since more and more of our young men and women are going overseas for higher education, why does Government still delay in making immediate preparations for a third university in Singapore? A third university, Sir, in Singapore would certainly help to cut down emigration with consequent loss of talents from Singapore in the years to come. Government has touted Edusave as an instance of PAP magnanimity. It is even supposed to help "equalise opportunities for every generation". I agree that the extra $500 every year will certainly help a student over the years. But careful reading tells us that the scheme is more PAP propaganda intended to buy votes than a real help to those who are most in need of Government assistance. At the end of 10 years, each student only gets $5,000. How is that going to help him in paying for education at tertiary level when university fees keep mounting every few years? If the intention is indeed to help students, would not the funds be better channelled to improve education in general and to better equip and update all schools, so that every student will be better served with a more rounded education? The Government has said something about helping the poor to own their own homes. With all the wealth and riches in the country, it is difficult to know whether to cry or to laugh - the Chinese phrase is ( ) Ti xiao jie fei - when Government admits that there are still "poorer families living in rental flats (who) still cannot afford to own their own homes, sometimes after working and saving for many years". How come such a state of affairs, since we are supposed to be so affluent? They cannot answer it. And has not Government repeatedly said that its priority, Sir, is to help those poorer families?”
“Let me now touch on education. I am very glad that the Government will now devote more funds to education and soon institute changes to improve primary and secondary education. I congratulate the Minister. Government has at last, unfortunately for the PAP, indirectly admitted its past errors in the policy of streaming at Primary 3, (it never admits mistakes directly) a system which has caused such great frustration and unhappiness among our people. But as explained by Dr Lau Wai Har in an article in Lianhe Zaobao in December 1990, (whose many suggestions the Government has adopted, I am sure) Government's proposed streaming in Primary 4, though an improvement on streaming in Primary 3, is still not good enough. Much better would be to start streaming only at the secondary level. Based on her long-time educationist experience, Dr Lau has analyzed the issue of streaming clearly and scientifically, emphasizing that, in addition to all the other ills enumerated in the article, early streaming denies many of our youths even an opportunity to secondary and higher education, which incidentally completely exposes the hollowness of the PAP slogan of so-called equal opportunities for our people. And I am glad, Sir, that Government has accepted many of the recommendations of Dr Lau in the proposed new changes. All students will in future be given at least 10 years of general education. But I must ask: Why the delay in implementingall the proposed changes? Why not institute the proposed changes as soon as possible, or even straightaway? There is nothing to stop the Government going ahead with the new system.”
“But there is not enough time for that, I am afraid. I do not mind, if you give me more time, Sir. Would you?”
“Even if they may qualify to be elected as MPs, they still may not qualify as candidates to be the Elected President. They may only vote, nothing more. Does this not show that Singapore does not belong to all of us, but only to a few PAP Ministers? Need I quote more examples? Some hon. Members: Yes.”
“Government wants, and I quote, "to increase the public and private assets of Singaporeans." Privatisation, Sir, would certainly increase the assets of those who have enough money to buy the shares. These shares, as we know, will ultimately fall into the hands of the rich and the very rich. If Government wishes to increase the public assets of Singaporeans, then it should not privatise our publicly-owned statutory boards which are well run, and continue to turn in good surpluses year after year. But if these assets should be privatised, then they become private property, and all benefits will accrue, not to the public, but to those lucky enough to own shares and especially the rich. Therefore, if we wish to, and I quote, "strengthen our sense of common ownership and collective responsibility among Singaporeans", then obviously Telecom must not be privatised. It should instead remain under total Government control. Government should not contradict itself in its proposals. The Government also says, "Singapore is our home. It belongs to us, to all of us." And the Straits Times gives big headlines to this. Many will ask: Under PAP rule, does Singapore really belong to us, to all of us? It would appear, Sir, from what the PAP Government has done, that Singapore belongs not to the people, not to all of us, but to only a small select group of people, to only a small select group of PAP Ministers, in fact. [Laughter]. They laugh. I will give you an example. Under the amended Constitution, only a small select group of former PAP Ministers and PAP supporters will be eligible to stand as candidates for the high office of the Elected President. The rest of the people are not eligible.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, first, a few words about the war in the Gulf. It does sound odd and incongruous that we should be discussing comparatively parochial issues today when world attention is focused on the war in the Gulf. It is disconcerting indeed that our Government Ministers should make strong partisan statements, as if Singapore was an active participant in the war itself. These statements are especially upsetting, as they are completely inconsonant with sentiments expressed by a good section of our people as well as sentiments expressed by our neighbours. Though we are far removed from the fighting in the Gulf, I strongly believe that in the interest of peace and tranquillity in Singapore and Southeast Asia, our Ministers should be more circumspect in what they say on issues that may tend to divide our people. Let me now deal with the President's Address. The Government has outlined a programme in the Next Lap in preparation for the next election. It has painted a rosy picture for the future, like the PAP Vision of 1999. But promises have often been made by the PAP which are never carried out. For example, the early promise of a more equal and just society has long been forgotten. In 1988, the PAP promised Singaporeans "more good years". But more and more people today have found the years more and more difficult. Today, the PAP wants to take us on the Next Lap. Many people have said that it wants to make the people run around in circles. That is what a lap is, a mere circle. However the PAP at times is also self-contradictory. For example, it says, and I quote: It wants to "strengthen the sense of common ownership and collective responsibility among Singaporeans." But at the same time, it also wants to sell off our common property with privatisation of Telecom.”
“To conclude, Sir, we all agree that our people and future generations should be armed with attitudes and values that will help them to survive and succeed as a nation. But without the guidelines of the fundamental values of truth, honesty, equality, democracy, justice and human rights, the proposed "Shared Values" by themselves will not, and I stress, will not, be able to ensure that we do not lose our bearings in a society constantly subjected to all sorts of undesirable influences, both Western and Asian. On the contrary, if our people and future generations should be inculcated with correct Singapore values, truly shared by all and enjoying mass support, to quote the Deputy Prime Minister, and encouraged by living examples of our Government to show that "they are not mere platitudes but values which convey something significant to all Singaporeans", (I quote again the Deputy Prime Minister) we should be able to hold our heads high, and become a people admired throughout the world, identified as "good Singaporeans", efficient, honest and just, warm and caring. Which should it be? The choice to me is clear. The Government will certainly push through the Shared Values, but the Government also has said it will be flex- ible. I do hope that the Government will be flexible enough to seriously consider and incorporate the good values I have proposed. I agree with some of the sentiments expressed by MPs in support of the Motion before the House but, for the reasons I have given, I cannot support the Motion.”
“We all know that a national ideology, or a set of Shared Values, is usually the creation of political leaders who hope to achieve certain political objectives, as has been pointed out by Leo Suryadinata, Senior Lecturer in the Department of Political Science, NUS. Dr Seet herself should know that. What is our Government's unspoken aim in pushing a programme of Shared Values? In the debate on the President's Address two years ago, I had suggested that the Government's one-sided inculcation or indoctrination of certain values amongst the young would tend to lead to a process of thought control. Some speakers have spoken of fears that the Shared Values may be the Government's way of enforcing conformity. I believe that such fears and also dangers do exist if universal values of justice and human rights are not included in the Shared Values to be taught in our schools. As is well-known, National Ideologies, eg. in Malaysia and Indonesia and in other countries, are all intended to serve certain political purposes. Similarly in Singapore, it can be seen that our Shared Values, as presently constituted, are also intended to serve a political purpose, that of thought control, namely, to condition the people to thinking along certain lines acceptable to the PAP, in the hope of assuring the PAP of popular support and continuing rule in Singapore. Will the PAP succeed in all this? Time will tell. But it does not appear likely, since the Shared Values as presently proposed are not values really shared by all the people; since these values represent different things to different people; and since the Government has not carried out policies in keeping with its own proposed values.”
“There is talk of communitarianism versus individualism. But these values are not antagonistic. Values like justice, honesty, and so on, may be said to be individualist values. But such individualist values, grouped together in a community, in the final analysis, become communitarian values, ie, national values. The Government proposes that such important and essential values be inculcated separately among the population, which means that they become less important than the Shared Values. Values like justice, truth, equality, are shared by all the people. Why then should these values be taught separately and not together with the Shared Values on which the Government has placed such importance? Has not the Government frequently called on the people to take part in the political affairs of the country? Dr Seet has spoken of the need for universal values. Therefore, should not our children be taught to uphold universal values, like justice and truth, at an early age? Values of human rights are not just political values alone. They are also moral values applicable to all people. Today, the whole world is marching towards democracy. Even Communist countries have to keep in step. Government should not try to buck the world trend. Government wants to be eclectic, selecting only values that fit in with PAP policies and objectives to be included in our set of Shared Values. Since Government does not include such universally accepted values of justice and human rights, a question must then be asked: Is there some hidden reason why Government has pushed the programme of Shared Values which has not been divulged?”
“It would appear that the Government is fearful that, if he is allowed to go to the Privy Council, the Privy Council would grant the declaration, on the ground that all his convictions were wrong and that he should never have been disqualified. There is no other possible explanation. Is that justice for an individual? And even now, Sir, I learn that the Government is trying to find another possible prosecution of him in the hope that he may be disqualified again for yet a further term. I have spoken of the case of Mr Jeyaretnam, the former MP for Anson, because we are today discussing Shared Values for the people of Singapore. Because his is a glaring instance of injustice that disturbs the conscience of all Singaporeans in whose hearts the flame of justice burns. Because I wish to emphasise on the need for justice as a most important component of our core values. And because I wish to emphasise that the Government needs to set an example to the people, and especially the young, in what it does, so that they may all follow the correct guidelines as their way of life. Every person must know that without justice, all other values become meaningless. Yet Government seems to have omitted all the important essential values, political, moral, cultural, economic, values which are presently identified with the five stars on the State flag, and are enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The Government's arguments for not including these values identified with the State flag are unconvincing. It says that including these values "would significantly widen their scope". If that be so, then the same could be said for other core values which are also political in content, especially the first and fourth core values listed in the White Paper.”
“Because it is difficult to deny that in Singapore today there is no justice. Let me give you a concrete example. As a result of injustice, Mr J.B. Jeyaretnam, the former MP for Anson, was wrongly kept out of this House to represent the people who elected him. He was again wrongly prevented from standing as a candidate in the 1988 elections. And all because he was convicted by the Singapore courts and sentenced to pay a fine of more than $2,000. But may I remind the House, the Privy Council, the highest court of law for Singapore in 1988, has said that all the convictions were wrong, that the former MP for Anson was innocent of all the offences he was convicted, and that a grievous injustice had been done to him. In spite of this, the Government has refused to remove the convictions because it says that Mr Jeyaretnam has not shown any remorse. But how could one show remorse when the highest court of law says that one is not guilty? Now when Mr J.B. Jeyaretnam wishes to take the whole question back to the Privy Council, the Government has refused to agree. He has brought an action in the courts, I understand, for a declaration that he never ceased to be a Member of the Sixth Parliament on 10th November, 1986, when he was fined $5,000. The High Court has refused to grant the declaration. He has appealed to the Court of Appeal, and wishes to take his case to the Privy Council if he fails before the Court of Appeal. But the law now is that he can go to the Privy Council only if the opposing party, ie, the Government in this case, agrees. And the Government has so far, from what I have been told, refused to agree. Why?”
“It still abuses its powers under the ISA, continues to detain innocent people without trial, and continues to stifle criticism which it does not like. This has actually caused a large number of Singapore citizens to be politically alienated and to even emigrate, as has been pointed out by Dr Chiew Seen Kong, a Senior Lecturer in the Department of Sociology and Law, NUS. If Government is serious about the Shared Values, all this should be changed. Racial and religious harmony This is a must in any multi-racial and multi-religious society. But this should not be used as an excuse to clamp down on religious leaders when they critise unpopular, social and national policies of the Government. Thus, it can be seen that though the White Paper has set out five Shared Values, the Government itself has not really followed policies based on them as guidelines. This has already been emphasised by Mr Chiam. Indeed, it has often followed policies which are often based on values almost diametrically opposite. And that brings me to a most important theme. That is, although Government has put forward five values, there is not a single word about justice. Justice and truth are the highest values amongst human beings. Yet not a single word has been said about either of them in the White Paper. If we are to counter undesirable lifestyles, attitudes and values, Western or Asian; if we are to preserve the cultural heritage of our various communities and inculcate these fundamental ideas in all Singaporeans, especially the young, and thus consciously to develop our own cultural values, so that over time a Singaporean identity will emerge, it is surprising indeed that justice and truth have been left out. Or, perhaps, it is not such a surprise after all.”
“If Government is serious about arriving at consensus and the truth, it must completely change its views on contention. Instead of fearing contention, it should encourage contention, and actually hold frequent dialogues with political opponents. It should accept and tolerate criticism and contention from the Opposition, so that together we may reach consensus. This, in essence, is what the Deputy Prime Minister BG Lee has himself said. That in fact also should be the very meaning and essence of the Prime Minster's new style of government with discussions, consultations and participatory democracy. Naturally, this should mean that every person should have the freedom to express views without fear, and I emphas- ise, without fear. Mr Chiam has already mentioned the fact that many people among the university academics dare not speak up. Also, non-political organisations should be allowed, and even encouraged, to publicly comment on issues of national importance. It should also follow that we have an honest government, as has been suggested by MPs and people outside the House. Honest, not merely in the sense that the Government is upright and non-corrupt in financial matters. Honest also morally and politically, in that it regularly and truthfully places all essential and necessary information before the people, so that they may be able to comment intelligently on issues of national importance. In other words, Government should pursue an open policy of glasnost. If Government did that, it would immediately improve the whole political climate in Singapore. Unfortunately, Government has done little to promote such a healthy political climate.”
“In addition to the disabled and destitute families, there are also those whose household incomes are less than $600 a month and are frequently in arrears in payment of rent, PUB and conservancy charges. And Government has spoken of the need for "kinder and gentler" policies, of compassion, and so on. But Government has done little, very little, to help these unfortunate people. Government should not merely leave necessary community work to volunteers and charitable organisations. Constant emphasis on cliches like "Nothing is for free" is not in keeping with the spirit of the core value of "Regard for the individual". Consensus instead of contention To the PAP Government, contention would seem to be something not good, something to be avoided at all cost, if possible. Other PAP Members have said more or less the same thing. But contention is not a bad thing. Whatever synonyms they may want to use for the word, contention should not be avoided. Indeed, it cannot be avoided. Because contention and consensus may be said to be opposite sides of the same coin. They are no different from the ideas of competition and cooperation which the Prime Minister has spoken of. It is only through contention that we make progress and arrive at the truth. It is only through contention that we may finally reach consensus. And that is why it is so important that we need an Opposition in Parliament. The Opposition offers the contention that Government speaks of. Unfortunately, the PAP does not like contention from the Opposition. Thus, it has seized on every opportunity to harass and belittle Opposition parties like the Workers' Party. It tried, for example, to ridicule a member of the Workers' Party when he gave oral evidence before a PAP-dominated Select Committee hearing recently.”
“But in keeping with this value, it is important that Government policies do not split families or make it difficult for various members of the same family to live together or stay near to one another, as has already been referred to by Mr Chiam. It is a well-known fact that hundreds of families have been broken up by Government policies. Husbands have been sent out, wives have been sent out, children have been sent out, causing great pain and anguish to all around, including friends and relatives. Guided by such a shared value, Government should amend immigration rules and regulations to allow children and foreign spouses to join Singapore citizens and to re-unite families. Regard and community support for the individual The White Paper has emphasized that, and I quote, "Singapore must offer every citizen equal opportunities, and give all of them a good start in life. The economy must not only generate wealth, but also distribute it fairly and widely." Such sentiments and guidelines are most praiseworthy. Here again, the Government has not lived up to this praiseworthy value. Under the excuse that it does not want a welfare state, it has not shouldered its bounden responsibility to look after all the unfortunates in our society. I agree with Mr Chiam. For example, it has cut the public assistance to the barest minimum, to well below subsistence level. And despite repeated calls for help, it has refused to increase allowances to the low-paid pensioners. It has also refused to give adequate personal reliefs to help the low income groups in their payment of income tax. And it has cut down Class C beds for the poor in hospitals, and even raised the fees and charges.”
“But I also believe that every community should be allowed to develop culturally. Mr Peh has said that "example is better than precept". Therefore, in the core value of "nation before community, society above self," Government should ensure that its policies are consistent with this principle. But as pointed out by Prof Jon Quah, in Government's promotion of uninhibited free enterprise and meritocracy and paper-chase in our education system, rewards have always accrued to the individual. This would also come about if Government pushes through its policy of privatisation of Government monopolies like the PUB, Telecom, PSA, which would only enrich some individuals who can afford to buy the shares at the expense of the vast majority in society. Government clearly does not follow policies in keeping with this core value of "nation before community, society above self." If it intends that the people take these values seriously, then Government should first set an example, and live up to these principles and values in whatever it does. It is also important that the nation be not confused with the Government of the day, or society be confused with the ruling party. It would be wrong, for example, to say that Government policies are policies in the interest of the nation, or label those who oppose the Government and its policies as "anti-national", a term very frequently used by the PAP in the past. It would also be wrong to say that any community must identify itself with the ruling party before it may benefit from policies of Government, as was done only recently. Family as the basic unit of society There should be no disagreement with such a core value. Mr Peh has put it well. Dr Seet has amplified on it.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, after leaving the concept of National Ideology on the shelf for two years, the Government has now presented it to the people, varnished with a new coat of paint, as something desirable, called quite mistakenly "shared values". The word "shared", Sir, suggests that all, or if not all, almost all, people believe in them and agree with them. The question arises: Have we really found out what are the values that people hold dear? Has Government really taken measures to find out? The answer to both these questions is No. The White Paper has identified five shared values. They are high sounding, very emotive words. But high sounding words are of no value unless it is agreed what these words really mean. The former Prime Minister had frequently quoted Humpty-Dumpty in Alice in Wonderland, saying that when he, that is, the former Prime Minister, used a word, it would mean just what he chose it to mean. So what does Government choose to mean with all those high-sounding words in the White Paper? How many people really agree with those words, and has Government lived up to those values faithfully and set an example to the people? To answer some of these questions, let me touch briefly on the five values. Nation before community and society above self If the core value of "nation before community" means that we should place the common interests of the people above the private and selfish interests of the individual, then that is a very good value which most people will agree with. And to win popular support, many governments throughout the world, democratic or otherwise, profess that that is their goal of government. In the context of a multi-racial society in Singapore, it is certainly important that no single community should impose its will on the others.”
“I myself, Sir, have had the unpleasant experience of difficulties getting a Singapore lawyer to plead my case, when I had to defend myself in legal suits brought against me by the former Prime Minister. The reason is not difficult to fathom. Local lawyers in general seem to have a great fear of the PAP Government, and this fear will not be easily got rid of. For those who can afford it, and who wish to be defended by a QC (since a QC has nothing to fear from a PAP Government), it is only fair that they be allowed to engage QCs in political cases. Though the court has discretion in the matter, I feel that the Bill should also make some provisions for that. Finally, the Bill has provisions to amend section 26 of the principal Act to allow ex-High Court judges to practise as solicitors. The Minister has explained why. The reason given is that the amendment will attract senior lawyers to accept appointments to the Bench. I wish to know, Sir, from the Minister how many senior lawyers have refused appointments unless they would be allowed to practise again. I would like to know also, Sir, how many of the judges, who have retired, have asked to be allowed to practise. I understand that there are a few judges who have retired but I have never heard it being suggested that they are keen to go into private practice. Why then is it necessary to bring this amendment in? High Court judges receive pensions when they retire, and their pensions are by no means small sums. I wish to believe that the High Court judges do not become judges in the hope that they can have some material rewards. This amendment seeks to somewhat commercialise our legal system, and I feel that is wrong.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I have spoken to a few lawyers and I understand that the changes proposed in the amendments are generally welcome. As for myself, I am particularly happy, Sir, to see the introduction of a new section 75A which provides for "a compulsory scheme for professional indemnity against civil claims in connection with the law practice of all advocates and solicitors", as stated in the Explanatory Statement. Sir, now and again we would read in the press, or hear of cases, where lawyers have not lived up to the trust and confidence placed in them by trustful clients. A few lawyers have been charged in court and been punished. But, unfortunately, some trustful clients have suffered considerable losses, as the guilty lawyers usually do not have enough funds to make full restitution, and the Law Society has not been able to help very much. With the new amendments, clients who happen to consult the wrong lawyers will not have to bear similar financial losses in future. That is all to the good for everyone and also good for the legal profession as a whole. Another thing I wish to comment on is clause 4, amendment of section 21, which restricts the ad hoc admission of QCs to appear in a Singapore court. While appreciating what the Minister has said on this, I feel that where it is a political case or where a politician is involved in litigation with Government officials or government politicians, complicated or otherwise, it is only fair that there should be no restriction whatsoever to the admission of QCs. This suggestion is not a slur on the Singapore Bar. Neither is it contempt of court as the Straits Times, editorial alleges. If that should be so, then the Singapore Bar itself would have to bear its share of responsibility and blame.”
“What is there to prevent it from further increasing the number to be elected in future GRCs, from four to five or even six, whenever the PAP should find it prudent to do so? Is that part of the new set of shared values now pushed by the PAP? If Government believes that there should be a more even spread of voters for the election of MPs, then the correct way is to institute a system of proportional representation. MPs become elected on the basis of the number of votes a party wins in an election. But it would appear that though the PAP Government waxes eloquent on shared values, it will still continue to place PAP interests above those of all others. In parliamentary elections, the PAP has never given Opposition parties a fair chance. This Bill is but yet another example.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I did not touch on this subject during the debate on the Elected President. So now I wish to say a few words on this issue. This amendment, Sir, ostensibly reasonable, is directed at making it more difficult for the Opposition in elections. You will recall, Sir, that nearly three years ago, just when it feared that Opposition candidates might be elected in certain constituencies in the 1988 elections, the PAP introduced the system of Group Representation Constituencies (GRCs) which requires the election of three candidates together in one slate. And the PAP well knows that the creation of the GRCs had caused great difficulties for Opposition parties in the 1988 elections. The Workers Party, for instance, had to give up two GRCs which we had prepared to contest, at the very last moment when we had difficulties in getting the suitable candidates as stipulated in the amended Parliamentary Elections Act. As a result, the PAP candidates became MPs uncontested in those two GRCs. But in the last election, in spite of all its advantages, the PAP nearly lost in one GRC. It also had very close encounters in a few others with the Opposition parties. The PAP has therefore now thought it more prudent to make it still more difficult for the Opposition parties, all in order to improve the chances for the PAP in future. Now using the excuse that there might be more voters staying in large constituencies, this amendment is introduced in the Parliamentary Elections Act to provide that GRCs shall elect groups of four Members of Parliament if the Government, ie, the PAP, so decides. And now the number of candidates in GRCs is going to be increased from three to four. I ask, Sir: is it fair to keep changing the rules of the game all the time?”
“This opens the way, Sir, for an Elected President, who is bent on mischief, to play havoc with an elected Government that is formed by an Opposition party. That would be most undemocratic. Let me also say that the Select Committee has not accepted the proposal to limit a president to a maximum of two terms. The reason given is that this would deprive the country of the services of someone who has in fact a proven track record of being a good President. Such an argument does not appear to have much merit. If the idea is to have the services of someone with a proven track record, then there should not have been any handover of premiership recently by our former Prime Minister, with 31 years of experience, to one who is a comparative tyro. In most countries, Sir, for example, the United States, the President is limited to two terms. This is a very good democratic practice. One reason, as given by one representor, is to provide a line of succession. It gives a chance to the younger generation to come up. But a more important reason, to my mind, is that the longer a President is in power, the greater the danger of autocratic rule and corruption of power. We should avoid that. A two-term President should be ample for any person, unless he claims a divine right to rule. To conclude, Sir, if it is to safeguard our national reserves and the integrity of the civil service, we believe that a genuine parliamentary democracy will serve as a better check than an Elected President with veto powers. But if the PAP insists on changing the system, in spite of what the Prime Minister has just said, then it should at least first let the people decide in a referendum.”
“In his summing-up address in the October debate, the Prime Minister admitted, perhaps inadvertently, and again today, that "it is precisely for this reason that the PAP has proposed the scheme of an Elected President, just in case there should be a freak election result". "The Elected President will remove the nightmare of freak results and an irresponsible Government," he says. What he means is that it will try to deny the opposition of all possibility of coming to power, or to continue in office for long, if it should come into power. I wish also to comment on a couple of omissions in the Report. Nothing is mentioned, Sir, about the discretion given to the executive Elected President to choose the Prime Minister and to determine whether Parliament is to be dissolved or not. Under the Parliamentary system of Government, the people determine who is to be the Prime Minister. For example, the leader of the Party becomes the Prime Minister. Dissolution of Parliament is also dictated by what happens in Parliament. For example, if the Government loses a vote of no confidence, then the Prime Minister is obliged to resign, and unless there is another party which can control and command the confidence of Parliament, Parliament has to be dissolved. And the choice will have to go back to the people. No comments have been made on this important issue and it is a regrettable omission. The Committee has also not considered amendments to allow the Elected President to order the CPIB to investigate any Minister of Government upon any information of alleged corruption or misconduct, even though the Cabinet of the day should consider that the information should not be pursued any further.”
“All decisions whether or not to use part of the reserves for national development or for the welfare of the people should therefore be made by the representatives of the people who have been elected to Parliament. But the PAP pretends that there is no alternative to the Elected President scheme, when the alternative is right here in this very House. Parliament is the alternative and is in fact the only institution in the Government that has the powers to decide. If there should be fear that our national reserves may be frittered away by a profligate government, the proper safeguard is to make it necessary for the government of the day to first seek two-thirds, or even three-quarters, of Parliamentary support, as someone has suggested, before moves are made to draw on the reserves. If the government of the day cannot get such two-thirds or three-quarters support, then of course it has to resign and seek new support from the people in a fresh election. Therefore, the question at issue is: will the PAP Government allow Parliament to play its proper role as the guardian of the people's vital and fundamental interests? As the PAP has 80 out of 81 seats in Parliament today, it has no difficulty whatsoever using the national reserves if it is so inclined. But confronted with a trend of declining electoral support, the PAP is fearful of losing its huge majority in Parliament, or even of seeing a Parliament with the Opposition in control in the years ahead. It is therefore preparing for the day of the so-called "freak election results".”
“I suggest therefore that: (1) if they are to be nominated, then they should not be nominated by the Elected President himself, but by the various professional bodies and institutions of higher learning; (2) in keeping with the non-political party principle, they should all not be affiliated to any political party; (3) proceedings of the CPA like those of the PEC should not be held in private, but be held in public, except maybe for certain special cases, and telecast "live" so that the people can see that the CPA is truly fair and impartial in its deliberations. Let the people decide. There is a fundamental change in our system of Government. A representor has described the Elected President as a two-headed Executive scheme. The EP is like a driving instructor sitting beside the driver with his hand on the handbrake. The driver is no longer in total control. The Prime Minister himself has also admitted that the Government's wings are being clipped, that the new Prime Minister will need to seek concurrence by the President in certain key areas of government. We all agree that we should safeguard our national reserves and the integrity of the civil service. But to do so, it is not necessary that we change the political system and institute a new scheme of an Elected President with wide veto powers, an Elected President who could make, according to the Report, "irrational decisions" difficult to guard against. So we must first accept in principle that all national reserves belong to the people, that they do not belong to any political party or government of the day.”
“Similarly, the person appointed by Parliament, if the Chairman of the CPA and Speaker are not available, should not be a person affiliated to any political party. The Bill specifies that the President may seek advice from a Council of Presidential Advisors in the exercise of some of his powers, those relating to finance. He is not obliged to seek the CPA's advice in other areas. Anyway, he may not act on the CPA's advice at all. But who are the advisors of the CPA? The President appoints two of the five, one for a term of six years, the other for a term of three years. The Prime Minister appoints two of them, one for a term of six years, the other for a term of three years. The President appoints another one for a term of six years on the advice of the Chairman of the PSC. A fixed staggered term arrangement ensures that the President has full political control through his own nominees in the CPA at all times. This gives the President virtually absolute veto executive powers. This is unhealthy. Who knows what further powers may be given to the President at some future date? The Prime Minister has said that the CPA is a de facto Senate or a Council of State. It plays a very important role, but is not the number of members in the CPA rather small? Should not the number of a de facto Senate or a Council of State be increased, say, from 5 to 11? And instead of being appointed, would it not be preferable that they be elected?”
“In order to prevent such a "worst case" scenario, therefore I suggest the following: (i) As the Select Committee has agreed to the principle that the Elected President should be non-political, whatever the arguments for or against, and that the "candidates for Presidential elections should not be members of any political party", then the PEC members should declare whether they are members of any political party; (ii) Aspiring candidates should also declare whether they are members, open or secret, of any political party; (iii) The number of members of the PEC should be increased to, say, 11 to include, as some people have suggested, the Chief Justice, Auditor-General, the Heads of professional bodies of lawyers, doctors, public accountants, architects, engineers, surveyors and, to be fair to everybody, the Secretary-General of the PAP, the SDP and the WP. (iv) This is most important, Sir. Proceedings should not be held in secret. The Prime Minister has spoken of an open Government. There should therefore be public hearings telecast "live" as in the United States, so that the public will know why Mr X or Mr Y is found unsuitable, and a record of decisions built up of precedents for future reference. This will ensure that all proceedings are manifestly seen to be fair and democratic, as stressed by so many speakers in the House. And related to this non-political issue and in consonant with this non-political party principle, when the office of President is vacant, or in the case of temporary disability of the President, the person temporarily exercising the functions of the President, after the Chairman of the CPA, should also not be a member of a political party. That would rule out the Speaker of Parliament, if he is a member of the ruling party.”
“Let me comment on the Presidential Elections Committee. To ensure that nothing goes wrong in the choice of candidates, the Presidential Elections Committee (PEC) will consist of only three members: (a) the Chairman of the Public Service Commission; (b) the Chairman of the Public Accountants Board; (c) a member of the Presidential Council for Minority Rights nominated by the Chairman of the Council. Sir, of the three, the first is a nominee of the Prime Minister. The third is a nominee of the nominee of the Prime Minister. Only the second may be said to be a non-nominee of the Prime Minister. But as I am told, he is also appointed by the Minister. Thus, it may be assumed that all the candidates accepted by the PEC will not be unsympathetic towards PAP interests. For many people, this is of course most unsatisfactory. And it has prompted one representor to paint a "worst case" scenario in which "the Government practises nepotism and cronyism by placing its own people in the PEC who will in turn put up nominations of candidates who are Government sympathisers." This is in the Report. With a clean, non-corrupt government, this may not happen. But we must think of other governments in the years ahead.”
“Moreover, the new amendments now require that "a key statutory board or Government company to submit to the President within 6 months after the end of its financial year, an audited statement showing the actual revenues received and expenditures incurred in the course of the year as well as an audited statement of assets and liabilities." Sir, knowledge of financial matters is of course an advantage, but there is no absolute need for the Elected President to be so well qualified in financial matters as stipu- lated in the Report and the Bill. Therefore, anyone who is a citizen and who is qualified to be a candidate as an MP should be qualified as a candidate for the Presidency. Fears that a person of unsound mind, or that one recently convicted of a serious offence might become a candidate and be elected, are PAP terror-tactic exaggerations intended to frighten people to support the PAP, as has been done in every Singapore election. As one representor has said: 'The population of Singapore is highly educated and should be entrusted to vote in suitable people.' And to quote another representor: 'The Presidential Elections Committee should not shortlist candidates or exclude those who in its opinion lacked the prerequisites for the job. The prerogative to decide whether a candidate is worthy should be left to the electorate.' Well said. We fully agree. Who then is the best man for the job? Not the candidate who has been shortlisted and is the choice of a small section of the people. But the candidate who is supported by the vast majority of the people and is their choice in a fair, democratic election, the man who fulfils the most important criterion of all, that of honesty, competence, rectitude, loyalty and service to the interest of the people and the nation.”
“The Committee wants to guarantee that the right person is chosen. Guarantee, yes; by whom and for whom? By the PAP and for the PAP? Or by the people and for the people? How different is this type of PAP-guaranteed election from elections conducted by certain Communist countries where the voters are given fixed slates of candidates, a system which has been strongly criticised by democratic countries all over the world, a system which the people in those countries themselves have risen against, and a system which is now being replaced? Sir, we agree that, if we must have an elected President, the best man for the job should be a person of integrity, good character and reputation. But surely he need not be a past Prime Minister or Minister or a Chairman of a key statutory board or CEO of a big company with a paid-up capital of $100 million. Neither is it necessary, as Dr Koh has said,that he must have the experience and ability of managing funds of a large corporation. We have seen enough of ex-Prime Ministers, ex-Ministers and managers and directors of big companies who are corrupt and who have been charged in court in many countries. What is needed is that he is honest, upright, reasonably competent and held in high esteem by the people, unbiased politically and truly serve the basic and vital interests of all the people. That is the one criterion needed, not the experience as a Prime Minister or Minister. After all, he has the expert advice of the Council of Presidential Advisors to advise him on matters connected with finance and other things.”
“The basic right to elect and be elected is a right which people all over the world have fought for with their blood. The people in South Africa are still fighting for that right. We, in Singapore, have fought against the British Colonialists for this very same right for many years. But now in the Elected President scheme, the PAP is trying to turn the clock back with its overwhelming Parliamentary majority, and take away from the people what they have won from the British Colonialists, by imposing all sorts of qualification obstacles before them. What a shame that our people should suffer this reverse, this loss, at the hands of our own elected Government. How does the PAP ensure that voters are given qualified and suitable candidates to choose from? The Select Committee tries to justify the short-listing of candidates by side-tracking the issue, by saying that "the issue is not the right of every citizen to stand for election as President". This is what the Prime Minister has again said. " It is to ensure that voters are given qualified and suitable candidates to choose from. Only then will there be some guarantee that the right person is chosen to fulfil a most important role." So according to the Select Committee, Sir, all those who struggled for this basic right in the past have struggled mistakenly and in vain. But does not such a PAP argument remind us of the very same arguments used by the British Colonialists in the past, to deny the people of their right to self-rule and independence? And how does the PAP ensure that voters are given qualified and suitable candidates to choose from? Simply by putting up a few names on a slate, and the people must choose one whose name is on the slate? The people are not given a wider choice. Is this really an election then?”
“I wish also to make suggestions to the Government to improve on the amendments, if they must be adopted. Article 19 is the most important provision in the Bill. Who should qualify to be a Presidential candidate? Only a selected group of elites, or all the citizens who qualify to stand as candidates in the elections in Singapore? The PAP has made it that only members of an exclusive PAP club may qualify as Presidential candidates. Is that fair and democratic? Against the strong arguments of representors, the Select Committee has stone-walled with cliches like: "exacting standards of competence, experience and rectitude", "the best man for the job" and now," more difficult to become the Elected President than the Prime Minister," and it has refused to open up the closed door to admit broader categories of people as possible presidential candidates. The Committee does not seem to be concerned that such closed-doorism violates the very basic tenets of democracy as well as the basic right of every citizen to equal opportunity and fairness, as emphasised by Dr Koh. Neither does it seem to be concerned that this is, in fact, a form of discrimination practised in favour of a handful of the elite against the vast majority of the people in Singapore. The Committee harps on the need for the candidates to have the basic criterion of having the experience and ability of managing funds in a large organisation. Is that really necessary? On this basis, as pointed out by one representor, it would seem that all past Presidents of Singapore would have been disqualified as candidates. It would also have disqualified many of our Ministers who are now on the front bench and who are billed to qualify as Elected President Candidates.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the Select Committee has accepted proposals that go to strengthen the Elected President's political and financial control over the State machinery. This control is seen in the fixed staggered-term arrangement of 3-year nominations instead of the earlier 6-year appointments. The Chairman and the CEOs of the key statutory boards and Government companies will now be required to declare whether the budgets will draw on the reserves. The Minister for Finance, the Auditor-General and the Accountant-General too will have to inform the President of estimates of expenditures and revenue or any proposed transactions which are likely to draw on the reserves. Thus, all possible loopholes in financial matters are plugged and in-built controls are instituted. With all the vital information provided, all that the President needs do is to make political decisions, as Dr John Chen has just said, on matters connected with the national reserves. The amendments accepted by the Select Committee in the Report have, therefore, further strengthened Presidential control over almost every aspect of Government. The Select Committee has, however, rejected proposals that may in any way weaken or undermine Presidential control and which could defeat the PAP's main motivation behind the Elected President's scheme. In last year's October debate, Sir, on the Second Reading of the Bill, I had explained how and why the idea of the Elected President came to be mooted, and how and why some of the provisions in the Bill have been made to meet the needs of the various contingencies, all in order to protect PAP interests. The amendments accepted by the Committee have confirmed what I had said. Let me now comment on some of the more important amendments, rejections and omissions.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to ask the Minister to let us know what sort of compensation he has in mind for those buildings which he has said will be removed.”
“I do not think that is true, Sir. BG George Yong-Boon Yeo: Mr Speaker, Sir, this is a matter of fact, not opinion. SINGAPORE GENERAL HOSPITAL (Implementation of C Class facilities) 6. Dr S. Vasoo asked the Minister for Health if he will provide the latest progress on the implementation of C Class facilities in Singapore General Hospital.”
“Is the Minister aware that while making it easier for the Philippines, the agreement has drawn forth strong criticisms from other countries around South East Asia and that some of these criticisms have been directed at the prolonging or inability to realise ZOPFAN in the not too distant future? Would the Minister comment on this, please? BG George Yong-Boon Yeo: Mr Speaker, Sir, not at all. Our neighbours have not reacted adversely to the MOU - not Malaysia, not Indonesia.”
“Is the Minister aware that in spite of what he has said, many parents have complained that the cost of education is getting higher and higher nowadays?”
“The question is the original one, of course.”
“Sir, is the Senior Minister of State aware that a High Court Judge has commented rather harshly on the wavering stand adopted by the Singapore Government? First of all, not claiming diplomatic immunity for the High Commissioner and then, according to the Judge, blowing hot and cold, claiming diplomatic immunity for the High Commissioner. This, Sir, would certainly give Singapore a bad name.”
“May I have some clarification from the Minister, Sir?”
“I ask the Minister to say now: Was a permit granted for an appeal that appeared in the Straits Times on 10th July 1990? If no permits had been granted at all in all these cases, would the Minister say whether they have been investigated by the police for offences under the House to House and Street Collections Act? If not, why is the Workers' Party being singled out? I ask the Minister to be good enough to give this House clear and direct answers to all the questions I have asked, particularly whether the seizure of the monies in the bank was authorised under any law, and if so, which law? One last word, Sir, police officers are public servants whose salaries come from the taxes paid by the people of Singapore. They are not, and I emphasise, not servants of any political party that happens to form the government of the day. If police officers who uphold the law for the common good act fairly and carry out activities lawfully, and not do things they are not empowered by law, then they would be respected and accepted as trustworthy and reliable friends, guide and protectors of the people. But if on the contrary, police officers should act unlawfully, toady to the ruling political party, and harass people and organisations, especially opposition parties that carry out legitimate and lawful activities, then they would lose all respect of the people. They become no longer guardians of the law, friends, guide and protectors of the people, but the oppressors of the people.”