Lim Guan Hoo
Singapore
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I would just like to express a fleeting thought that has crossed my mind, A number of Members have raised the policy of bilingual education in Singapore. I personally feel that the Government has got to give a review in this respect.”
“Sir, I regret that I cannot agree with the Member for Sembawang. But I must thank him for expressing deep concern for the residents in my constituency instead of his own. Sir, I understand that very soon there will be about 2,000 blocks of HDB flats in the whole of the island.”
“Sir, I agree with the Member for Jurong. I feel that the Member for Sembawang ought to withdraw the expression "Shonan". To us the invasion of Singapore by the Japanese is a memory that brings back the feeling of traumatic wounds.”
“Sir, I have to clarify that the manpower projection made by me just now is based on the calculation that there will be only one shift duty for the Vigilante Corps members and not two or three shifts. Since the Member is so persistent in his proposal, I may as well repeat what I have said just now.”
“Sir, I wonder if the Member for Sembawang would care to clarify this point. In the earlier part of his speech he supported the planting of trees, but in winding up he seemed to favour the cutting down of trees. He seemed to contradict himself. Therefore, may I ask him this: does he or does he not want to plant trees?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I remember you had previously ruled that the colloquial term used by the Member for Sembawang likening a hawker inspector to a kind of land cow was somewhat unparliamentary language and could. not be used in this House. This term was again used by the Member for Jurong just now.”
The complete record
Every one of 152 lines we hold for Lim Guan Hoo, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 2 of 4.
“Because of the darkness there was a sense of insecurity then among the female workers who were called to do night shifts. I hope that following the passage of this Bill, appropriate steps will be taken to make working conditions more conducive to the security of the workers of both sexes. 3.15 p.m.”
“I thank the Speaker for his clarification. This gives me encouragement to praise the Government all the more. In short, the Labour (Amendment) Bill and the Women's Charter are measures aimed at the emancipation of the female sex. The idea behind the amendment Bill is to give facilities to female workers in cases where the work is more suitable to them. The question that arises is whether this amendment Bill will have any repercussions. In some cases where the work is not so suitable for female workers, will it be the tendency for employers to employ more female workers, instead of male workers? Will there be any discrimination on their part between the sexes? Is it possible to engage either a male worker or a female worker? Will there be a stronger bias against the males? Supposing you want to engage a secretary, a male or a female can do the job all the same. If you pay equal wages for equal work, then, according to the Member for Sembawang, this will give rise to exploitation. There is bound to be a disparity in wages between the two sexes. Mr Speaker, I will now go to the second point. Following the passage of the Labour (Amendment) Bill, we can expect more female workers to appear in our labour market, particularly in night shifts. So the question of security measures arises. I have some experience with regard to the Redhill Industrial Estate. Previously some factories in Redhill refused to engage female work ers because at that time street lights were not installed, so that some parts of Redhill Estate were rather dark. It was, therefore, not convenient for female workers to work at night. In spite of my repeated requests to install lamp posts, we have not seen any in the Redhill Industrial Estate.”
“Mr Speaker, Singapore has already got the Women's Charter, and there have been some amendments introduced in this House to improve it. Now we are giving some thought to the labour laws in regard to female workers working at night. We are opening the door to female workers working night shifts. Although it is your ruling, Mr Speaker, Sir, that Members should not praise the Government too much, I feel I owe the Government a duty to praise it in this respect. At the same time ---”
“I shall be very brief, Sir. (In Mandarin): In fact, many projects had been proposed by Members of Parliament concerned, but were not approved by the U.R.S.C. Therefore, the funds were not being fully made use of. Secondly, either the Chairman of the U.R.S.C. or the Chairman of the Projects Committee was sleeping. Members of Parliament are not sleeping because several projects proposed to the U.R.S.C. years ago are still pending and Members are still being asked whether they support the projects. It is the Chairmen of these committees who are actually sleeping.”
“Sir, I will specially touch on under expenditure of votes allocated. I would like to --- The Chairman: I do not want to be unfair to you, Mr Lim, but can you make your point very shortly, because a number of important points have been made and I must call on Mr Ho to reply.”
“Sir, I sympathise with what the Member for Delta has said. Very often I notice that when she made up herself, she did not appear on TV! Madam Chan Choy Siong(In Mandarin): Sir, I feel the Member for Bukit Merah perhaps might have swallowed something wrong. I think the Parlia mentary Secretary to the Minister for Culture was perhaps using this opportunity to give some other answers, because he did not reply to the points I raised. When I raised them just now, I did not do so for my own sake. I only said that the authorities should be fair in their TV coverage of certain activities in some other constituencies. So obviously certain matters have not been quite fairly treated. At those times when I appeared on TV, it was because the Ministers were around, and so naturally I also appeared. When I invited the TV "kings" to come and get some plctures, they did not turn up. I am therefore not satisfied, and I would like to put my amendment to a vote.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to clarify. If the Member wants to argue on behalf of the Minister, I think it is quite all right. But if he wants to argue on behalf of the University, I would like to ask whether that is permissible under our Standing Orders.”
“Sir, can the Minister pay special attention to what I have suggested and whether he will consider introducing amending legislation? Because of the technicalities of translation, there is confusion in the term "Vice-Chancellor", and I hope the Minister will do something about it, because the law was introduced by him and passed by this House. So I feel that he must look into this problem. And even though it may not be within his direct jurisdiction, he has the responsibility to see it rectified.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I agree with what the Member has said on the amendment. Not very long ago when the Minister for Education proposed the Nanyang University (Amendment) Bill, I pointed out that there was a loophole in it, namely, that there was only provision for a Vice-Chancellor without a Chancellor, although the Chairman of the Council, as stated by the Minister, was in name compatible with that of Chancellor. But actually the nature of the duties of the Chairman of the University Council was not suitable to make him a Chancellor of Nanyang University, because the Chairman of the Council shall be elected by the Council from among its members while a Chancellor is usually not appointed by election. The Minister did not take proper steps to amend the law but allowed it to remain as it was. Through his toleration, the designations of the Deputy Vice-Chancellor and the Vice-Chancellor have been officially announced to be the "Vice-Chancellor" and the "Chancellor" respectively in the text of Chinese translation. These difficulties arise when there is a translation from English to Chinese and vice versa.”
“Yes. I beg leave to withdraw. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.”
“If that is so, why call them prisoners? 5.45 p.m.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head 0401 be reduced by $10 in respect of item (2) of subhead 2130. Mr Speaker, under this item we can see that next year the vote for prisoners in respect of rations will be less than the vote for this year. Does it mean that the treatment of prisoners will deteriorate next year, or does it mean that there will be less prisoners next year, or does the Minister anticipate my reduction in the prices of rations? Or are there any other reasons?”
“Since there is no reply from the Minister, whether or not I am satisfied with it, I have to withdraw my amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn, The time allotted for Head 0307 having expired, the following amendment, standing in the names of Mr Tay Boon Too and Mr Teong Eng Siong, was not proceeded with: That the total sum to be allocated for Head 0307 be reduced by $100. The sum of $16,101,610 for Head 0307 ordered to stand part of the Estimates.”
“ir, if the Postal Authorities have not thought of any improvement in this respect, then the residents in housing estates will one day be forced to breathe their own dust in order to carry their messages out.”
“This may have a psychological effect on our people. I hope the Minister will look into this. 6.32 p.m.”
“Of course, we must not expect to be disappointed like Britain in her desire to join the European Common Market. I would like to mention, in particular, that from the statistics we have come across, we see that there are thousands of unemployed people. These statistics can be classified into two categories. One category is from the Sample Household Survey. The other category is derived from national registration. These statistics vary to a great extent. So the Minister, as an economic expert, has chosen one of the two to be the more reliable one to base his source of information. But personally I feel that these statistics are not entirely reliable because there are workers who, even when they are employed, report that they are unemployed. The number of unemployed persons registered at the Labour Exchange may not reflect the actual unemployment situation because certain people who are in receipt of public assistance want to claim that they are out of job. So they will be classified as unemployed. Pirate taxi drivers may also say that they are unemployed so that they will have room for manoeuvre in order to get a licence or a permit for their taxis. There are also numerous such cases. Some people like to disclaim that they are employed for various reasons. Others who want to get new jobs go to the Labour Exchange and say that they are unemployed. So the statistics that are available at the moment may not be completely reliable. We hope that the Minister will carry out a comprehensive survey so that we can be told with certainty the actual number of persons unemployed. We will then be able to ascertain that there are not so many people unemployed. But if the unemployment figure includes some people who are actually employed, it will give us a false and alarming picture.”
“For instance, when farmers in the rural areas were shifted from their farms, their economic livelihood was not changed. In other words, they were moved to a new environment as fish out of the water in such a situation. This is a problem we should look into. From the Minister's statement, I notice that he wants to promote exports in foreign markets. But he has not enumerated with any certainty the new measures to be taken in the present situation of Sterling devaluation. Our currency has not been devalued. This may be a good sign and is encouraging. On the one hand, we encourage industrialisation and promote exports. On the other hand, we have been receiving more foreign investments, especially from Hong Kong. Much capital has been flowing into Singapore from Hong Kong. According to a British Under-Secretary of State, certain Commonwealth countries also intend to invest in Singapore and Malaysia. This can be said to be a great encouragement to our industrialisation programme, especially as it will be adding to our admirable atmosphere of production. We should also pay attention to foreign markets. If we can have better organised export promotion offices abroad, then our locally-manufactured goods will have a better future. But there are no clear-cut proposals in the Minister's statement in this connection. Perhaps we can avail ourselves of this opportunity to ask him to try to explore the prospects of a common market when it is convenient for him to do so or whenever an opportunity comes to him. We can start with, say, a Singapore/Malaysia common market or a regional market. We know that our internal market is limited, and especially in this age of regional and common market agreements, it is very necessary that we should take measures to establish a common market.”
“Under the basic policy of industrialisation, we should try to diversify our economy in order to cope with the situation. From the Minister's Budget Statement, we can see that in 1957 the people engaged in agriculture and fisheries numbered 31,500 people. By 1959, the figure was reduced to 22,800. In the period of a few years, the number has decreased by 9,000. Every year there has been a decrease of 1,000. So this figure is one-fifth of the 5,000 jobs that we can create every year. This shows that our industries at the moment are not able to play the role that is expected of them, i.e., industrialisation replacing all other economic activities to provide enough employment. Industrialisation has been progressing but the activities of the fishing industry and agriculture have decreased in intensity. If this situation persists or even worsens, then there is much cause for anxiety about the future. We fear that certain events that have taken place in some developing countries may happen in our country. The unemployed in the rural areas will rush to the urban area. If such an event takes place in our country, then the achievement we have so far made in industrialisation may be minimised. Our industrialisation programme may, instead, provide opportunities for a change of occupation to some people who are looking for jobs. That is not the fundamental way of solving the problem. Singapore is undergoing rapid changes during which some kinds of economic activities have experienced certain distractions in one way or another. When we develop housing estates and promote urban renewal projects, when we change the living environment of the people, we have not at the same time changed their economic livelihood and surroundings.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the Minister for Finance has introduced a new Budget in this House. This can be said to be a product of the stormy season we have experienced. With the devaluation of Sterling and the withdrawal of the British Military Forces from Singapore, the fact that we are still able to produce such a Budget without any tax increases is really a meritorious achievement. As an economist, our Minister for Finance has not achieved this by magic. On the other hand, he has given us a clear picture of the economic position. The Supplementary Budget for this year has exceeded $10 million, but next year's surplus will be $30 million. If we have to have another Supplementary Estimate for $10 million, then we will lose some $700,000. I hope the Minister for Finance will not juggle too much in this budgeting business, as it appears to some people. Sir, our aim in the economic field is mainly to resolve our unemployment problem. When we talk about the financial policy introduced by the Minister for Finance, we should measure its merits in relation to the unemployment problem. We know that in the past, our efforts in industrialisation have resulted in the provision of 5,000 new jobs every year. But every year in Singapore there are 25,000 school leavers who will be joining the labour market. So by comparison, the solution of the unemployment problem is still unresolved and we are under heavy pressure to resolve it. I hope the Minister for Finance can explain whether the continuation of our industrialisation policy for the next few years will create enough jobs to resolve the unemployment problem. If there is a saturation point in employment opportunities, then I hope there will be a clear-cut announcement on our policy in solving this.”
“We must welcome and use talent from whatever linguistic, racial or religious groups it may come. We must not stifle it or shut it out because it expresses itself in a different language or is of a particular skin colour. Talent is a very precious and scarce quality, and a society which shuts it out on racial, linguistic or religious grounds must eventually disintegrate and perish under the weight of fumbling mediocrities. So in supporting the election of Inche Yusof bin Ishak as Singapore's President for a further term of four years, I am supporting a Singaporean who has demonstrated that he has the relevant qualities to hold this high office. Sir, I support the motion of the Prime Minister. 3.03 p.m.”
“Inche Yusof relied not on patronage or privileges of birth to build a respected place for himself in society. While in school, he was the first student to he commissioned by the Governor as a Second Lieutenant in the School Cadet Corps. After leaving school, he ventured into Malay journalism at a time when Malay journalism was not necessarily a sure road to wealth and success. In 1938, he established (he Utusan Melayu Press Limited which he built up into the now well-known Utusan Melayu. He was its first managing editor. Here again, Inche Yusof's life is not unlike that of thousands of other enterprising Singaporeans who succeeded because they dared to venture into fields which the more timid and unimaginative dared not go. Inche Yusof was not merely a pioneer in the field of Malay journalism. He held many distinguished public appointments long before he was made the first Yang di-Pertuan Negara. From 1948 to 1950, he was on the Film Appeal Committee. He has served on the Natural Reserves Committee and on the Malayanisation Commission. He has also served as Chairman of the Public Service Commission. So when in December 1959 Inche Yusof was appointed as Yang di-Pertuan Negara, it was because he had amply demonstrated that he had the qualities and character necessary to hold this responsible office. If he has, since then, discharged his duties with dignity and devotion, it is because he has brought to his office the spirit and character that built modern Singapore. In a multi-racial society like ours, progress and prosperity will be assured so long as we judge, honour and reward its citizens purely on the basis of merit, character and contributions that they make to the welfare of society.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to support the motion by the Prime Minister for the election of Inche Yusof bin Ishak as the President of our Republic. As a relatively new Member of Parliament, I have not had the privilege of knowing Inche Yusof as well as some of my other colleagues here. Therefore, like many hundreds of thousands of citizens in Singapore, I must judge Inche Yusof's nomination for the office of President largely by his public record. Mr Speaker, I do not propose to give a detailed biography of Inche Yusof, but I would like to select some details to highlight one point - that the President of a country should in his own life and character reflect the history and spirit of the people of the country. First, like most of us in Singapore - whether Chinese, Indian or Malay - Inche Yusof is of immigrant stock. He is a Malay of Sumatran descent. On the paternal side, he can trace his ancestral stock to Minangkabau and on the maternal side to Langkat. Inche Yusof himself was born in Perak. He began his studies in Malaysia and finished them in Singapore where he passed his Cambridge School Certificate examination with distinction. In this, Inche Yusof's story is not unlike that of the vast majority of us whose fathers and forefathers emigrated from other countries to settle in Singapore and make it their permanent home. Secondly, like many of us, Incite Yusof comes from a humble family. His father was a civil servant who brought up his children in the modest circumstances that most of us know. A President with these humble origins can therefore know and understand the lives and problems of ordinary people. There is yet another aspect of his life which accords with the spirit which built modern Singapore and which will sustain Singapore in the future.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, can the Minister for Health say whether, in detaining their licences, he has taken note of the principle of our work permit policy?”
“Can the Minister say whether, among the members of ASEAN, there are some who were members of Maphilindo? Can he explain whether the spirit of Maphilindo has any effect on ASEAN?”
“Now that we have joined ASEAN, can the Minister for Foreign Affairs inform us whether there will be any effect on our foreign policy? There has been talk outside that, as a result of British withdrawal, we will have to review our original non-alignment policy. Can the Minister elaborate on and clarify this point?”
“Sir, my question is related to economic aid. In the White Paper it is stated that when the British withdraw their troops from Singapore, they would give economic aid and other means to help the countries affected. There is the term "significant aid". This would give people the impression that there would be economic aid. Whether or not such significant aid would be forthcoming, will the Prime Minister explain to us what kind of aid would be forthcoming? In the past we have said that we would rather have trade than economic aid. That was also stated by the Prime Minister some time ago. Can I have the Prime Minister's clarification or elaboration on this? If the so-called economic aid is just like the type given to other countries which are receiving foreign aid, then it may be inconsistent with our policy.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, when our Prime Minister and his Cabinet Ministers went to London to discuss the withdrawal of the British troops from our area, after which the British Government issued a White Paper on this, I have also read this White Paper in which there is a statement to the effect that when the British are withdrawing their troops from here-”
“There should be certain limits within which activities can be carried out outside the courts. The law should not allow anti-national elements to go beyond these limits. So they now turn on the law itself. This is a situation that we cannot allow to be perpetuated. We should at least improve our present law in order to prevent such occurrences. I would like to stress one point. Singapore is a democratic country, but it does not mean that we should weaken the rule of law. That is not what we want, if the anti-national elements want to avail themselves of our democratic system to further their nefarious ends, then I stress that the law should not allow them opportunities to do things for their own enjoyment. What is wrong must be wrong. There must be a clear demarcation between right and wrong. We must first lay a strong foundation in our task of nation building. Every nail should be hammered down securely in its proper place. So now and then we must keep an eye on our law and adjust it to meet any possible situation. It does not mean that an increase of a $50 fine to a $500 fine is the imposition of a very heavy penalty. The fine is increased ten times. This ratio indicates that the demand is now tenfold for more perfect laws. In view of what I have said, I give my full support to this Bill.”
“The Minister has just introduced this amendment Bill and I lend my full support to it. First of all, one must know that the Criminal Procedure Code is one of the basic laws of our country. This is not a minor Act, unlike other subsidiary legislation. So this law should be made effective in order to achieve the purpose for which it is intended. It is possible that in other countries where there is a different but ideal system to achieve the purposes intended, there is no need for such a law. They may have precedents and other systems. They can still import some legal aspects into their systems, but they are limited in personnel to implement the same law. But Singapore is in a different situation. We have a democratic system and our laws are based on long traditions. We should try to help the Minister perfect our existing laws to suit our present situation. In the recent past, certain anti-national elements tried to disrupt law and order, but they could not achieve their purpose. The laws of our country are intended to benefit the people but not to restrict or suppress them unreasonably. This amendment Bill imposes only a minor penalty on the anti-national elements. What is important in law is that there should be a clear-cut demarcation between penalty and reward - what merits penalty and what merits reward. A $50 fine may be too small a sum to have any deterrent effect. We have read in the newspapers of events taking place in Hongkong and other places. When a riot or civil commotion is at its height, the people involved will go to the court and write slogans on the walls. Of course, we are not involved in this at the moment, but we should take action to forestall such incidents taking place in our country.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, can the Minister of Defence say whether there is a new Right-wing Party in Singapore and whether it has been registered?”
“The Minister for Finance has made a comparison of the prices of rice and wheat. I would like to ask whether the Government has taken any steps to prevent the rise in the prices of wheat and wheat products.”
“I feel that the Criminal Procedure Code needs some amendment, such as what our Minister has just proposed. This amendment is directed at the interests of the people of Singapore and should receive their full support. They should understand the motives and purpose of this amendment Bill. Maybe it would cause unhappiness to some people, because their potential activities might be curbed thereby. But I believe that all patriotic people should sincerely accept this amendment Bill. Sir, I support it. 3.44 p.m.”
“So in legislating we must also pay attention to further aspects relating to the protection of the people. Some people may think that the result of the trial may not be of any significance to them. As long as these offenders can be bailed out, they will continue to commit offences as before. So if we were to retain the old provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code without any amendment, we would be encouraging such people and not protecting the people as a whole. And the law would not be able to meet our obligation to protect the people. We can also see that most of these offenders are still young. Our present younger generation are growing up and receiving education, and they are subject to various influences. In introducing this amendment Bill, we should bear in mind the magnanimity of the law, because we know that the law is meant to protect our people and not really to punish the offenders only. If we do not direct our law to a specific field, then we may allow a situation to develop when we may have to deal with one case on one day and on another day those convicted may want to create more disturbances and commit more serious crimes, if these people are emotional, they may want to burn down a community centre without any regard to whether or not there are any parents or children inside the building. Furthermore, these people have no regard for such inanimate objects as traffic lights and community centres which are made from materials. So if these inanimate objects can be destroyed, then, of course, living objects can also be destroyed by them. If we do not promptly take action to correct the present situation which is worsening, then in future we may be at a loss to deal with even more serious offences. We should be alert to all such possibilities.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, touching on the speech made by the Minister for Law and on the Bill introduced by him, I would like to express my full support for both his speech and the Bill. In our newly independent country there have been many incidents which would justify the passing of this kind of law. The original purpose of the law is not to ask people to commit any offences and then to bind them by the stipulations of the law. The law is meant only to prevent the commission of any offences by anyone who disregards common interests or the security of the nation. So in passing the law, the preventive side should also be emphasised. But in the existing law, namely, the Criminal Procedure Code, there are certain loopholes which any intending offender may use to commit certain offences, and when they are prosecuted in Court they can seek the provisions of the law to get bail, and thus be free to commit further offences. So this provision of the right of bail would benefit them by giving them another opportunity to commit further offences. The time allowed them outside the Court before trial is used by them to commit further offences and to jeopardise the interests of the public. From this we can see that more and more people will be encouraged to take advantage of the loopholes in the existing law. Since our country is not a Communist country, we cannot see the type of mass open trial of people such as that prevailing in Communist countries. But we can see incidents where people have committed various types of offences And if such people were brought to Court, there would be a scene which would not be nice to look at. On such an occasion the law may be at a loss to deal with them.”
“In order to correct the wrong impression of the Member for Sembawang, I would say that the trend in law is such that we should make it as our guide. I do not mean to encourage divorces by quoting that example. At least I can declare that I do not encourage it. I do not like to see anybody, including the Member for Sembawang, asking for a divorce on unjustified or trifling grounds.”
“But she has not suggested that the proposed new paragraphs (c) and (d) in clause 28 should also be deleted. It would seem that the Member's attitude is that a wife can have the right to seek a divorce after seven years' separation, but not the husband. So it would be more proper for us to take care also of the other party, and not just one party. Otherwise, it would give people the impression that this is something in favour of women and that the Member would like this to be a woman's world. And she would rather see men in dire difficulties. I feel that the amendment moved by the Member for Delta is not proper and it will put our society in dire difficulties. Therefore, I oppose her amendment and her views relating thereto. If I want to talk, I can pour out a torrent of words, but because of the limited time, I would like to sit down now.”
“Mr Speaker, I feel I should direct my remarks to her because she regards women as the weaker sex. We should also pay attention to another point. We should not put certain restrictions on women. We should not make them continue with their unhappy family life after waiting for seven years. Though the amendment provides that after seven years of separation a woman can get a divorce, it is not giving her a free hand. There are other considerations to be met before such a divorce can be granted. I would like to draw your attention to this wording in clause 28 (b):" ... and is unlikely to be reconciled with him." This clearly says that even after seven years' separation, the party concerned cannot get a divorce automatically. It is up to the Judge to see that there are facts to show that the party concerned is unlikely to be reconciled. So if there are such facts, then the court will decide in favour of a divorce. Such a situation will affect the two parties. It is not just the women who will suffer. It is not because woman is the weaker sex that she is willing to suffer such stark cruelty. It is not for us to make divorce more difficult to get from the legal point of view, and make the law more refined to prevent divorce. What the law should do is to simplify the position for reasonable marriages and to simplify other matters. For instance, the British Law Society has suggested that if both parties cannot live together, then they can, by mutual consent, get a divorce. That is something arising out of the actual situation in England. We think this could be a very good guide for us. We should also pay attention to another point. The Member for Delta has just now suggested the deletion of paragraphs (a) and (b) in clause 28.”
“Of course, we do not want to have any laws that will not protect women. But in the end when women rely on legal protection alone, that will do more harm than good to them. Because if they want to enjoy bliss, one of the many types of bliss would be matrimonial bliss, i.e., to have a good family relationship. If womenfolk are not satisfied with their lot and though they lie on the same bed with their husband but have different dreams - seeking some other unrealistic aims - then they will be very unrealistic. It actually amounts to seeking privileges and advantages and not something else to maintain a good family relationship. Thus it would bring the marriage relationship down to a material level. Because there are some men who are economically less well-off than others, if material or financial resources are the sole yardstick in maintaining family harmony, then it will put the matrimonial relationship on a commercial basis.”
“Mr Speaker, I sat on the Select Committee on the Women's Charter (Amendment) Bill, and the Member for Delta was also on the Select Committee. The suggestions put forward by her today had, if I remember correctly, been raised in the Select Committee. Now that this same amendment is raised again, I feel it is rather redundant; actually it is not necessary to repeat the opinions already uttered. Normally there are three very wrong opinions on the part of women on women's problems. Firstly, they take pride in being able to be on an equal take pride in being able to be on equal footing with men. For instance, if a woman can drive or be a pilot, then she takes pride in it as symbolising her ability to compete with men. But for men, they do not take pride in being able to sew. So this would be a retrogressive attitude on the part of women. They want to follow what men do - to be able to join the Army and fight, etc. - then that would be the glory of women. That is the first wrong concept on the part of some women. Secondly, they regard women as a kind of material property. Even Plato talked of women as wives as well as property, and the treatment of women as chattels or property is also a wrong concept. Thirdly, women regard themselves as weaklings who cannot compete with men in politics, economics and other fields. And so they want to seek special protection under the law or some other means of protection. Thus it will impede their progressive movement and lead them to some other misguided path and put them in dire difficulty. The Member for Delta has been harping on the fact that women in the present society are unable to be on an equal status with men and, therefore, it is necessary to let them have some special protection under the law.”
“But, at the moment, we are still short of facts which may merit its establishment. Therefore, I feel that it is not justified for us now to set up this institution permanently. So only with a trial period will it be safer all round. 6.13 p.m.”
“If it is so, then at the present juncture when there is no Opposition in the House, although the Party in power is not faced with an Opposition, the House can still get some active assistance from the non-partisan advisory body known as the Council of State. If this is set up on this basis, then it may be that such an establishment may be justified. But the Commission was vague about its purpose in paragraph 51: `We are however convinced it would be in the best interests of the many peoples within our small island Republic and for their future well-being and that of the Republic ... that an advisory body to be called "the Council of State" be created ...'. Thus it may give people a vague impression that without such an institution like the Council of State and even with an elected Parliament, the interests and welfare of the people would not be well taken care of or safeguarded. Such a concept may well be construed as a lack of confidence in the elected Parliament, and it may benefit the propaganda of anti-national elements. Finally, in view of the above analysis, I feel that among the merits of the Council of State one can mention that when it is uplifted, it can become some kind of assistant or supplement to Parliament and can exercise the checking and balancing function in party politics as a non-party organisation. But regarding the demerits, one can say that it may in future change its nature and become an Upper House. Because of this, I suggest that it should be given a trial period of five years, at the end of which Parliament can review its position. Then, if it is thought that it would be proper and necessary to have such an institution, we can provide for it to be perpetuated in our Constitution.”
“Members of the Council are to be appointed by the President after consultation with the Prime Minister. With this provision, perhaps we can feel somewhat at ease. Although we know that the President is the Head of State and the Prime Minister himself is elected, it does not mean that because of this the members appointed would, of course, represent the Prime Minister. Also we cannot say that the Councillors are representatives of the people. In the final analysis, this Council of State is not an absolutely representative organisation. It is only an organisation which has many similarities with the Upper House. It is not an Upper House, and if we do not deal with it properly, it may become a twin of the Upper House. That is the second point. The third point is that the Council of State, as suggested, may not be able to take up the responsibilities and duties of the Opposition. At the moment, although we do not have an Opposition Party in the House, this Council cannot act on their behalf because, according to the suggestion of the Commission, the Council of State will be composed of members who are not members of any political Party. With such limitation the Council of State will tend to become something like a consultative body outside of party politics. I would have thought that the Report should have stressed the importance of checks and balances to be exercised by the Council of State in party politics in order to ensure that the Council of State will have a more clearly defined position in the democratic system.”
“Secondly, as mentioned in paragraph 54, the Commission has also recognised that there are certain similarities between the Council of State and the Upper House, and the Commission has no intention of making the Council an Upper House and it has not directly suggested the setting up of an Upper House in Parliament because an Upper House in our present situation is really a retrogressive step and also it cannot be truly representative of the views of the electorate. I would like to give an example. In 1909 the Budget introduced by Mr David Lloyd George on behalf of the Liberal Government was defeated in the Upper House. In the end a constitutional crisis ensued resulting in the holding of a general election. Finally the Liberal Party got the support of the people and it led to the decline of power of the Upper House. So this has a very great significance in the justification of an Upper House. From 1948 the Labour Party also began to reduce the power of the Upper House. The decline of the Upper House and the ascendancy of the Lower House can be said to show that the life of the democratic system depends on the basis of the people. In Switzerland, apart from the representative chamber called Kantonsgemeinde, there is also a Council or Senate with mainly elected members. The Senate can also prepare Bills for discussion by the elected chamber and can, on behalf of the elected chamber, supervise administrative and judicial organisations. Thus it also inherits the powers of the Ombudsman which has been suggested by this Constitutional Commission. It is only because the Senate is also elected that there is some justification for that institution to be part and parcel of the political system in Switzerland. But the situation here in Singapore is different.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I am of the view that the main contribution of the Report of the Constitutional Commission is not the suggestion of a Council of State. On this particular recommendation we should apply our minds, because this institution would affect the supreme law of our State touching directly on the implementation of parliamentary democracy in Singapore. First of all, I must point out that there is some inconsistency in the logic behind the recommendation to set up the Council. There are flaws in the reasoning. In paragraph 47 of the Report, it is stressed that: `The Commission feels that the elected chamber should not be diluted by the presence of any member who has not been elected on a general franchise.' Yet in paragraph 59, it is suggested that: `(viii) the Council of State shall have power to consider all proposed legislation except all Supply Bills or a Bill presented on a Certificate of Urgency; (ix) every Bill except all Supply Bills or an "Urgent" Bill shall after its First reading and after the Minister in charge has made his opening speech during the Second reading but before any debate takes place on the principle of the Bill be submitted to the Council of State.' This will more or less affect what the Commission has said in paragraph 47 above, that is to say, there is, in actual fact, the necessary channel for all the Bills, except those Bills presented on a Certificate of Urgency or Supply Bills, to go through this Council, an advisory body outside Parliament, and the Bills will be affected by the consideration of members who are not elected.”
“I am not opposed to the blowing of a trumpet. But I would like to know whether the blowing of a trumpet or a bugle without military songs will be appropriate in the situation.”
“So the People's Defence Force has not done its own part in bringing about a greater sense of national consciousness. If an explanation can be given, I shall be very happy to hear it. The next point is that we are Back-benchers in the ruling Party and we have some personal experience in military service and we have undergone a certain kind of training. The people from our ruling Party must set a good example by joining national service. This will nail the lies and the smears of the anti-national elements who say that we are hiding behind the people who are used as cannon fodder. So we must set a good example at the very beginning. We must put ourselves in uniform first. From the branches and headquarters of our Party, we must come forward in uniform to show the people that we are setting a good example. I do not know whether the Minister concerned has given some thought to this aspect so that he will not receive undue criticism. I hope some explanation will be forthcoming in this respect. Finally, Mr Speaker, Sir, when we call up the people for national service, we must not be very much concerned with the payment of allowances or other remunerations, otherwise it would appear that we are engaging employees to do a job. Sir, I support the Bill.”
“To this extent, I feel that if we can fully tap the youthful energies of our people and make use of the spring source of our nation, then it is in keeping with the aspirations of our people and we can create a very bright future. The next point I wish to go into is this. Although we call this national service, it must, of necessity, be connected with the nation, which, in the eyes of the Communists, cannot stand on its own, because the Communists themselves have no national consciousness. If they are to follow Marx, Engels or anybody of that kind, they will try to make use of class conflict or struggle by which they will try to suppress the people and make use of the class struggle as a weapon to suppress the people and to destroy the nation as their ultimate aim. They will start the rule of the proletariat instead. We must, of necessity, give vent to the spirit of democracy so as to protect our way of life. To do this, I personally feel that we must take the opportunity to review the policies of the Defence Ministry. For example, the inculcation of national consciousness is a very important job. I do not know whether it has already been accomplished. In the Officers' Mess of the People's Defence Force, we have not seen the reflection of society in the rank and file. Although it is said that the men and boys are supposed to have come from a multi-racial society, we are unable to see any Chinese newspaper or national language newspaper. Nor are our military songs sung in the Malay language or the national language. In the regular forces, we understand that they are using a kind of trumpet, instead of a bell, to inform the people of meal times. Up to date we do not have any military songs in the national language.”
“As a matter of fact, a small island like Singapore has, historically, no intention of any aggression at all. Some 700 years ago there was aggression from Java, and recently Japan also invaded Singapore. We were occupied by Japan and became the victims of aggression. But there is no intention on our record to say that we have invaded any other place at all. So even if we have a strong army, we do not have any experience of invading others, or have any aggressive intentions. Singapore controls traffic in the Straits of Malacca in a region of some 600 miles. It is the gateway from the East to the West, and vice versa. It is the centre of the trade route of South-east Asia connecting Australia and New Zealand. So, strategically speaking, we become a bone of contention in times of war, although we may not have any aggressive intentions of any kind. But we cannot deny, or under-estimate, or overlook the military value and importance of Singapore strategically. Although we are not going to invade anybody, we must not be weak-kneed. We must not be cowed. In addition to the military aspect, there is also the social aspect to be considered. Singapore has a population of about two million. If we want to stabilise the situation in Singapore, we must have a very closely-knit society before we can survive. The National Service (Amendment) Bill provides a certain significance in this respect in that attempts can be made to mobilise the people so as to bring about a closely-knit society. At the same time, we have to bear in mind that we have no resources other than manpower. The people in the age group of 18 or so are even more valuable in terms of manpower, and we must make full use of these resources and make all the people responds to the national service call.”
“If we were still under colonial rule, we would not be given the full attention and care that we deserve. In those days, our colonial masters would not be able to fully implement national service. At that time, a lot of students applied for postponement from military service, and they fought very hard to get it. They thought they could get some kind of postponement. But now, in introducing this Bill, we have already made concrete proposals for its implementation. Regulations have already been drawn up to grant facilities to those students who want to apply for postponement on valid grounds. This goes to show that an independent government is entirely different from a colonial government. I wish to go on to another point. We can see that a lot of people feel that Singapore is completely indefensible. There is nothing for which we can fight. We cannot hope to triumph in any battle at all in Singapore. Sometimes we can see in the newspapers reports about military pacts entered into between Malaysia and the United Kingdom. Singapore is regarded as a small island, like the Isle of Man, at the southern tip of the Malay Peninsula. It is only a very small piece of land. It has no military significance and value, and it is completely indefensible. This kind of argument seems to have underestimated the military value and strategic position of Singapore. It is not entirely correct. If it is said that our military power is not sufficient to carry out any aggression, of course, I will agree. In fact, it is not our aim to mobilise our people in order to raise an army and go north, south, east or west. We do not have such aggressive intentions at all. Our main aim is centred on defence, and defence only.”
“Mr Speaker, on the National Service (Amendment) Bill, I feel that our brave Colonel should not be afraid of my raising any question on this Bill, as it concerns the life and death of the nation, and it is introduced at a time when the Communist united front is struggling. On the other hand, Britain is trying to cut down her troops and manpower in Singapore. So the introduction of this Bill at this juncture is of special significance, because it symbolises the fact that the people of Singapore will be able to feel and appreciate the end of colonial rule and that we are really independent in the true sense of the word. If we were still under colonial rule, then our colonial masters would still shoulder their military responsibilities to protect their own interests in this region. Therefore, while they controlled the military power in this region, they would not be able to carry out the job properly. For example, if they wanted the people to take up national service, they would meet with great difficulties and troubles. That was why some 10 years ago in Singapore there was the May 13th incident. This took place in a very abnormal situation and under very strange circumstances. The facts of the riots that took place then were distorted and exploited by some quarters. From the colonial rulers, we have inherited a situation in which we do not have sufficient military power. We have inherited a very weak and feeble civil service. We have not been given a very brave, strong and rugged military establishment. This Bill, which is now introduced about a year or so after our independence, throws some more light on the independence of Singapore in that we are now in charge of the defence of our own country.”