Ling How Doong
Singapore
“If you have six single member constituencies, the opposition has to find six candidates of equal or greater merit than the PAP, and I think it is not an easy task in Singapore to find six people that the electorate will consider to be equal or better than the PAP candidates put against them.”
“You have noticed that when I talked of GRCs, it goes against the very basic and fundamental right of the voters. It is the inability to vote for their own candidate, not so much on the minority. It is only a side issue, a supplement to the whole thing.”
“I am not changing my mind. This is to allay the fear of the minority groups, ie, the Malays, the Indians and the minorities, that they are not represented. When I suggested NCMP, what I mean is that the system should work this way.”
“As I said, in substitution of this, you can surely modify and ensure that they also come in a more representative way. At least, we know how many percent of the people support them. Alternatively, you can hold another election and confine it to all the minorities, ie, the Indians and the Malays, and decide who should represent them.”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker, for giving me this opportunity. Before I start, can I just briefly mention this. Dr John Chen earlier on has mentioned the fact that the advantage of a GRC is that you have more MPs in the same group. I thought this has been in practice by the PAP Town Councils.”
“If you stand in single constituencies you will be guaranteed. It is better than the GRCs. What I mean is that you come in on your own steam and you can be assured. A more equitable aspect is that you ensure both the ruling as well as the Opposition parties.”
The complete record
Every one of 367 lines we hold for Ling How Doong, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 4 of 8.
“It was not done. I made it very clear here. From what I heard from him, we have no recording. We do not know his full text. We asked for the full text. Is there any problem in supplying the full text? Why not supply the full text?”
“The request from Dr Chee was: could we be furnished with a copy of the full text of Francis Seow's statement. Some hon. Members: Yes.”
“You know. I do not know. [Interruptions.]”
“Mr Speaker, I just want to know this. None of us know how long Francis Seow has spoken. An hon. Member: We know.”
“I think you have replied to what I said out of context. My earlier assertion was that Dr Chee said that he agreed to many of the things he said. In actual fact, he said many things. But the full text was not even before him. For example, he said 20 things. I said I endorse many of the things. It does not follow that I endorse the three or four attacks on the judiciary. Now you give me a copy of the speech. It is of no use.”
“Sir, if he had listened carefully to what I said, I merely mentioned the fact that we were not given the full text of his speech. What Mr Chay is insinuating is that I was not even aware of the attack on the judiciary. He is wrong. He must listen carefully before he said it. What I said earlier was that we were not given the full text of the speech. Of course, I know the other charges against him of attacking the independence of the judiciary. That matter was in fact cited in Parliament yesterday. But what he said was that I was not even aware of it. That is not the case.”
“Long ago, I reiterated SDP's stand that we have complete faith and trust in the independence and integrity of our judiciary. That is all I have to say.”
“I am merely citing an example. You can come to your own conclusion. I merely cite an example. So to be fair to Members of Parliament, the full text ought to be given to Members here. Let them judge for themselves how much had been said, bearing in mind the motion here is of endorsement firstly, and secondly, our support. As I said, these two parts are linked together. When one stands, the second one follows. When the first one falls, the second one would follow accordingly. And I have already mentioned the fact why SDP did not respond. It is because following the last letter, we asked: would you please supply the full text of the speech? It was not accorded any response. We stopped there. So I have made it quite clear here, on behalf of SDP. I will tell this House that when the motion comes up for division, we are not able to vote for it, for this very simple reason. If you read the motion, it says, "deplores the SDP's support for a baseless attack by a fugitive ...". As I mentioned earlier, we have never, on our part, attacked the independence of the judiciary and we have not supported him and we would like to make our stand very clear here. How could we support that? Because if we support it, I am contradicting what I am saying here. We just cannot be doing that. I have already explained that I cannot be supporting this because it is a clear-cut contradiction that we have never supported the attack. So if I vote in favour, I am saying that I am in support of the attack on the judiciary. It cannot be done. I would have to vote against it. That is why I have to explain because it is a contradiction on my part. But I have already made my stand very clear. What you want to know, I have made it very clear. In fact, I have made it very clear long ago.”
“If we had remained silent, or all this while we have never mentioned about the judiciary, then perhaps the more reason why we should say either "yes" or "no" to him. But we have made our point very clear, as I said, as late as in May. Do we need, or is it necessary, to re-emphasise? We cannot be saying, "I don't believe in this crook." Then the crook says: "But you steal something ...". "Oh, now it's another act of the crook doing something." We already said he is a crook. Must we again emphasise on every act done by the person concerned? We do not have to. Some hon. Members: Who is the crook?”
“With that in mind, would you say that silence is an endorsement? Of course, SDP was indirectly brought in, perhaps inertia. We are being linked inside to say that we support. And just to repeat what I have said earlier, we already made our stand very clear as late as May how we view our judiciary, its independence, and the integrity of our Judges. I made it very clear then. And I made this on behalf of the SDP. The next point is - it was raised in Parliament yesterday - the fact that Dr Chee was asked to reply to Dr Ow's letter and another letter by the Press Secretary to the Prime Minister. If you read the SDP's reply, we asked, "would you please state the full text of Francis Seow?" Let us have his full text and we will reply. We will respond point by point - what are the points we agree and what are the points we do not agree. But there you are, you stop there! We were not accorded a complete text of what he said and you must always remember that we have no recording. When we went there, as far as I know, no recording was done. [Interruption]. We do not have a very efficient tape recording machine. We will wait until we have enough money, then perhaps we can have one that can tape 50 miles away. We do not have that. But the Government has got the press, and everything was recorded. It is only fair. You do not expect us to remember everything said by him and under what context those words were spoken. If you have given us the speech and we fail to respond, that is a different matter entirely. Having said that we never question the integrity and independence of the judiciary, it must necessarily follow that whatever was said by Francis Seow, we were not with him. It is as simple as that.”
“Correct. He had answered a few specific points. He went out of the way to bring in more points which were not even raised at the College. This is by way of example. I suppose the only mistake he made is that he did not rebut specifically or direct the point specifically. [Interruption]. Give me a chance to finish my speech. I have not come to the point yet. You are jumping to conclusion. I want to go through the whole thing and then I will make my stand very clear. Nothing to be ashamed of. We made our stand very clear long ago. The position is this. Dr Chee, besides answering some of the points raised by Lingle, as well as Francis Seow, raised this point which is in favour of Singapore. He mentioned that Singapore is not like Myanmar, China or the Soviet Union [Interruption]. Precisely that is the reason why it cannot be, because you must examine the example in its totality. We know this country and I do not have to mention the judicial system or the rest of this country. When we said we are not unlike them, we are better than them. In other words, in its totality, we have a good system, and we have much more. We even went to the extent to mention that we are not like the Iraqi dictator. We are not like them. And on top of that, we also mentioned this fact that we have complete freedom of movement, we can go in and out of Singapore without any harassment by the Government. We also mentioned the fact that, despite the press being controlled, most of our articles are being published in the press. That explains a lot. So one must actually look at the circumstances in which those words were uttered, bearing in mind, as I mentioned earlier, our style all along has never been to question the integrity or independence of the judiciary.”
“I said I agreed with many of the things he said. It would not necessarily involve those points that he had not touched on. So how would one say that he has endorsed those points? It is not specific. He said many things. But when he said, "I agree with many of the things he said", does it mean that he endorsed those points, which is the subject of this motion in Parliament? Not necessarily so. He has not done so. Mr Speaker, looking at the motion, I would have thought it confines merely to Williams College on 15th September 1995. If you read The New Democrat (Special Edition), page 5, this is what I was given to understand. I cannot confirm because I do not have the text of Francis Seow's speech. I do not have it, but what is stated inside here is more than what Dr Chee needs to reply. A lot is mentioned here. An hon. Member: Marijuana.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I was taken aback when I discovered that Parliament is going to move a motion to note "with regret" and to deplore the SDP and the Secretary-General in this respect. We on record have never at any time questioned the independence and integrity of the judiciary. In fact, as late as 25th May 1995, when a motion was moved to reaffirm the integrity of the judiciary, we made our stand very, very clear. And at that debate I mentioned not once, but I emphasised on a number of occasions, that we have complete confidence and faith in the judiciary. With that in mind, we move on to the motion that the SDP Secretary-General endorsed the attacks by Francis Seow. If we had not made our stand on the independence of the judiciary and the integrity of the Judges very clear, which are two important ingredients of a judiciary, then if anyone had said anything about it, it is our duty to rebut it. But, as I said earlier, we have mentioned this fact. We have already said so that we do not doubt and we affirm the independence and integrity of our judiciary. Therefore, on the question of endorsement, I would say it is a very weak point. So far, the only evidence produced in this debate was the fact that Francis Seow made all those points at the College. But, unfortunately, Mr Speaker, whatever he said was not published in full. It is true that our Secretary-General mentioned that he agreed with "many" of the things he said. One would easily construe "I agree with many ...", as a clear indication that whatever he said is not all-encompassing, it must say more. So to have a fair decision on this, I think Members of the House should be given a copy of the full text of what he said. It is very simple. For example, he said 20 things.”
“Does the Minister not think that if the intention of the Government to acquire the property is to ultimately dispose it to the private developers, then the compensation should be more than what it is paying them now?”
“Is it true that in Boon Tiong Road, the land acquired will ultimately be sold to private developers?”
“Sir, would the Minister tell the House the amount of gratuity and monthly pension that they received?”
“Sir, before the announcement by President Suharto, was ASEAN or Singapore informed of the intention to set up nuclear reactors in Indonesia? BG Lee Hsien Loong: The Singapore Government has not been in communication with the Indonesian government on this matter. CASE OF MELVIN SEET (Evaluation of affidavits) 9. Assoc. Prof. Walter Woon asked the Minister for Law, with reference to the case of Melvin Seet (cond 418/90), if he will inform the House which person or agency was entrusted with evaluating the two affidavits sworn by Yee Kim Yeou and Tan Siew Chay, stating that Melvin Seet was not guilty of the crime that he was convicted of.”
“He is the Secretary-General of the party. You do not have to move a motion here.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, if the press were to report what I said, it is known to the world. What is the necessity of me writing a letter? The press here can forward one copy of it to President Ramos. It is as simple as that.”
“Mr Speaker, seriously, I do not see anywhere in our letter that we are ignoring the facts. How does the Member come to that conclusion? I am really baffled. We have not ignored the facts. As I mentioned earlier, we have never questioned the right of the hanging of a convicted criminal. In fact, I gave some of my reasons why I believe her guilt. So where is the question that we sacrifice principle and facts?”
“Unless you do not understand simple English, when I said that we have never questioned the hanging, it explains all. We do not have to tell you.”
“No. You are wasting your time writing the letter. As I said, our intention is to make sure that the situation will not deteriorate to such an extent. That is why the letter was sent out. As I mentioned earlier, I have to repeat it again here, you will notice that nowhere in the letter had we questioned the hanging of Flor Contemplacion.”
“The letter was by the Party. The Party had discussed the whole matter. We sent out the letter. As I said earlier, when you want to negotiate or advise one party to hold his horses, and not resort to extreme measures, would you not think it is better to give him the benefit of the doubt? Otherwise, you would preempt the whole thing. If you tell them that the Commission is talking rot ---.”
“The letter was written in the context of the elections in the Philippines, the threat by President Ramos to sever ties with Singapore and the probable pressure that we had brought to bear on him to sever ties. So one has to give him the benefit of the doubt because we are going to a conference table. That is why we did not bring in this point. As I said earlier, we are going to a negotiation table, we cannot just pre-empt the whole thing by saying that we do not believe their story. From the very outset, I have cited an example where someone has never claimed his innocence for four years, even to his own Embassy people. How far do you want me to go further than that? The statement, as I said earlier, is for the purpose to negotiate so that the matter will not deteriorate. It is as simple as that.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I do not think I need to repeat the whole thing all over again.”
“Not be nice. We were writing to the other side and hoping that President Ramos would not succumb to pressure. In fact, it was in the letter. We hope that he would not succumb to pressure and then take this action. All of us are well aware of the politics in the Philippines. Sometimes, as I said, it was the fever of the election. Certain action would be taken out of political ends for the election results. So it was in this context that the letter was written.”
“As I said earlier, the intention of the letter is to try to mediate. We have to take the report of the Commission at its face value. [Interruptions.] All I am saying is that it is a sort of allegation by the Commission. So it may be absurd. I have already explained earlier. Because we are trying to - An hon. Member: Be nice.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, as I mentioned earlier, when we wrote the letter to President Ramos, we were trying to ask him to hold his horse in order to refer it to a third party. I think it is highly improper and inappropriate for us to criticise all these things as it would then defeat the very purpose. For example, if you want to negotiate a settlement, you do not tell the other party, "What sort of demand are you asking of me?" You are going to negotiate a settlement, let us say, between the employer and employee. Before you negotiate, you go and tell the employee, "What absurd demand you are asking of me?" The employer will say, "What is the point of negotiating with you? You've made up your mind." It is as simple as that. The purpose is to refer it to a third party so that one does not have to resort to the more severe action involving friendly countries. That is why we have not written anything in our letter because if we had written that, I think it would defeat the very purpose of the letter to President Ramos for him to hold on and then have a settlement. It is as simple as that. Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee: Sir, it is not just the omission. Mr Ling not argues that they had omitted certain things and therefore that has made the negotiation position strong, even though I think that we can doubt. Because when you negotiate, you do not just come blank. If you have certain strong points, you want to also show them. In other words, if you do not say anything, the impression may be given that you fully support the Gancayco report. And in fact that impression was probably given because the only reference in his letter to the report was the fact that the Commission had found that she had suffered injustice.”
“Yes. Mr Speaker, I suppose I leave it at that. If there is any clarification, I will answer every point raised. I think it is better that way. Mr Speaker, as Is aid earlier, we have not at any time questioned the integrity of our judiciary. We have not done so. In fact, that is why I have earlier decided not to speak. What is there to speak when we are not criticising the judiciary or the act of the Government for hanging Flor? We have not done this sort of thing. That is why I said: Is there a necessity for me to speak? So many speakers before me have spoken. Now that Members have raised all these queries here, I thought perhaps I should reply.”
“The point is that we must be aware of the fact that the moment a country becomes developed, she does not need our help any more. Would the respect continue or not? I doubt very much. We must think of this aspect and not take things for granted. As I said, I have never in our speech or anywhere challenged it. In fact, I cited one example about the absurdity of the report by the Commission on the innocence of Flor Contemplacion. [Interruptions.] The problem here is when you write a letter to a head of government urging him to consider mediation, not to do this but do that, you cannot just tell him this. Then you do not write to him to mediate any more. You do not write to him and at the same time say, "absurd, bizarre". If you say that, then why are you writing to refer the matter to a third party for arbitration? [Interruptions.]”
“I suppose that was done in the spirit of cooperation and long friendship with ASEAN members. As I said, we are going the extra mile by giving them the benefit of the doubt. I think the more important aspect of this is that if you refer to an independent third party and its finding is with us, it would actually demolish the report by the Philippines. So it is not that when we submit to a third party, we are saying that, "Oh, we have no faith in our system." I do not think that is the case. We should be willing to have it done openly by internationally known specialists or experts so that they can confirm our findings. We have got nothing to hide. We have faith in our system. We believe in our system. Why not let it be confirmed by an internationally well-known body once and for all? We have got nothing to lose. You must bear in mind one thing � rightly or wrongly, because of the elections, they are insisting on so many things. You cannot just say "no" to them. They will stir up a lot of things. As I said, our only criticism was that of our PR. We should be more sensitive to other countries by not passing certain remarks. You must bear in mind one thing: political parties come and political parties go; Singaporeans will remain here forever. And the remarks by the leadership may affect future Singaporeans. They will not forget it easily. Respect, yes. You must remember the words, "Grudging respect." When your economy is riding very high, they respect you. They invite you sometimes to sell your expertise and opinion, because they need them. They are developing. So they will respect you for whatever information or benefit they can derive from your advice. But would that follow?”
“If we do not doubt, then we say forget about it. You can just tell them, "We are not prepared to refer it to a third party." Why are we referring it to a third party? You are doing exactly what we have suggested.”
“No, let me explain. When you say it is a professional opinion, are you doubting our pathologist's report? Some hon. Members: No, we are not.”
“Why not? It is not a question of whether we believe or not believe it. I think all of us are aware of the fact that the election was around the corner and it was emotionally charged and politically motivated, and the remarks by President Ramos that, depending on the report of the Commission, he would consider severing ties with Singapore. It is in this respect that we say, "Why not we have a third party?" In fact, when the matter was referred to a third party, it was regarding the forensic pathology. An hon. Member: That is a professional opinion.”
“If the Government is willing to say, "Do you think you can help in any way?" we are prepared to go there and make our point there. That is what we meant.”
“It was during the height of the preparation for the elections in the Philippines. Generally, what we are saying is that we merely questioned the PR of our Government with other countries. An hon. Member: How?”
“But when she saw her own embassy people, she would have no fear in confiding in them that she was innocent. As I said earlier, we have never, by our action or by our words, questioned the integrity of our judicial system. There are actually two aspects to this case. The first is the Government's handling of the hanging of the maid itself. As I mentioned earlier, we have never criticised nor questioned the Government's hanging of the Filipino maid. In fact, at the height of the controversy, we wrote to President Ramos. This was because we felt that any escalation of the situation would harm the interest of Singaporeans. In our letter to President Ramos, we said that we welcomed and supported the Government's cooperation to have the case reviewed by a third party and urged our officials to continue to show restraint with a view to resolving this matter with minimal disruption to the relations with the Philippines. In the same letter, we have urged him to exercise restraint and continue to keep channels open with the Government with a view to normalising ties between our countries whose relationship has been traditionally warm and strong. We wrote this letter because President Ramos has expressed his view that, depending on the outcome of the Gancayco Commission Report, he would consider severing relationship with Singapore. Here we are not talking purely of the legal aspects of I am right and you are wrong. We have to be accommodating here in the sense that we are dealing with a fellow member of the ASEAN countries. In fact, I would say that Singapore has actually gone the extra mile to accommodate the Government in this respect. It is in this spirit that the letter was sent to President Ramos. We also told him not to succumb to pressure from the group.”
“Mr Speaker, thank you for giving me this opportunity to speak. First and foremost, I feel that the press was not being fair to me by reporting that I was absent in Parliament yesterday. In fact, I was right here in Parliament until after the speeches of Dr Soin and Mr John De Payva, the proposer and seconder of the motion. When we examine this matter, one must seriously consider that this was an emotionally charged and politically motivated episode, as the Philippine election was just around the corner. You will notice that nowhere have we questioned the hanging of Flor Contemplacion. In fact, we did not even support the stay of execution. We have never questioned that. We have never even said that there ought to be a stay of execution. But what we had highlighted was the fact that, as I mentioned earlier, this was a politically motivated and emotionally charged issue. The Philippines had raised certain absurd issues. We are saying we give them a hearing, although whatever they may raise may be absurd or bizarre. In fact, I would come to that later on. I would say that some of the reports by the Commission were really preposterous and bizarre. I would speak as a lawyer and would tell you that certain issues that they have raised were just beyond belief. I think I need to emphasise one simple issue here and it is this. If a man has been charged for murder and he has got four years but during those years he did not protest about his innocence, that alone is enough for me to come to my own conclusion. But what is more telling is that he has the opportunity to see his own Embassy people. One would have understood that if you see the local people you would not dare say it because you are afraid that you would not be able to air your views.”
“I notice that, in recent years, the foreign media have a lot of criticisms against Singapore and the Government has also taken a very strong stand on that. Of course, for reports and criticisms which are incorrect or misrepresented, the Government should take strong steps to rebut them and to put the matter right. However, if we do not establish good relationship with the foreign media at the same time and keep on treating each other with strong hostility, then, of course, they will not speak up for Singapore. Sometimes, given the opportunity, they may even add fuel to fire. This will be quite a massive obstacle to Singapore's move towards regionalisation and internationalisation. Generally speaking, in the ever changing political and international scene, Singapore is a small country and we need friends. We need to have not only strong and powerful friends but also those who are not in power but may have influence. We cannot be so down-to-earth and choose to only befriend those who are strong and powerful, and neglect the others. Mr Speaker, Sir, I have said what I wish to say. Of course, the PAP members can misconstrue my words, as they always do, to allege that I am anti-nation and anti-people. What I want to tell the PAP is that I am disgusted with their deliberate labelling of people who hold differing views and who criticize the Government.”
“Maintaining a friendly relationship with them will also prevent them from making a political issue with Singapore as the subject matter. The PAP Government should remember that other countries are different from Singapore. Their non-mainstream political parties and pressure groups can also exert pressure on their government and force their government to change their policies, or even overthrow the government. Thirdly, the principle and flexibility of our Government in diplomacy. Of course, we have to maintain our beliefs and our principles. Regretfully, after the Government bowed to the pressure of the American President and reduced two strokes of the cane on Michael Fay, we have set a very bad precedent. Now, whenever the Head of a foreign state openly petitions on behalf of his subject, if the Government does not give a satisfactory reply, it will be looked upon as not "giving face" to him or looking down on his country, as it is not as strong as the United States of America. Therefore, from now onwards, public petition has become very sensitive, and has become a knotty diplomatic problem for the Government. Yesterday, the Foreign Minister said that Singapore had received a lot of petitions from other countries - some openly and some not so openly. But we should have a uniform standard and principle. However, my view is that there is a vast difference in political significance between petitions that are made public and those that are not made public. They should not be treated equally without without distinction. How do we deal with them satisfactorily and tactfully? I think the Government should know what to do. Fourthly, the hostile attitude of the foreign media against Singapore.”
“Now, let me talk about what lessons the Government should learn from this incident. Firstly, political sensitivity. Yesterday the Foreign Minister said that there was no indication to show that this seemingly simple matter could be developed into such a serious situation. Of course, our Cabinet Ministers are human beings. They are not gods, not omnipotent and not prophets. It was not possible for them to accurately predict what was going to happen. This is understandable. But the Ministry of Foreign Affairs should understand clearly the political culture, political emotion and political environment in the Philippines, and should also know that the Philippines was going to have its general election for the Senate. In an election, any small matter can be blown up into a big matter. Extra care must be taken in dealing with matters in a foreign country during its election season. More importantly, in diplomatic dealings, sometimes one has to exercise not only rational judgement but also some inspiration and intuition. Secondly, the balance and priority of political and foreign policies. I think the Ministry of Foreign Affairs had been putting too much emphasis in fostering better relationship with foreign governments and their business people, and neglecting the feelings of other interested parties and their opposition parties or to maintain friendly relationship with them. Of course, I am not encouraging the Singapore Government to interfere in other people's domestic affairs or to instigate their opposition parties or interested parties. By maintaining a link with these non-mainstream political parties and organisations, surely we will be in a better position to understand their trend and movements.”
“" Under the circumstances at that time, would it be useful if we were to openly attack the Philippines, or would it just put fuel to fire, and further stir up the emotions of the Filipinos, thereby making the matter worse? When the Philippine people burnt our national flag, the Mayor of the town was present. They even used our national flag as a floor mat. Under the PAP's standard of patriotism, is the Workers' Party required to burn the Philippine national flag, or to stage a demonstration and throw stones at the Philippine Embassy in Singapore, then can it be said to be patriotic? Our Ministry of Foreign Affairs issued a strongly-worded statement of protest to President Ramos, after the flag-burning incident. This has left a deep impression on me. But when the Philippine President simply ignored the protest, I could not help asking myself what should be our next step to deal with such unreasonable and contemptuous attitude of the Philippines. I do not believe that the Workers' Party should take any action more drastic than that taken by the PAP Government just to show our unhappiness, and thus further aggravating the matter. As to why we did not stand up to defend Singapore, for the Workers' Party to come forward and defend Singapore, could there be any effect? The Government had already issued a detailed defence and rebuttal. The Workers' Party has never doubted it. Can the Workers' Party issue a more thorough and more detailed rebuttal and defence? Even if we had issued it, will the people in Philippines then cool down? So, we feel that the best way of settling the matter is to present it to an international court or a third independent country to deal with the matter. That was why we made the statement after careful consideration.”
“But when the Gancayco Commission appointed by the Philippine President raised such an incredible challenge against the credibility of our judicial system and our forensic pathologists, coupled with the fact that prior to the appointment of this Commission, the Philippine President had said that if the Commission found Contemplacion to have been unjustly convicted he would terminate diplomatic relations with Singapore, the Workers' Party realised that this matter could well go out of hand. Singapore would have to face the challenge and we have to tackle it in a manner which would not cause further souring up of relationship between the two countries, or even affect the solidarity of ASEAN. It was in such a context that the Workers' Party issued a statement suggesting arbitration by an independent third party or the international court to show that our system can withstand any test or scrutiny. In the conclusion of our statement, the Workers' Party urged that, in the spirit of ASEAN cooperation, the governments of Singapore and the Philippines present the issues in contention to an independent commission for arbitration. The stand and suggestion put forward in our statement is in conformity with international practice. This is a patriotic and practical approach to the matter by a mature political party. Now the Workers' Party is glad to learn that the Philippines has agreed to refer the matter to a group of independent forensic pathologists from the United States of America for arbitration. Perhaps some people may ask: "If the Workers' Party is supportive of Singapore, then why have we not openly attacked the Philippines? Why did we not defend our system?”
“Yesterday, from the arguments raised by the PAP Members, especially the attack on the statement issued by the Secretary-General of the Workers' Party, they said that we were not supporting Singapore and also that we were attacking the judicial system. The Lianhe Zaobao did not publish the statement by the Workers' Party. But on 25th April, in the Forum page, a reader attacked the Workers' Party's statement and said that we were trying to gain some political capital. The clarification by the Chairman of the Workers' Party was carried by the Lianhe Zaobao on 26th April. I do not know whether the PAP Members have the habit of not reading the Chinese newspapers or they have not understood the clarification given in our article, or that they are just trying to forcibly label us as "anti-nation" and "anti-people". Now, they are questioning the validity of the said statement. I can say without any reservation to the PAP Members that the leaders and members of the Workers' Party are patriotic citizens of Singapore. If we have no sense of belonging with Singapore and if we do not wish Singapore to be prosperous and progressive, so that our people would have a better quality of life, then we should not be participating in politics, especially in the political environment of Singapore, to be in the Opposition. Let me get back to the main issue. Originally, we did not expect the matter to be developed into such an extent that our relationships could be strained.”
“Firstly, what is their stand over our judicial system and police in the trial and investigation of Flor Contemplacion case. If they have any doubt or suspicion over our judicial system, let them give concrete examples to prove their point. Secondly, I would ask them to answer this question. Do they think that Singapore has given Flor Contemplacion a fair trial? In handling this matter, is there any mistake on the part of Singapore? After hearing them, I think the people of Singapore will be able to use their eyes and mind to judge the stand and position of the Opposition parties. Singaporeans will know, through this incident, what is the true intention of the Opposition parties, ie, whether the other Opposition Members will behave like Mr Chiam See Tong to express their support for the Government or the People's Action Party to move ahead in the event of any crisis. You can bend your fingers inwards but not outwards. I hope we will all learn from this lesson. Mr Low Thia Khiang (Hougang)( In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, originally I did not intend to speak on this motion raised by the two Nominated MPs. From the beginning of this incident and the hysterical and irrational reaction of the Filipino people, I regard the whole episode as nothing but a farce. I do not believe the reports in the Philippine newspapers nor the preposterous stories concerning the Filipina maid. That is why originally I was prepared to just sit back and listen to the Government's explanation. But from the arguments put forward by the PAP Members yesterday, I note with profound regret that this motion raised by the two Nominated MPs has been deliberately used by the PAP to attack the Opposition parties. This is indeed regrettable.”
“If, in so many speeches, there have been adverse reactions from the foreign sources, do you think today he will be flying to Paris again to make an official visit and be invited to speak on important occasions? It would not be possible. Do you think Hong Kong would invite him to speak? No. Do you think Australia would invite him to speak? No. Will he be invited to speak at the Senate of the United States of America? The answer would be no again. Foreign investors are still coming in here. They have not stopped coming. Singapore's economy has still been developing. No damage has been done because of his speeches. The answer is very clear. This shows very clearly that our leaders, like Senior Minister Lee's position, has very high standing in the world. It shows that the views expressed in various areas have very great value of reference. So for such a well esteemed world-class leader, how could he say things at random without consideration for others, as alleged by Chee Soon Juan? If Senior Minister Lee is an arrogant person who interferes with other people's domestic affairs, how can his deeds and words be reaffirmed by leaders of other countries? How would he be invited, again and again, by others to share his experiences and express his views? Through this incident, I believe that the Opposition parties, especially the SDP, are not only trying to express their party's views over the Contemplacion's case, but actually trying to add fuel to fire to gain political capital. This is what they are trying to do. I can see through there and, therefore, I hope that the two Opposition Members here will be able to use this opportunity to clarify their position.”
“They have cast doubt over the way the investigation was conducted by the Police. There was one Dr Switzer, an expert from America, who had visited many countries in the world, including Mexico, the European countries, etc. When he came to Singapore he made a speech and said that if he had to be tried anywhere in the world, he would choose to be tried in Singapore. A senior expert of great authority has so much confidence in our judiciary and police. That is a very strong reaffirmation. The SDP stated in their press statement that the Singapore Government had done badly in its diplomacy, and that we had often ridiculed others and hurting their pride. When we talk about the Philippines, Hong Kong, Thailand, USA, Taiwan, Mexico, Australia, UK, India and New Zealand, we passed comments on them. I believe they are referring to points made by our leaders in their speeches, especially Prime Minister Goh and Senior Minister Lee. Take Senior Minister Lee, for example. He had been the Prime Minister of Singapore for many years. In order that the other countries may share in his vast experience in bringing about the development and prosperity of Singapore, he has been travelling far and wide, around the world, at the invitation of various countries. In fact, he will be travelling to Paris today. He has often received requests from political and commercial leaders of other countries and organisations to make keynote speeches in different circumstances. He was able to share his views and experiences with all these audiences throughout the world. This is not something that any ordinary leader can do. He has such an extremely high standard of nobility and ability which has been acclaimed by leaders of other countries and affirmed by them.”
“There would have been riots and demonstrations more than 20 years ago. We would not be sitting here comfortably to review all the cases. The two Opposition parties, in such circumstances, issued such statements and wrote to President Ramos. I would like to ask them what was their intention. Are they of any help to the matter? Mr Ling wrote that if there was anything they could do to help, the SDP would be glad to oblige. But, in fact, the matter has already settled down now. In what way have the SDP statement and the letter to President Ramos helped in the matter? I feel that basically they were merely trying to stir up a storm in a tea cup, trying to find fault and gain political capital. I suspect that they were "desiring to see the world plunged into chaos". Why did they not take the matter as it was? Mr Ling is a senior lawyer, like Mr Chiam. They are both senior practising lawyers. If they have no doubt about the judicial system in Singapore, let them stand up and say so. Why did they not do so? Why did they not write to President Ramos and ask him to advise his people to stop demonstrating or burning our national flag, but to calm down and settle the matter in a more mature and peaceful manner? So much has been said about the death penalty being imposed on Flor Contemplacion. What about the two victims in the murder case, a Filipina and a Singaporean boy of only 4 years old. If the people of Singapore were also as emotional, then we would have demonstrated and burnt their flag because a Singaporean had been killed. But we have not done so! On the other hand, the SDP and the Workers' Party have behaved in such a way as to give rise to doubt over their intentions. They have also referred to the handling of this case by our Police.”
“No. Mr Choo Wee Khiang( In Mandarin): He said no. Very good! He can tell us about that later. In their press statement, the SDP held the view that the incident was very emotional, fiery, explosive and was not good for both parties. So both parties should exercise self-restraint. In this whole episode, when has the Singapore Government become emotional or made an explosive reaction? No, it has not! So Mr Ling How Doong should have, in his capacity as Leader of the Opposition, written to President Ramos telling him to advise the small group of people in the Philippines not to hold demonstration in the streets or to burn the Singapore national flag. He should tell the President that the integrity of the judicial system in Singapore is never in doubt. If he had done that, he would be truly capable of helping Singapore. He would then be speaking as a true Singaporean, to say a few words for Singapore in his capacity as the Leader of the Opposition in Singapore, like Mr Chiam See Tong. If Mr Chiam is still the Secretary-General of the SDP, then what he said in this House yesterday would be significant and representative. I believe all the PAP Members would respect him very much for that. Having dealt with the SDP, let us look at the Workers' Party. Mr Low Thia Khiang is here now. Let us look at the statement issued by his Party. They said that in the circumstances, the judicial system of Singapore was being "put on trial". Was it a trial? The judicial system of Singapore is not something that was only established in 1995. It has a long history. Over the years, many people have been sentenced to death or to imprisonment under the judicial system in Singapore. If there is any problem with our judicial system, you do not have to wait until the Flor Contemplacion case in 1995.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, he is in the labour movement. Perhaps he can tell us. Mr Speaker, Sir, I am drawing this point simply because at the last debate we said that we had about 4,000 or 5,000 people drawing about $300 a month. Can he tell me that it is completely eradicated and no more poor people are earning this amount?”