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 9 of 17.
“Sir, the Minister has also said that he does not know how much the quota premium is.”
“Yes, I understand. He has enunciated a new system of quotas. He has also mentioned something about PARF. Therefore, I ask, why not extend the PARF from 10 to 15 years? After all, cars are built to last longer than 10 years. He says he wants to be fair. Therefore, he should be fair, especially to those people who cannot afford to change cars so easily. If he wants to be fair, then there should be no surcharge whatsoever. Of course, that is linked to the quota itself. Therefore he should extend the grace period to 15 years as well. As I have said, that will help those who are not so well off and also help small businesses, and especially the spare parts dealers. Moreover, it will also cut down loss of foreign exchange.”
“Yes, I am going to ask him the question. This is the preface.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the Minister has enunciated very laudable principles. He says he does not intend to use transport policy as an excuse to collect more revenue. And he wants to be fair to all. That is the most important consideration, he says. As I have said, they are very laudable principles and aims but, unfortunately, the measures that he has suggested do not seem to be consonant with these two principles.”
“If the prices should continue to go up, what would the Government do under those circumstances?”
“The Minister has not mentioned anything about petrol prices. Have they gone up or down?”
“Has the deregulation really promoted competition so that the consumers benefit?”
“No, Sir. NEIGHBOURHOOD POLICE POST ALONG PASIR PANJANG ROAD 3. Encik Abbas Abu Amin asked the Minister for Home Affairs whether plans have now been finalised to set up a Neighbourhood Police Post along Pasir Panjang Road.”
“Sir, in view of the seriousness of the allegations in the press reports, does not the Government think it would be advisable to make a statement as silence might indicate agreement with whatever that has been said in the newspapers?”
“These reports were made very public and normally the Government's PR representatives are very quick at noting these things down and giving a reply in the newspapers. How is it that nothing has been done on this matter?”
“Has the Minister of State noted the reported reasons for refusing permission for the Flying Club to fly in Malaysian airspace, Sir?”
“Is the Minister issuing a challenge? I ask the Government to hold a referendum now. Will Government do it?”
“Sir, the explanation can be very simple. In an election you fight on a multitude of issues. If the Government wants to know whether people support the Government on the Marxist issue or on the ISA or on conscription, let the Government hold a referendum, singly on one issue and one issue alone. Then we will know whether the Government has really got the support of the people. You will not know if you just link everything up. To give a good example. In the old days, when we in the Opposition asked for an election, the PAP wanted to hold a referendum. Why? When was that? There was a White Paper about the Merger proposals. Because the Government knew that it was going to lose in an election. But in a referendum, even if the Government lost, they would not have to resign. They could just carry on as the Government. Now in this particular case, I wish the Minister would go back to history and read what Dr Goh Keng Swee had once said.”
“To summarise, Sir, the Bill ostensibly aims to provide for maintenance of religious harmony in Singapore. But it is in fact an instrument intended, first, to dampen and contain religious revivalism that could adversely affect PAP's political interests. Second, to justify the arbitrary arrests of so-called Marxists and to suppress any future public show of discontent against Government policies, however, patently unjust and undemocratic, on the one hand, and to make use of the Presidential Council as a shield against legitimate criticism of such unjust and undemocratic policies, on the other. Therefore, the Workers Party cannot support such a Bill. Prof. Jayakumar: Point of clarification. If the NCMP felt so strongly that the Marxists' arrests were so unpopular with the people of Singapore, why did he not take up the invitation of the Government that he or any other political party make it an election issue before the September 1988 elections? We asked them to make it an issue. His party did not make it an issue. And also, every other previous arrests before an election, does he not know that the PAP fought it as an election issue and won the mandate of the people?”
“Indeed, clause 14 contradicts the much-talked-about-principle of "resolving major issues through consensus instead of contention" of PAP's so-called National Ideology. It is arbitrary and dictatorial, and is diametrically opposed to the spirit of consultation as implied in the provision of the Presidential Council. Clause 14 thus exposes the fact that the Presidential Council is a mere facade of democracy. If we must have the Presidential Council, then it must not be purely advisory. It must be given some teeth, so that it may play a meaningful watchdog role. If the majority views of the Council should disagree with the views of the Minister, then the Minister must not ride roughshod over the recommendations of the Council. And whatever the final decision of the Minister, it should be open to challenge in a court of law, and provisions to that effect should be made in the Bill. Will the Minister then take heed of our positive suggestions? Sir, from what I have said, it should be abundantly clear that what is considered to be so-called "activities to promote a political cause or a cause of any political party" or what is considered to be "subversive activities" could be very controversial. It all depends on the viewpoints of different people and different parties. Since the Presidential Council's recommendations may or may not be accepted by the Government, clause 14 in effect tells us that the Council is nothing more than an instrument to be used as a shield against any criticism that may be levelled at Government for whatever arbitrary action it may take against any religious group or person, as in the case against the so-called communists and Marxists under the ISA.”
“The Bill before us today is therefore introduced not only because of the first reason that I have, said but also because of another reason: it is an attempt, a belated attempt, by Government to justify the arrests of the so-called Marxists. As we now learn, the Bill was first drafted in June 1987 soon after the arrests of the Marxists were carried out in May 1987. Dr Aline Wong has touched on this. At the same time, of course, the Bill also allows Government to seize the opportunity to make provisions to prevent and suppress all future show of discontent by religious and para-religious groups against Government's undemocratic policies and the misuse or abuse of powers by the authorities. Such are the unspoken motivations behind the Bill. With the passing of the Bill, the PAP hopes to be able to stifle all dissent from religious and para-religious groups. Would the PAP care to admit that what I have said is correct and true? Let me now touch briefly on the establishment of the Presidential Council and the provision for prohibition orders. The Bill explains: 'All prohibition orders made by the Minister are to be referred to the Council ... The Council may recommend that the order be continued, revoked or varied in any manner.' Sir, the big question is: what sort of regard will the Minister have to the Council's recommendations, or to the written representations of the person concerned? Clause 14 states that, "All orders and decisions of the Minister ... shall be final and shall not be called in question in any court." If the Minister disagrees with the recommendations or representations, and proceeds to impose the prohibition order regardless, won't that make a mockery of the deliberations of the Council?”
“And it is a well-known fact that the secret police is no paragon of the truth. In the circumstances, may I ask, is it wrong to speak of "the fears that innocent people could be easily fixed through false or fabricated information?" Therefore, the instances given in the White Paper to support Government's contention that religious leaders have indulged in politics, and that Marxists have exploited religion for subversive purposes, are far from convincing, and they cannot be accepted by fair-minded people. Now it is easier to understand the second reason why the Government has put up the White Paper and the present Bill. As is well known, the arbitrary arrests of the so-called Marxists have been most unpopular. Protests have come from far and wide, so much so the Government has been compelled to release the so-called Marxists, one batch after another, in a comparatively short time. Only two of them, Vincent Cheng and Teo Soh Lung, still remain under detention. But despite strenuous efforts by Government propaganda on TV, radio and the press to present the Government's case, to this very day, very few people have accepted Government's explanation for the arrests. And that too, with a big grain of salt! Why? Simply because many people know that the arrests were directed at political opponents and would-be opposition election candidates before the elections. Such "pre-emptive" arrests of political opponents have become the hallmark of PAP rule, "nipping of the dangers in the bud" according to the Minister. And they were carried out before the general elections in 1963, in 1972, in 1976, in 1980, in 1984 and again in 1988. These pre-emptive arrests were to nip trouble for the PAP in the bud.”
“Whereas if they react unfavourably to Government policies, then they mix religion and politics and are to be penalised in some way? Is that how the PAP would stop the mixing of religion and politics? Sir, as is well known, how people normally react would of course depend on whether Government policies are democratic and caring or otherwise, and on how these policies affect their livelihood. It must be emphasised that Government has enacted many undemocratic and uncaring policies which have caused considerable hardships to many people. And Government has been forced to amend or completely revoke some of its policies in recent years. That is why Government has itself admitted in the White Paper that "the Government does not claim that it is always right in its policies, or that it is always deserving of support." So if religious leaders or groups express their legitimate concern for those who have suffered hardships and injustice as a result of uncaring and undemocratic policies of Government, they have not really been "promoting a political cause or a cause of any political party" or taken up any so-called "radical social action. Sir, it has to be emphasised also that freedom from arbitrary arrest is a basic human right enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. It is a key element of democracy. Detention without trial is accepted only in times of war and grave national emergencies. But in Singapore, more often than not, such arbitrary arrests and detentions without trial have repeatedly been used in times of peace, and when there is no national emergency whatever, all in order to get rid of political opponents and critics of the PAP. Moreover, such Government action is often dependent on reports made by the secret police.”
“Religious leaders all over the world have made similar protests against injustice on a variety of moral and social issues. Although such protests have political overtones, nevertheless, they are by and large isolated incidents and are merely protests on issues of "legitimate concern". That should not be construed as "venturing into politics" as alleged. Let me stress that we support in principle that religion be separated from politics. But the big question is, how do we separate the two so that everyone is clear as to what is religion and what is politics? Social welfare, care for the aged, education, public health, morality and justice are all issues of legitimate concern to both religion and politics. One religious leader has said that "Islam and politics cannot be separated because Islam embraces all aspects of life." Another religious leader said (and I quote from the Staits Times of 8th February 1990) "drew from the Bible to show that Christianity was a holistic faith which touched on all aspects of life, including politics." Archbishop Gregory Yong has spoken of confusion and added (I quote again from the Straits Times dated 11th January 1990), "To say that religion and politics can be separated is, at best, an ambiguous statement." How then are we to separate religion from politics? I would say that, more often than not, it is well-nigh impossible. But it would appear that Government's way to stop mixing religion and politics is to lay down its own ground rules, which we have not yet seen, and then arbitrarily interpret them according to how religious groups and individuals react to certain policies of Government. Would it mean that if religious groups and individuals react favourably to Government policies, then they do not mix religion and politics?”
“I believe that the instances quoted in the White Paper have been somewhat taken out of context. There is no explanation as to how these incidents have come about. There is no explanation whatsoever. Those instances quoted are therefore more or less half-truths. It must be emphasised that until today, the reasons given by Government for the arrests of the so-called Marxists in May 1987 have not been really accepted by most of the people, not even by PAP's strongest supporters, both inside and outside Singapore. Those who were arrested have repeatedly denied that they are Marxists, and the Government has not dared to charge them in open court. It knows only too well that its so-called evidence will not be able to stand up to the slightest scrutiny. Those arbitrarily arrested in 1987 all belong to a para-religious group. In the circumstances, it was not unexpected that some form of protests would come from the religious leaders who were connected in some way with the work of those arrested, just like what is done by political leaders when party members are arbitrarily arrested. Indeed, in the face of grave injustice done to their flocks, it would have been most unnatural for them not to have made any protests at all. It must also not be forgotten that a strong people's movement in the quest for justice, democracy, freedom and human rights is sweeping across the world today. And priests and religious leaders in Singapore, like other people elsewhere, cannot but be affected in some way by such momentous events. Therefore, if circumstances had caused them to speak up for their flocks, that does not mean that the Catholic priests have ventured into politics.”
“Neither did the Workers' Party, which advocates racial equality and equal respect for all religions. Nor the National Solidarity Party. Nor the PKMS, although its party membership is almost all from individuals of the Malay ethnic stock. And what about the ruling PAP? I believe it too did not play up religion during the last elections. But does the PAP make use of religion and religious occasions to garner political support for itself? I say that it does. For example, PAP MPs make politi- cal speeches before gatherings in the Seventh Moon celebrations. Complaints have also been made that PAP MPs are made "advisors" to religious organisations, temples and mosques. What "advice" can the PAP advisors give to these organisations other than political advice? Thus, it would appear, Sir, that it is the PAP itself that is in a way mixing religion with politics. Next, on the religious groups. Have religious groups ventured into politics? The White Paper has given instances of lectures by Muslim Theologians from abroad, far back in 1973, 1982, 1984 and recently 1986. But the only government action considered necessary concerning them was to ban the three lecturers from re-entering Singapore. And that was sufficient. Regarding the Hindu and Sikh organisations, these were isolated instances which had been brought about by events in India. The only action needed was for Government to give a warning. And that was again good enough. The White Paper quotes some concrete instances connected with the Catholic priests. Government alleges that the priests have ventured into politics, that para-religious groups have gone into "radical social action" and so on. But have they really done so? What are the facts again?”
“"They are exerting an influence politically, socially and economically, far greater than the number they represent in the population". Sir, this Report does not sound like sweet music in the ears of PAP leaders. And what is more important is that these younger English-speaking groups are today often associated with growing democratic trends, are more articulate, and are quite vociferous in their support for the struggle for justice, democracy, and for human rights. Legislation in what the Government called "overall national interest" would certainly help strengthen the hands of Government in guaranteeing freedom of religion on the one hand, while at the same time containing such, to quote the Government again, "heightened religious fervour", which if unchecked could, and possibly would, work to the political disadvantage of the PAP. Hence the Bill is introduced to dampen and contain religious revivalism in Singapore. That is the first reason - not so much the fear of individuals getting out of line as the fear of religious groups criticising undemocratic policies of the Government. Mr Abdullah Tarmugi has mentioned this earlier on. What is the second reason? The second reason is somewhat linked to the first, and is concerned with what Government has called the "mixing of religion and politics". The question is: Is there evidence of such mixing of religion and politics? Which political party has used religious sentiments to garner popular support? Which religious group has ventured into politics? First on the political parties. Among opposition parties which contested the elections in 1988, so far as I know, the Singapore Democratic Party did not play up religion to garner popular support.”
“In the case of Sri Lanka, trouble started because of extreme political and social inequality and discrimination as well as inadequate political representation, not because of religion or religious friction per se. In the case of Fiji, the problems were also political and social. In the case of India, different circumstances again. Religious clashes have occurred regularly for tens and hundreds of years in India. Therefore, examples of these countries should not be used to justify legislation of the Bill in Singapore. That such a possibility of religious friction and misunderstanding exists in Singapore cannot be denied. It has always existed in any multi-racial and multi-religious society. Nevertheless, some of the instances of what is called "aggressive and insensitive evangelism" listed in the White Paper would appear to be somewhat isolated instances. And they could easily have been dealt with under the existing statutes, like the Sedition Act and the Penal Code, or the Public Order Act, or even the laws of defamation. Therefore, the question must again be asked: Why legislate? The Minister says there is fear that certain individuals get out of line. But are there more important reasons so far unsaid by the PAP? Let us try to find out from the facts of history. From what has been said by Government Ministers, the first reason would appear to be that Government is apprehensive and is indeed fearful of the rapid recent growth of certain religious, especially Christian, groups referred to in the White Paper. These groups are mostly English-speaking and (to quote from the Report on Religion and Religious Revivalism, prepared by the MCD) "younger in age, better educated".”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, first let me say that my Party is in full agreement with the principle that religious tolerance and harmony be maintained at all times. It is especially important in our multi-racial, multi-religious Singapore. Except for the Maria-Hertogh riots (which were due to unusual circumstances) and the 1964 racial riots (which had special political overtones, which the Prime Minister will confirm), it can be said that by and large we have enjoyed religious tolerance and harmony in Singapore for many years. This is largely due to our people's good sense in the practice of racial and religious tolerance, helped by the Government's policy of maintenance of religious harmony in a secular state. Nevertheless, we have before us a Government White Paper and a Bill to maintain religious tolerance and harmony that already exists in Singapore, as stressed by the last speaker. Why is it necessary to do that? And why, at the present juncture when all is quiet, and when there is no inter-religious tension whatsoever? Government has stated its case in the White Paper, and now again in the House. The Minister has spoken about the main scheme of the Bill, giving instances. In substance, Government argues that a definite increase in religious fervour also increases the possibility of friction and misunderstanding among different religious groups and, that, I quote, "it is better to act now to pre-empt future difficulties." Ministers have quoted what has happened in Sri Lanka, Fiji and India with supportive evidence of religious friction. But, Mr Speaker, Sir, circumstances are different in the three countries from those in Singapore.”
“May I suggest then, Sir, that the Minister form a high-powered committee to investigate into how we can reduce such defence expenditure and make the report public to the people of Singapore. BG Lee Hsien Loong: Mr Speaker, Sir, every year during the Committee of Supply, the defence budget is up for debate. And every year Members have raised queries as to what we are doing, whether we need to do it, how we can do better. Dr Lee is a Member of this House and I look forward to hearing from him during the Committee of Supply. HDB'S RELOCATION PROGRAMME IN TIONG BAHRU GRC 3. Dr S. Vasoo asked the Minister for National Development whether the subsequent phases of the Housing and Development Board's relocation programme in Tiong Bahru GRC will be undertaken, and, if so, when.”
“If other ASEAN countries should reduce their defence expenditure, would Singapore do the same? BG Lee Hsien Loong: Mr Speaker, Sir, that is a purely hypothetical question. Dr Lee Siew-Choh: It is the Minister who has been giving us a lot of hypothetical issues. In fact, what I ask the Minister is whether there is any way of reducing defence expenditure without jeopardising the security of Singapore. BG Lee Hsien Loong: Mr Speaker, Sir, we seek such ways all the time. Mindef works very hard at making sure it only spends money on what it needs. And if the Member has any further ideas on how to improve our defence capability and save money, we will be happy to hear from him.”
“Does it mean from what the Minister says that this dispute could lead to possible clashes and war in future? BG Lee Hsien Loong: Mr Speaker, Sir, the Singapore Government does not intend to go to war with anybody, and the SAF is required whether or not we own Pedra Branca.”
“Does Singapore envisage any territorial disputes with other countries surrounding it in ASEAN? BG Lee Hsien Loong: Mr Speaker, Sir, Singapore has no territorial ambitions. But I am sure the Members will have heard of Horsburgh Lighthouse or Pedra Branca belonging to Singapore over which from time to time issues have arisen with the Malaysian government.”
“The smaller countries still cannot feel secure yet. America's presence is certainly needed at least to balance other powers in the region". This is the Malaysian Armed Forces' Chief of Intelligence. He was interviewed in Utusan Malaysia on 2nd February 1990 and the report was carried in the Straits Times last week. No other ASEAN country is slashing its defence expenditures, demobilising its armed forces, or acting on the assumption that it no longer faces any external security threats. It would be foolhardy for Singapore alone to do so. The Government therefore intends to maintain the limit on defence expenditure at 6% of the Gross Domestic Product. This figure has remained unchanged for many years. The money is needed to train troops, to operate, maintain and upgrade equipment and weapons, and to pay regular servicemen salaries commensurate with what they can earn in other civilian jobs. All this costs more each year. With prudent financial management, the Government has always been able to fund all its other expenditures besides defence, without having to sacrifice any projects. However, this does not mean that MINDEF should automatically spend the entire 6% of GDP available for defence each year. The GDP is much larger now than it was a decade ago. A large part of the SAF has already been built up. MINDEF now has more flexibility to time the upgrading and replacement of SAF equipment and weapons, in order to get the best possible value for money. Depending on the SAF's needs, in some years we may not require to spend the entire 6% which has been set aside for defence. This will happen more often if the cost of military equipment does not escalate too fast, and if the economy continues to grow rapidly.”
“Even if improved relations between the US and USSR lead the two superpowers to reduce their military forces in the region, it does not follow that other regional causes for tension and conflict will therefore disappear. These are regional causes, unrelated to the US and USSR. The outcome of the Cambodian conflict is not yet certain, even though the war appears to be drawing to a close. The territorial disputes over the Spratlys and Paracels islands have nothing to do with superpower rivalry. They are actually disputes over who owns the oil or gas which may lie undiscovered in the waters surrounding these islands. These disputes have been muted by the US presence in the region, including their military bases in the Philippines, Japan and South Korea. If the US significantly cuts back its military forces in the region, this will not be a signal for Singapore also to reduce our forces. It will be reason for concern over a potentially destabilising change in the regional balance of power, one which may lead to other significant powers playing a more active role in the region. Singapore is not alone in this view. The Malaysian Government shares this perspective. For example, Prime Minister Dr Mahathir Mohammed has said that it would be premature for the US to consider withdrawal from the bases in the Philippines, despite the apparent reduction in regional tensions brought on by heightened prospects of a Cambodian settlement and new peace overtures from the Soviet Union. The Malaysian Armed Forces' Chief of Intelligence, General Datuk Abdul Rashid Raja, also recently expressed concern over the Spratlys and the Paracels, and the possibility that China may become more aggressive if the US reduces its role in the region. He said "the situation around us is not stable yet.”
“Sir, does the Minister see any immediate danger of war in Singapore? BG Lee Hsien Loong: Mr Speaker, Sir, of course not. But one of the reasons for that is we have the SAF and therefore when we see developments in the region, we can afford to take a relaxed and tranquil approach to it. We can observe developments with equanimity and without having to be tense with the finger on the trigger all the time. DEFENCE EXPENDITURE (Review) 2. Dr Lee Siew-Choh asked the First Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Defence whether, in the light of the easing of tension all over the world, the Government has any plan to review the present expenditure on defence. BG Lee Hsien Loong (for the First Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Defence): Mr Speaker, Sir, the Government constantly reviews its defence expenditure to ensure that it gets the best value for every dollar spent. It strives to keep the SAF lean and efficient, in order to make best use of scarce manpower and limited funds for the security of the nation. The momentous changes in the strategic situation in Europe, and the corresponding reduction of tension between NATO and the Warsaw Pact, have not been followed by any similar upheaval in the Asia Pacific. The US Defence Secretary, Mr Dick Cheney, said recently in the Philippines that while some cuts in the US military forces in Asia were being considered, the numbers would be relatively modest, as he did not "see the equivalent kind of change in Asia and the Pacific that we've seen in Europe". In any case, Singapore has never based its defence policy on countering an opposing military bloc, unlike NATO and the Warsaw Pact. Our policy has always been to deter all potential aggressors, whoever they may be, from attacking or intimidating us.”
“But as the charge is now lowered to only $3 per entry, perhaps it could be retained for a little while. Recent increases in parking fees in the HDB estates should also be scrapped. Parking in the HDB estates does not cause traffic congestion on the road anywhere. Clearly this is another revenue collecting measure despite all the talk about the cost of land and so on. Finally, Sir, I fully agree with the recommendations listed in the paragraphs on Public Transportation and Infrastructure. Public transport should be comfortable, convenient, cheap and pleasurable. There are great fears, however, that bus fares and MRT fares may soon go up. So let Government give us an assurance that the fares will not go up. All in all, Sir, I believe that the Select Committee has done a good job. With the reservations I have mentioned, I give my full support to the Motion. Now it is up to Government to carry out some of the recommendations therein.”
“Therefore, if the Government should be honest with itself and with the people, it should scrap the ARF completely. Will the Government do that? Will it be honest with itself? The PARF, however, should be retained for all existing vehicles for a total period of 10 years. The PARF may vary with the age at which the car is disposed off as recommended by the Select Committee. But if it is only an option, as quoted from the Straits Times, then car owners who exercise the option to scrap cars from the fifth year should not be allocated a permit to buy a new car, unless the present car is proven to be not road worthy. Scrapping cars from the fifth year is a great waste of funds. Only the car companies benefit. Cars are made to last more than 10 years and the PARF should in fact be extended to 15 years. This has been suggested by many trade associations in the transport business over the last 10 years. In addition to two-yearly inspections, Government has also imposed a smoke emission limit for cars. So there should be no fear of pollution from older cars. Keeping the PARF would cut down foreign exchange loss through the unnecessary purchase of expensive new cars. It would also greatly help our Singapore spare-part dealers and other services connected with car repairs. The evening ALS has caused great inconvenience to many people. It should be scrapped, not just the shortening of hours. Entry of cars into the CBD does not necessarily cause congestion on the roads. Cars entering the CBD could be parked away in car parks. Cars already parked since morning will leave the CBD for home from 4.30 pm onwards. So there is no real congestion in the CBD if traffic flow is smooth and unobstructed. The morning ALS should also be scrapped.”
“Those who are in the essential Government service, Sir, and those who need a car for their businesses should be allocated permits to buy cars. Whether or not a person has a car presently should not affect the allocation of the permit. The present non-owner will not be "squeezed out", to use the words of Dr Hong Hai, to have a car later on. Those who own cars today will not qualify for a permit to buy a second car. The disadvantage faced by the first-time owners inherent in the present pricing system, to quote from the Report, will thus be considerably minimised. Existing car owners may use their cars for any period up to the limit of the present PARF 10-year period, and scrap the car after that or sell it for re-export before they can qualify for a permit to buy a new car. This means, Sir, that each person is entitled to only one car at any time. What is an essential service? A Government special study must be carried out to find out how many people need the car for their business, how many people merely use the car to go to the office and leave the car parked until the time to go home, whether we need to restrict car usage to certain groups of people, to certain hours of the day and so on. A special committee will have to list the points for qualification as an essential service. The public will have to be consulted and should help on this before the Committee decides accordingly. Government has the resources to help bring this about if it wanted to do so. The ARF should be greatly reduced. Government has repeatedly said that the ARF is intended to limit car population growth. But it has been clearly and repeatedly shown that the ARF does not limit car growth.”
“Though I agree that the recommendations of the Select Committee be accepted in principle, as I have said, by Government as a whole, nevertheless the Workers' Party has reservations as follows. The proposed ERP is a measure that is unfair and inequitable. It penalises those who have to use their cars over long distances to go about their business or their work. With the ERP, the more they use the car the more they have to pay in taxes, although they have already paid their share of car taxes and road taxes. This could mean, Sir, difficulties for many people who can hardly balance their monthly budgets. Those who are well-off of course will not feel the pinch. If Government insists on having the ERP, will road taxes and the ARF then be reduced? Could the Government Ministers give us an answer? Therefore, the proposed ERP should not be implemented. It should certainly not go hand in hand with any quota system, as suggested by Dr Hong Hai. On the quota system, the Report states: 'The rate of increase in the car population can be effectively controlled by means of a quota system'. I agree fully with that. But the bidding for a licence to buy a car will put the less well-off at a big disadvantage, as has already been stressed by many people before me. Those who can afford and are better off will be able to out-bid others and be at an advantage, just as in the bidding for HDB shops. It will certainly increase the price of cars somewhat and therefore it is very unfair to those who are not so well-off. To be fair, the quota allocation should be based not on bidding, but on the person's need for the use of car transport, and not on how much a person can afford. The PAP Government seems to believe that money should decide on every policy it pursues.”
“We must not forget that though Government Ministers often tell us that certain policies are pursued to ease traffic congestion on the roads, nevertheless, such policies have in fact been implemented with the main aim of increasing Government revenue. Millions and billions of dollars of taxes have been imposed on car owners through road taxes and the additional registration fees. Today, cars in Singapore are the most expensive in the world. And we may also ask, how has traffic congestion come about in Singapore? First, it must be said that traffic congestion is generally a product of the free enterprise system. As production increases and the income of workers also increases somewhat, and the general standard of living improves, more and more cars will appear on the road, especially if more and more cars are being imported. But in Singapore, Sir, road congestion has been compounded by Government so-called urban renewal and the disruptive evictions and resettlements of large sections of our population from the city. People have been driven from the city and their usual places of work to outlying satellite towns and from one district to another. All this has created the need for the people to have more and more cars to travel long distances, from their new homes to their old work-places, or to Jurong and other industrial estates. Therefore, traffic congestion in Singapore is in fact a problem very much created by the PAP Government itself. It is a problem not simply of so-called affluence, frequently stressed by the PAP Government. It is a problem which has caused our people great economic losses as well as hundreds of injuries and deaths year after year. All this has not been given any mention in the Select Committee's Report.”
“For instance, how much of the traffic congestion is due to car accidents, car breakdowns, road construction, road repairs, inconsiderate parking, and so on? If traffic flow is smooth and unobstructed, assisted by green waves of automatic traffic lights, will more cars on the road necessarily cause traffic congestion? This has not been answered. Do more cars going into the CBD mean that the same number of cars are on the road all the time? And how many of the cars going into the CBD are parked in parking lots and are not on the road again until the evening hours when the car owners leave office for home? "If somebody goes out, drives the car on the road and causes one minute of congestion on the road", I quote from the Straits Times, (presumably because of a car accident or breakdown on a narrow road), the cost to him, according to Dr Hong Hai, is one minute of his time. But I must ask: does this necessarily follow that there are half a million commuters on the same narrow road trailing behind somebody's car at the time? Although I agree, in general, that more cars on the road may cause more congestion, how does the ALS relieve road congestion as a whole in Singapore? Is it not a fact that the ALS could only relieve congestion in the CBD at the expense of the non-CBD areas, and transfer the congestion which might have been there - not necessarily true - in the CBD onto the fringe roads? Therefore, a proper investigation and survey should first be carried out. Only then can appropriate measures be implemented for our land transport policy in Singapore. Unfortunately, such an investigation and survey has not been carried out by the Government. I agree with Mr Heng that car ownership does not cause congestion on the roads, nor car usage.”
“First, let me say that I am somewhat surprised that the House has been asked to adopt this Report of the Select Committee so very quickly, soon after it has been made public. Many people have discussed the recommendations but there are also many more people who have not yet studied this voluminous Report. A few days ago, our Minister for Trade and Industry said that the Ministry of Communications and Information would study the recommendations and follow up in a few months. Now the few months would appear to have telescoped into a few days. Probably the Minister also has a hand in and oversees the Ministry of Communications! I am just wondering, Sir, if the Ministry has really studied the recommendations and has already come up with a decision just in a few days. It creates the impression that all this is merely a part of the usual shadow-boxing between Frontbenchers and Backbenchers of the PAP Government. And does the Government really wish the people to be given some time to study the Report well? I also find the words, "adopt" and "serious consideration" a bit confusing. If the Government adopts the Report, then my understanding is that the Government accepts the Report. If it accepts the Report, then it may be assumed also that the Government has already seriously considered it. Probably Dr Hong Hai could explain all this. Now, let me come to the Report itself. I wish to say, at the outset, that I support most of the recommendations in the Report in principle. But there are important omissions in the Report. Moreover, some of the arguments in the Report are based more on assumptions than on the actual survey of the traffic situation or the various factors that lead to traffic congestion in Singapore today.”
“Are foodstuffs the luxury items for the people in Singapore?”
“Has the Minister ever gone into a supermarket or market to buy things? Dr Richard Hu Tsu Tau: Indeed I have. But I do not see how that is relevant to the question he asked. He is probably imputing that prices of a lot of things have gone up, but these are usually the luxury items. The basics should be what he should consider.”
“Regardless of whether or not the Malaysian Government has issued a statement, does it not strengthen solidarity of ASEAN and relations between Malaysia and Singapore if Singapore should deny this categorically?”
“Does it mean that Mr Chia Thye Poh, Teo Soh Lung and Vincent Cheng have to go on TV and renounce whatever they believe in or not believe in before they get a release?”
“The Minister keeps on talking about the list and instances he enumerated in Parliament House. But if Chia had really advocated the use of force, why should he not be put on trial in a court and be proven guilty?”
“If Mr Chia Thye Poh has been detained because he has refused to renounce the use of force, since when has Chia Thye Poh really used force in any way? Has Government been able to prove that he has used force or advocated the use of force? Therefore, to put a label on him and use that as an excuse to detain him is not fair at all.”
“Whatever the label they may put on detainee Chia Thye Poh, what is the security threat that he is now posing in Singapore?”
“In fact, in today's Bill, caning would be imposed on those detainess who commit serious breaches of discipline, including acts of violence and vandalism on public property in the DRCs. Mr Deputy Speaker, the drug problem and its spread into all levels of society, even among school children, has come to such a critical stage that it is very difficult for us to say it has no potential to lead to social crimes. The view put across by the Non-Constituency Member, that we are gong back to the Dark Ages while other societies are becoming more progressive by not practising such harsh measures to tackle the drug problem, has to be answered with a question: Are the so-called progressive countries more successful than us in tackling this problem? I think the statistics speak for themselves. Sir, let us compare this with what some hardcore addicts have done - some of them have for example drove their own wives to turn to prostitution, threatened their parents with death, the very people who brought them into this would, threatened to kill the wives who love them, threatened to harm the children that they brought into this world. Is this form of tyranny not as terrible, not as severe, as if the law is applied on them? Mr Deputy Speaker, Singapore depends fully on its human resources. The drug addiction problem and the range of issues related to it are a threat to our social endurance and economic viability. Something has to be done and I would like to urge the Hon. Minister for Home Affairs to consider my proposal seriously. Thank you.”
“I would like to propose that we take a more hard-line approach. Perhaps we need to introduce caning for hard-core or recidivist drug abusers who return to the habit even after being given the chance to turn over a new leaf. The Member for Siglap has voiced the desire of some community leaders in this regard, and I would like to stress here that such desire is well-placed. Those who are caught in the drug trap for the first time might have reasons for being in that position. I also believe we could forgive them, for it is after all their first offence. The second time they are found abusing drug, we could still perhaps consider giving them a final reprieve. But if they do it a third time, I think something drastic has to be done. I would like to propose that they be given the cane. Sir, why do I make this proposal? Firstly, the soft, humanitarian approach has clearly not worked for them. Something harsh has to be done. Secondly, in my meetings with parents and members of the families of drug addicts, it is evident that many of them have simply washed their hands off the problem. They alienated the former addicts from the family circle. They disown them and simply leave it to the authorities to handle the problem. Some are happy when their children are arrested and sent back to the DRC, because that would mean being relieved of a burden. Some would even say, "Do whatever is best. If it is necessary to cane them, cane them." Such a negative attitute is a matter of concern to us and must be dealt with. Thirdly, some might say that caning is only imposed in criminal offences. But we also impose caning on those who commit vandalism on public property.”
“However, Mr Deputy Speaker, my attention is drawn to clause 9 of the Bill, concerning corporal punishment. Allow me to say something on this. When the drug problem began to spread into the Republic, we decided then that addicts were really people with a psychological problem. So they were treated as medical cases, and the preventive measures taken were also along that line. But when this approach was found ineffective, drug trafficking was deemed to be a social ill and a social problem, and hence a different line was taken. As a result, addicts were no longer brought to court. Only traffickers were deemed to have committed a crime by trafficking in drugs and thus caning was imposed only on them. The effect of such a view was that we employed two different approaches between addicts and traffickers. We use the social or soft approach for addicts and the "hard" approach for traffickers. Since addicts were, supposely, suffering from a social problem, a social ill, we dealt with them by detaining them, counselling them and giving them training, and persuading them to kick their bad habit. Because of our "soft" approach, we have failed to affectively and satisfactorily eradicate, the drug problem. In the Tampines GRC itself, as with a number of other constituencies, the number of drug addicts is very alarming. As at the end of August, for example, there were more than 450 addicts in my constituency, covering those still under rehabilitation, 237, and those under supervision, 240. At the national level the trend is also very alarming and this has been explained by the Members for Siglap and Fengshan.111 Mr Deputy Speaker, I think the time has come for us to review the effectiveness of our approach in tackling the drug addiction problem.”
“Among the measures they take is, firstly, in view of the fact that Malaysia imposes the death penalty for cannabis trafficking, Singapore has now become an alternative cannabis market for them. But it is no secret that cannabis is the gateway drug for drug "undergraduates" who later become "graduates" by moving on to more hard drugs like heroin and morphine. Secondly, since the quantity of drugs trafficked would eventually determine the severity of the punishment they would face if caught, they have changed their tactics by appointing or recruiting small-time drug pushers. It is very simple to do. Hold a party. Give away drugs for free and make the party-goers new addicts. Once hooked, they would be prepared to become small-time traffickers to maintain their habit. So it is no surprise that we have today what are known as ant traffickers. Thirdly, aware of the rather large number of former addicts who have returned to their habit, the traffickers and their cronies would form what one could call "goodwill squads". The members of these squads would visit the homes of those just discharged from the DRCs to "renew old ties". The aim is to draw these former immates back into the drug trap. Mr Deputy Speaker, considering that the amendment moved by the Minister for Home Affairs is aimed at addressing this problem by dealing with the question of quantity of drugs trafficked, as in clause 2, by providing for faster urine testing as in clauses 3 and 4, by providing for supervision as in clause 6 and by providing for corporal punishment for serious breaches of discipline by DRC inmates as in clause 9, I support this amendment. It is a measure intended to tighten our anti-drugs law and make it more effective.”
“We therefore support Government's efforts to deal with the drug suppliers. And we also support the death penalty for real kingpins of organised drug syndicates. But we feel that the Government has not done enough on the drug problem as a whole. We believe that Government should not concentrate so much attention on punishments and deterrents. Imposing the death penalty is no answer to the problem. We feel that it should put more efforts into finding out the root causes which drive people to drugs so that Government may adopt the appropriate measures of prevention instead. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Encik Yatiman Yusof)( In Malay): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I wish to support the Misuse of Drugs (Amendment) Bill. When Parliament first passed the Misuse of Drugs Act, the objectives were very clear. It was intended to introduce statutory measures to prevent drug trafficking and provide for mandatory rehabilitation through the detention of addicts in the Drug Rehabilitation Centres or DRCs. The main targets were drug traffickers who peddle death and trade in the suffering and misery of our citizens. Now, as a result of the enforcement of this very effective law and the stiff measures we have taken, we have been able to arrest many big-time traffickers and crushed their drug syndicates. But now, the types of drugs trafficked and the patterns of drug trafficking have changed, as the Minister for Home Affairs has described. Have drugs like heroin, opium, morphine, diamorphine and cannabis stopped coming into the country? The answer clearly is no. Mr Deputy Speaker, just like other criminals, drug traffickers are very resourceful in their attempts to escape and circumvent the law.”