Ng Kah Ting
Singapore
“Mr Speaker, Sir, before I ask my supplementary question, may I declare, on behalf of the Member for Kebun Baru and myself, that we are both involved in the building of Montfort Secondary School and Montfort Junior School both of which are Government-aided schools. My question now, Sir, is: when will this take effect?”
“But, Sir, at the end of this debate on the Second Reading and the Bill committed to a Select Committee, I sincerely hope that all those who have the interest of Singapore at heart should come forward and make their contributions, be they critical or ways and means on how better we can improve upon this Bill.”
“But the basic foundation, I submit, and that is, the political stability-honest, efficient and an incorruptible political leadership-is paramount to the future well-being of Singapore, and that is, if we are to continue to enjoy our good standard of living, our good government and of course as an independent, sovereign entity or nation.”
“Sir, I knew that the NCMP would come out and say that-don't mix up the ISA with PPSO because basically it is the same. I say, no. Because in 1958, PAP was not in power. It was the Lim Yew Hock government. That is the difference I am trying to make. So let us not go around in this wild political rhetoric. I understand that.”
“Sir, before I make my observations, I just want to make a couple of points in reply to the Non-Constituency MP, Dr Lee. He said that in 1958 when he was asked to stand as a PAP candidate in Kallang he was afraid of the ISA. I do not think that is quite correct because in 1958, Sir, there was no ISA.”
“We should take advantage of the present political stability to provide for the future. In conclusion, Sir, let me draw an analogy. With Singapore being the No. 1 port in the world, this analogy is not inappropriate.”
The complete record
Every one of 1,870 lines we hold for Ng Kah Ting, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 1 of 38.
“On a point of order, Sir. Can the Non-Constituency MP declare his interest on this matter?”
“On the one hand, a serious reader looks at the written words, whereas on the other hand, another looks at the pictorial side of it and tries to visualise and understand it from the pictorial aspect. However, looking at the pictures and reading the book do give one a much clearer understanding of the Next Lap. I think the book captures both the imagination as well as in spelling out what the goals are for the next 25 to 30 years. In my view, the book emphasises continuity and change with everyone having a place, role and stake in the future of Singapore. The President clearly spells out what the Goh Chok Tong Government hopes to do in the Next Lap. It is to strengthen the sense of common ownership and collective responsibility among Singaporeans who would then treat Singapore as their own home. Such is the common bond that would help build and strengthen both the social and political fabric. Seen from this perspective, my highlighting of some of the achievements is merely to put in sharp focus that in order to transform ideas and visions into reality, which have been the case in the last 25 years, or so, the PAP leadership has been bold, imaginative and realistic enough as to face up to the challenges by marshalling the people to work hand-in-hand. They have been unflinching and, in fact, relentless in carrying out what needs to be done for the good of the people and Singapore. No one can deny that. I would like to conclude by echoing the call of Prime Minster Mr Goh Chok Tong to fellow Singaporeans to run the Next Lap together, the answer of which will be a resounding yes. This will secure Singapore's future.”
“The buses and taxis are providing an efficient service too. In this respect, the numerous expressways and trunk roads, linking other road networks, provide a smoother flow of traffic most of the time. The Singapore Changi Airport is second to none and has a second passenger terminal in operation since November last year whilst the third and fourth terminals are being planned to meet the ever increasing air traffic in the next 20-30 years. So is the Port of Singapore Authority developing and expanding to meet the demand for increase in container and port facilities. So too the Telecom. It is very common nowadays to see people carrying pagers and handphones around. This has become the lifestyle of many Singaporeans. A clear sign of affluence and success. No doubt, Singapore has become a little larger in terms of land size and area. This is largely due to land reclamation. As a result, there will be further infrastructural development to meet the needs of commercial and industrial usage. Take Marina South, as an example. There are plans for a commercial and business district to be built in the area. I recall that when I was shown the conceptual plans of this area through little blocks of miniature building models, I could imagine that the Singapore skyline would be changing quite rapidly over the years, as it has been so in the last 25 years. I was a little amazed when some people remarked that the book "The Next Lap" has more pictures than it ought to. They pointed out that if it was to set out what the next lap would be, then there should be more details spelling out the setting. On the other hand, there were some who said that they found the pictures more telling and that they could understand what it was all about. I would agree to both perceptions.”
“The House will recall that in the 1984 General Elections, the PAP Election Manifesto was "Vision 1999" and the attainment of a standard of living comparable to that of the Swiss of 1984. At that time, the period was some 15 years down the road. Many questions were asked. "What about it? Can you really achieve it? What's Switzerland like?" And then there was the 1988 General Elections Manifesto captioned "More Good Years" and now 1991 - "The Next Lap" in the form of a book. Again many questions have been asked by the sceptics. Political opponents of the PAP described all these as vote-catching and merely empty promises that could not be met. Well, the answers to all the questions can best be found if one cares to look around for himself. I dare say the goods have been duly delivered on time simply because these plans have been implemented successfully over time. If that is not the case, then let us take a look at some of them. In the public housing scheme where home ownership is the priority, more than 87% of our people live in the new towns built by the HDB and that some 80% of them are owners of 3-rooms, 4-rooms, 5-rooms and maisonettes. The remaining 13% live in private housing estates comprising condominiums, terrace houses, semi-detached and detached houses and most of them are the owners. As for public land transport, the MRT trains run from the North to South and from the East to West interchanging at City Hall and Raffles Place. It serves hundreds of thousands of commuters each day. The MRT has enhanced the quality of life. Although it has yet to come to Punggol through the north eastern line and though I may be a bit disappointed, I can understand the priorities. Being optimistic, I still hope it will come in the not too distant future.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, a new chapter in Singapore's young history started when Mr Goh Chok Tong took office as Prime Minister on 28th November last year. He and his younger generation of leaders took over the reins of Government from the old guard led by Mr Lee Kuan Yew, now Senior Minister in his Cabinet. I am one of those privileged to be able to witness such a smooth and uneventful transition of political power. For me, it was an event that could only occur as a result of pragmatic and unselfish readiness on the part of the old guard to want to ensure that Singapore continues to be governed by another group of younger, abler and committed men and women who would see to the well-being of the people and country. As we are all aware of how the team came about, I shall not belabour the point. In the past two days, many of my younger Parliamentary colleagues have made their contributions. I do not intend to make any reference to nor comment on the speeches they have made. Instead, I would like to refer hon. Members to a very important paragraph of the President's Speech of 22nd February made in this House. He said: 'The Independence generation of Singaporeans created the prosperous and secure nation that we know. They started with precious little, but have handed on to us many valuable assets. The creation of an Elected Presidency to safeguard our accumulated savings and national reserves symbolises this transformation. Today we can plan ahead for the next 25 years and marshall the resources needed to turn bold ideas into reality.' It is in this context that I shall make my observations. I do not intend to cover too long a period but suffice to trace it from 1984, which was just some six to seven years ago, to highlight what changes have taken place.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, before I ask my supplementary question, may I declare, on behalf of the Member for Kebun Baru and myself, that we are both involved in the building of Montfort Secondary School and Montfort Junior School both of which are Government-aided schools. My question now, Sir, is: when will this take effect?”
“But, Sir, at the end of this debate on the Second Reading and the Bill committed to a Select Committee, I sincerely hope that all those who have the interest of Singapore at heart should come forward and make their contributions, be they critical or ways and means on how better we can improve upon this Bill. At the same time, I say that there is no damage done, political damage or otherwise, if we go through the Second Reading and make it a reality when it comes to the Third Reading. In place, we have the Elected President that would help, in my view, make Singapore a much, much better place for all Singaporeans. On that note, Sir, I would like to compliment the First Deputy Prime Minister and his team for the confidence in being able to carry out this paramount duty to ensure that Singapore lasts as long as time. Sir, I support the Bill.”
“Sometime in 1965/1966, when he was Chairman of the Barisan Sosialis, he told his Barisan Sosialis MPs to resign from Parliament and to take to extra-parliamentary struggle. As a result, the Barisan Sosialis boycotted the 1968 general elections. Acts of vandalism were committed. But strange enough, after some years, the Barisan Sosialis decided to come back and participate in the general elections. That was something interesting, but they did not win any seat at all until the 1988 general elections when Dr Lee himself went over to the Workers' Party. Now, he is an NCMP and making contributions in this House. I treat him with a great deal of respect because he stands firm on his convictions. But that is altogether a different matter when we come to look at Singapore as a whole. How we want to chart the course of our destiny? Are we for the future of Singapore? Are we for the people of Singapore? Are they going to have a better life? Better opportunities? That is what counts. He mentioned that the Elected President works against the Opposition. If I were to take a different scenario, the Elected President is in position to ensure the continued survival of Singapore. He has veto powers and he is there to make sure that Singapore continues. But then there comes a group of people who says, "Change." Then what happens? There is no guarantee. A fresh election may result. All the billions of dollars can be frittered away in no time through electioneering promises. The value of properties would just simply plummet because of a weak, inept Government wanting to play to the gallery and please the people with soft options in their policies.”
“If the country goes down, I do not think there is any hope for Singapore. Therefore, the Elected President's job is to make sure that it does not happen. Sir, yesterday, I heard several of my colleagues in the Backbench spoke. I am happy to note their contributions. Some voiced their concerns, some made comments, but all these would definitely be taken into consideration by the Select Committee which will be set up after the Second Reading of this Bill. However, Sir, I was not present in the House to hear the speech from the Non-Constituency Member, Dr Lee, except gleaning through the newspapers today. I can understand his comments because he has been long in politics. But I think I would not be too unkind to him nor too critical of him when I say this because I happen to be around for so long. He was also in the PAP government of 1959 when he served as Parliamentary Secretary until he and his group broke away in 1961 to form the Barisan Sosialis. Perhaps he can now tell the House and throw some light on what happened in those years, especially when I look around, most of the Members of this House are quite young. I would not say they are "new". He could tell us why he and his group left the PAP to form the Barisan Sosialis and to contest in the 1963 general elections with some 44 candidates, if my memory serves me right, and wanted to capture political power through the ballot, the one-man-one-vote system, and they were very confident of winning the elections. What would have happened if they had won? Yesterday, in the Members' Room, after I had a cup of tea with Dr Lee I asked him this. But if he could spare some time, he could tell us what happened.”
“Surely, Sir, these will add up to a bigger sum and we must realise that about 87% of our people are housed in HDB flats. This is indeed an achievement which I think very few countries in the world have attained. But for the younger generation leaders to come and say that they want an Elected President and to vest in him certain veto powers, that kind of power sharing is not easy to come by. It is political maturity being manifested. Sir, I was reminded of a comment by Lord Acton who lived in the 19th century, 1834. He was a British liberal historian and moralist and was known to be the first great modern philosopher of resistance to the evil state, whether its form be authoritarian, democratic, or socialist. And he made a comment that, "Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely." He said this in a letter. Members of the House can see that the Government has a lot of power and yet it is prepared to vest it in another person -the Elected President plus his Council of Pre- sidential Advisors - powers in certain areas. This power-sharing is indeed a very welcome move and it shows once again that the second generation of leaders has got the guts and gumption to say, "Yes, under the present system, we can do better but with an amended system where certain powers are to be vested in the Elected President, we can do even better." Think again of the billions of dollars that we have accumulated. That was not easy to come by. On average, it is about $1 billion per year since 1959. But to "fritter it away" - to use the term mentioned by the First Deputy Prime Minister - through bad government is easy. If there is extravagance, wastefulness, unnecessary expenditure, then what happens? The country goes down.”
“I put in my contribution in the debate and I would not want to bore the House with what I had said. What I said on 11th August 1988 are still relevant today. The evolution of a political system is not one that is easy to come by. It is ever changing and evolving. When I was leading a parliamentary delegation to Japan in 1987, the Japanese parliamentarians told me that it took them 80 years to evolve their kind of parliamentary system - the DIET and the House of Concillors. But we introduced our system based on the British Westminster parliamentary system. We adopted it, changed it, and sometimes we made Constitutional amendments. It may interest the House that at one time the two-thirds majority required for the Second and Third Readings of the Amendment Bill to the Constitution was simply put aside to allow for a voting by a simple majority. I was one of those who said, "Look. It is an important piece of legislation on which the political system and government will have to work. Therefore, we have to take it very seriously." Therefore, any amendment to the Constitution must require a two-thirds majority. In other words, the two-thirds majority for any amendment to be made to the Constitution has been adhered to. Sir, I can understand the younger generation leaders' concern when they come to the question of sharing political power. I am very happy to note that they are confident that they can build upon what the old guards had built in the last 31 years. We have a credit balance of not less than $30 billion, as disclosed by the First Deputy Prime Minister in this House yesterday. This amount does not take into account all the infrastructural facilities, such as the 6,000-7,000 blocks of HDB flats, the airport, port, PUB and Telecom.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, yesterday, in moving the Second Reading of the Bill, the First Deputy Prime Minister disclosed to the House that he had unanimity in the Cabinet in introducing this amendment Bill. To me, it clearly shows that his new style of political leadership and government indicates a clear confidence that it can convince the people of Singapore that it is a caring government but, more importantly, Sir, it shows the First Deputy Prime Minister's vision for Singapore beyond the nineties. His ability to convince his Cabinet to go along with this idea of Elected President came through after much thought and rumination, although the idea was attributed to the Prime Minister but the details were worked out by his team. This augurs well, Sir, for the future of Singapore when he takes over as the next Prime Minister of Singapore sometime next month. Sir, I have been in this House since 1963 and out of seven general elections, I fought six of them. So I know what it is like to go to the people time and again at each general election to secure their mandate. I can tell you, Sir, that even you will not disagree with me that that was not easy. But we must all look ahead. Not many human beings can live 100 years or so. A human being must die. He must go away, and the power he holds cannot last very long. One day, someone will step into his shoes. So when I see this new generation of leaders, confident of their ability to govern Singapore and to make it a better Singapore in the nineties and beyond, I feel reassured. They know that one day they too will have to go. When they introduced the idea of the Elected President, I participated in the debate on the motion moved by the Member for Kebun Baru on 11th August 1988.”
“Sir, I knew that the NCMP would come out and say that-don't mix up the ISA with PPSO because basically it is the same. I say, no. Because in 1958, PAP was not in power. It was the Lim Yew Hock government. That is the difference I am trying to make. So let us not go around in this wild political rhetoric. I understand that. That is why I have deliberately made that point.”
“But the basic foundation, I submit, and that is, the political stability-honest, efficient and an incorruptible political leadership-is paramount to the future well-being of Singapore, and that is, if we are to continue to enjoy our good standard of living, our good government and of course as an independent, sovereign entity or nation. I fully subscribe to what the First Deputy Prime Minister has said earlier this afternoon, that he will take those suggestions and comments into consideration vis-a-vis the make-up pay, the performance bonus and so on. These are technicalities. I think what is important is to get that team and that is where we should never be deflected from. The third team is important. The dollars and cents, the technicalities of it, I think, are not. But I accept what he has brought up this afternoon. Thank you, Sir.”
“Jayakumar, who was also Singapore's Permanent Representative to the United Nations when he gave up his professorship at the Law Faculty, and also the Minister for Communications and Information, Dr Yeo Ning Hong, who was holding one of the top posts in a multi-national company. If we add them together, the Front Bench has 13, there are six with the Prime Minister, who of course is from the first generation. Sir, what I am trying to say is that this process of a self-renewal and a careful and cautious selection of a team takes a long time, more than 10 years, to get a second team in place. But, that is not the end of it. What is more important is how this team will gel to become one team and to lead the nation forward. In my view, the problem that the second team under the charge of the First Deputy Prime Minister, who will in time to come take over as Prime Minister, will then have to settle the problem of looking for a third team. I do not think that within a span of five-seven years he could get that third team in place. But if he could, as the Prime Minister has said, for Ministers of State up to Cabinet Minister, maybe with a low attrition, yes. But if the salary revision is not realistic enough to make it more bearable and more acceptable to those who want to come into the political leadership, I think it will be more than hypocritical of us to just ignore this change of time. Time continues to change. It is never static. Situations will change. Societies will change.”
“Sir, in tabling the recommendations, effective from 1st April, the First Deputy Prime Minister pointed out the difficulty in recruiting fresh talents. By "fresh talents" I think he meant, amongst other things, getting younger men and women into the political leadership and that was the problem he and his team faced in the last two general elections. In my view, these recommendations for a revision in the salaries have got something to do more with the building up of a third team. I have spoken to quite a number of Ministers whom I know very well. They are not very particular about the salary revision for themselves but I can foresee that the problem is getting the third team. Before coming to the third team, may I say something of the second team because I know quite a number of the Ministers who helped to form the second team. If I recall to mind, in 1970, the PAP took on self-renewal, how to replace themselves by injecting fresh blood, better men and women into the Party. Looking at the second team, I would just like to describe a few of them. In 1972, the Second Deputy Prime Minister, Mr Ong Teng Cheong, a successful architect came in. So 1972-89, he and Dr Ahmad Mattar. In 1976, we had the First Deputy Prime Minister, Mr Goh Chok Tong. He was, I think, holding the post of Managing Director in Neptune Orient Lines and we also had the Minister for National Development, Mr Dhanabalan, who was Senior Executive Vice-President of the DBS. So 1976, two. Then in 1979, we have the Minister for Education, Dr Tony Tan, who was then General Manager of OCBC. Then, of course, in 1980 we had a couple more, the Minister for Home Affairs and Law, Prof.”
“I am not splitting hairs. That is what he said-"the ISA was used as a trump card." These are his exact words. So he cannot deny that. Strange enough, Sir, in 1959 he stood as a PAP candidate and that was when the PAP came to power. However, in 1963, he led the Barisan Sosialis and I, for the first time, stood as a PAP candidate in the 1963 general elections. This has got something to do with what he said-"that he has never changed." I will show that he has changed. In 1963, the results of the general elections showed that the Barisan captured only 13 of the 51 seats. They became an Opposition but the NCMP himself was not in this House. In 1966, the Barisan went out of Parliament and took up extra parliamentary struggle, and for some time the NCMP decided not to take part in elections. But strange enough in the 1970s, he stood again. But when he said he did not change, I do not believe him because in the 1988 general elections he led his Party into the Workers Party and stood as a Workers Party candidate. I leave it to the House to see whether what he said is correct or not. But, Sir, let me come to the substance of today's debate. I have had a look at the last few copies of Hansard on salary increases for Ministers, MPs' allowance, judiciary and the lot. Therefore, I wish to commend the First Deputy Prime Minister for being frank and forthright in putting this problem in the right perspective by coming to grips with it and putting it to the nation. We all know that the second team led by the First Deputy Prime Minister-he was elected First Deputy Prime Minister after the 1984 elections by his peers and unanimously endorsed by all the PAP MPs-is now well placed to see Singapore through into the 21st century which is some 10 years or less to come.”
“Sir, before I make my observations, I just want to make a couple of points in reply to the Non-Constituency MP, Dr Lee. He said that in 1958 when he was asked to stand as a PAP candidate in Kallang he was afraid of the ISA. I do not think that is quite correct because in 1958, Sir, there was no ISA. There was the PPSO (Preservation of Public Security Ordinance).”
“We should take advantage of the present political stability to provide for the future. In conclusion, Sir, let me draw an analogy. With Singapore being the No. 1 port in the world, this analogy is not inappropriate. After all, ships from all over the world come to Singapore for bunkering, repairs and other services and the captains of those ships know they can rely on our efficiency and good service. A good captain takes measures to keep his ship in a seaworthy state in calm waters. He does not wait for a storm to test the fitness of the ship. In short, a good captain takes all necessary precautions while the going is good and takes as little risks as possible. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the GPC on National Development and Housing supports the White Paper on Constitutional Amendments to Safeguard Financial Assets and the Integrity of the Public Services which was presented to Parliament as Paper Command 10 of 1988.”
“While it is good to specify the appointments to key positions in the public services for which the President's concurrence must be obtained, we would like to ask whether there will be provisions to add or amend the list, if necessary, in future, for example, names of statutory boards and government companies may change or new statutory boards and government companies may be formed, the key positions of of which officers should have the President's concurrence. Conclusion Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, we have earlier given our support to the general principles behind the proposed Constitutional amendments. In going into the details of the White Paper, our intention is to highlight areas that require careful consideration especially in the drafting of the actual Constitutional amendments and the necessary legislation thereafter. Having said this, we wish to point out that we are no parliamentary legal draftsmen. If we have repeated to a certain extent what some of my other Backbench colleagues have already brought up, it is because we want to stress the importance of these matters. More importantly, Sir, it clearly manifests the congruence of the various viewpoints on this particular subject. This Government has always carried out its duties honourably and responsibly. I am confident that it will continue to do so for many more years to come. Some people have therefore asked, why the need for change now when we have managed very well in the past? May I, Sir, counter that question by asking, why not now? As an independent nation, we have achieved much to be proud of. So we are mature enough to decide for ourselves what is best for us. We can learn from the mistakes of other countries but we need not look to them for guidance.”
“We are of the view that the elected President should remain neutral as far as politics is concerned, although it seems that having a Presidential election will make a political issue out of the office of Presidency. (3) Removal We would like to ask, Sir, by what legal process and on whose initiative is the question of the President's capability or integrity to be referred to the Supreme Court? In our considered opinion, it is good to let the Judiciary have a say in this so that the Government will not be accused of "fixing" a President they are unhappy with. However, the legal process by which the elected President may be removed must be worked out carefully to prevent abuse and to achieve the removal in the most equitable manner possible. After all, Sir, we must not forget that the President was elected by the people of Singapore and their choice, the people's choice, should be respected. (4) Matters for which the President's concurrence must be obtained In essence, we agree with the matters specified in paragraph 45 of the White Paper. However, Sir, we would like to seek clarification on items 45(a)(iii) and (iv). In what matters pertaining to capital assets and surpluses of statutory boards and government companies must the President's concurrence be obtained? Is it in sale, disposal, conversion or any other form of dealing, or is it in acquisition or accumulation or investment? In short, there is no proper specification to paragraph 45(a)(iii) and (iv).”
“The people decide who they wish to govern Singapore. What the Government is doing now is to ensure that future governments, whoever they may be, cannot dip into the national reserves or indirectly influence public spending by appointing their puppets to key positions in statutory boards and government companies, without the concurrence of a President elected by the people of Singapore and ultimately without the direct concurrence of the people of Singapore. This is one way to protect the political stability of Singapore. Put in its simplest form, a government has to spend money to do its job. However, Sir, if a government spends more than the revenue it makes, the country will soon run into debt. Much of our national reserves are CPF savings of the people. If a government squanders the hard-earned savings of the people, it will bring ruin to the people and to the country. And as I have said earlier, what has been built up so painstakingly will be lost forever. In Detail Sir, having given our reasons for supporting the proposed Constitutional amendments in principle, we now proceed to look at them in detail. (1) Provision for a Vice-President This has also been referred to by some of my colleagues on the Backbench. Although, Sir, we agree with the election of a Vice-President together with the President, we have some reservations about the Vice-President continuing in his office as a Minister or as a Member of Parliament. How is this to be reconciled? In other words, will there be any conflict of interest should the Vice-President have to stand in for the President when the latter is away or incapacitated? (2) Political significance Other than custodial powers, the elected President is non-executive.”
“In the past 30 years or so, the Government has been busy with nation-building. We have come such a long way from slums and squatters to 86% of the people living in public housing estates where 80% of them are the owners through the home-ownership scheme. We have substantial national reserves which many countries with rich natural resources but poor governments would give their eye and teeth for. It was not plain luck which has brought us this far. It is a combination of hard work from a disciplined workforce and an honest and responsible Government elected by the people of Singapore to which we owe our affluence. Sir, a government which has a vision for the future, which looks forward and plans ahead, has satisfied the basic needs of the people of Singapore. One of Singapore's most crucial assets which cannot be over-emphasized, Sir, is her political stability. This is a major consideration for foreign investors on whom we depend for our survival. We must maintain our political stability if we are to keep on attracting investors. Investors, especially those in capital-intensive, high value-added industries, require long-term political stability in order to recoup their capital and make profits on their investments. Investors like those bring in foreign exchange, job opportunities, expertise and technology. Everybody benefits. Here, we would like to express our concern and, more frankly, our fear that everything that has been done is being taken for granted, in particular that the comforts of life today are being taken too lightly by some quarters. Perhaps we should find a way to try to remind ourselves from time to time. However, Sir, political stability cannot be guaranteed. Elections are held every four to five years.”
“Many suffered from that pay cut. But I think they understood the necessity of such a measure because the Government had made it clear that it could not afford to pay the 30% cost of living allowance (COLA, in short). What could these people do but to accept it. After all, the PAP had the mandate of the people by capturing 43 of the 51 seats it contested in the general elections then. In short, it had to review the overall fiscal policies. Not all governments are as prudent and honest as the PAP Government. The electorate may fall for the political gambits of some other party or parties and without realizing it, they may vote in an irresponsible government. To give an irresponsible government unlimited power over our national reserves would be disastrous. However, with the President holding the second key to the national reserves and to important appointments in the public services the disaster may be averted. Ultimately, this is a question the people of Singapore will have to decide and they will then have to address their minds to the issue. (4) It is for the long-term good of Singapore. My GPC accepts that these proposed amendments to the Constitution are for the long-term good of Singapore. Prevention is always better than cure. We should devise our own security system now when we can, rather than wait until damage is done first. We would like to commend the Government for having the foresight and the initiative to introduce these Constitutional amendments now. Perhaps it is necessary to further explain the need for these amendments to the people as there is no doubt in our minds that the PAP will continue to govern Singapore for many more years to come, and that is, many more good years to come.”
“Therefore, we are of the view that an elected non-executive President with custodial powers to act as a check, particularly the two-key safeguard mechanism as set out in paragraph 33 of the White Paper, is a good alternative to an upper legislative body. Here I disagree with the sentiments expressed by my friend, the Member for Serangoon Gardens, when he proposed that there be a Senate or an Upper House, for the reason that I have just stated. (3) It is for protection of national reserves and the integrity of the public services. Sir, national reserves and the integrity of the public services are two of Singapore's most valuable assets. Governments can come and can go every four to five years, but national reserves and the integrity of the public services must always remain for the good of all. Our national reserves are made up mainly of CPF savings of the people of Singapore and they have been slowly and, rightly so, as stated by the Member for Telok Blangah, painstakingly built up over the years and also the surpluses resulting from prudent financial policies of this Government. When the government in power is led by honest, honourable and responsible men, Singaporeans need not be afraid that the government will squander their hard-earned monies and savings. However, Sir, when the government in power is less than honest or less than careful or inapt in appointing key persons in the public services, the results may be disastrous for Singapore. Once corruption is allowed and an inefficient civil service is in control, we lose all that we have built and Singapore is lost forever. So let me recount what happened when the PAP was voted into power in 1959. Its first unpleasant and certainly most painful policy was to impose a 30% pay cut on the civil service.”
“We therefore took the best step possible by passing the Currency Act of 1967 which was to give backing to our Singapore Dollar with whatever reserves we had. This step was correct and our reserves grew rapidly, that is to say, by nearly three times in less than five years, from $1,068 million in 1965 to $3,098 million in 1970. Things would have turned out differently today if we had not had the foresight to take that momentous step and subsequently attempt to develop Singapore as a financial centre. Sir, today, the fruits of such policies are enjoyed by all. (2) It is consistent with our system of checks and balances. All good systems of government have their own checks and balances. We have some at present which may have been adequate in the past but may not be so in the long run. Although it is a feature of the parliamentary system that the government in power is supreme in legislation, decision-making and public administration, most countries with this system have an upper legislative body. For example, the United Kingdom has its House of Lords and Malaysia and Australia both have an Upper House as well as Federal Governments. But, Sir, because of our small size, it is neither practical nor necessary for us to have a bicameral parliamentary system like those countries. Everybody knows that we have progressed considerably in the past 30 years or so. In the past, our population comprised mainly low-income earners who had little or no education. Today, Sir, the majority of the people of Singapore are in the middle-income bracket with at least a primary school education. From 51 single-member constituencies in 1963 we have now 81 constituencies comprising 13 GRCs (of three members in each group representation constituency) and 42 single-member constituencies.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I rise to speak in support of the motion standing in the names of the Members for Kebun Baru and Braddell Heights, and that is on the White Paper on Constitutional Amendments to Safeguard Financial Assets and the Integrity of the Public Services presented to Parliament as Paper Cmd. 10 of 1988. Sir, my GPC has studied the proposed amendments with great concern and seriousness. We have unanimously agreed to support the White Paper. With your permission, Sir, I shall deal with these proposed amendments, first in general and then in detail. Other Members of my GPC will also speak on it. In General We agree with the principles behind the proposal to introduce an elected non-executive President with certain custodial powers into our existing system of government. (1) It is right that we evolve our own system of government. Sir, as a former British colony, it was natural and convenient, upon gaining independence, to adopt the British parliamentary system with certain modifications. We could not have imported and still cannot successfully import another country's system wholesale into our own country. As far as it is practicable, we may make use of a certain parliamentary practice and procedure, but we must adapt the system according to our own country's needs. We are a sovereign independent nation, mature enough to recognize our needs and respond to them positively, to the extent of altering the status quo wherever and whenever necessary. As an example, Sir, let me recount briefly the time we had to decide how to have our Singapore Dollar pegged after its interchangeability with the Malaysian Ringgit was discontinued. We had nothing in terms of natural resources to back our Dollar then.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I am afraid I have to liken the Member for Potong Pasir to an ostrich burying its head in the sand. When he mentioned that the Russians and the People's Republic of China are communists, Ah, here we see the interesting line. The Russians have got their embassy here. They have also their interests here - banking, and so on. So has the Chinese indirectly to trade, even though we have not established full diplomatic relations. They also have got interests. So will you allow this gross interference in the domestic affairs of Singapore? He has not answered the question. He has been beating about the bush, talking about extracting a statutory declaration under duress, and so on and so forth which is totally different. He is merely not able to answer my question, Sir.”
“There you are! You are not listening. That is the trouble.”
“I said it is People's Republic of China.”
“He has all the time been standing up and interrupting, without listening for one moment. I think this House ought to understand the behaviour of this man. I am not making a personal attack but he keeps on interrupting. When he wants to ask for clarification, I give him way. So he should give me the same courtesy, and until I have made my clarification, he should notinterrupt me.”
“Does he agree to the US statement and will he allow the Russians to do likewise? Similarly, the Chinese, if diplomatic relations between the PRC and Singapore are established at a future date?”
“Finally, Mr Speaker, Sir, let me place on record my regret and disappointment in the Member for Potong Pasir as his amendment is repugnant to the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore.”
“Fourthly, what "legitimate pressure groups" is the Member for Potong Pasir referring to? Does he have a list of it? Can he name these groups? Is he advocating that the Singapore Government allows groups of people who are not the elected representatives of Singapore to help the Government govern the nation? It is a well-known fact that pressure groups have always lobbied in their own interest which may not be in the interest of Singapore. The Government may hear them out but the Government is not obliged to agree with them. Let me remind the Member the oath of allegiance he made before taking up his seat in this House. He swore to protect and defend the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore. Therefore, by asking the pressure groups to be given a say in our domestic politics, I think he has forgotten the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore. I am therefore shocked and utterly disheartened at the line taken by him. He is a lawyer. I am not. He should know better. It is totally repugnant to our Constitution to say that pressure groups should be given a say in the government of Singapore. Surely, Sir, the task of governing Singapore lies with the elected representatives of the people of Singapore and nobody else. This is our parliamentary democratic system. Let us be clear about this. It is by this parliamentary democratic system that the Member for Potong Pasir occupies his seat in this House and it is by the same system that he is given full opportunity to propose and debate this amendment. Let me ask the Member for Potong Pasir this. Is he proposing the amendment in good faith and in the interests of Singapore or is it in the interests of the Singapore Democratic Party, his party? Only he can answer.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, let me remind the Member for Potong Pasir that the "written communication" referred to in paragraph 26 of the press statement was a letter from none other than the US Secretary of State, Mr George Shultz. He has read it. He knows about it. I would therefore ask him, where in paragraphs 26 and 27 of the press statement is there a denial by the US government of the actions of its diplomat and State Department officials? I think the Singapore Government has tackled the matter with more restraint than the matter deserved. I made this point two days ago here in this House when I spoke in full support of the main motion. If the Member for Potong Pasir has the interests of Singapore at heart, he should ask the US government what disciplinary action it will take against its errant diplomat and State Department officials. Secondly, what action has the Government taken against foreign interest groups? I ask the Member for Potong Pasir to name the foreign interest groups referred to in paragraph (a) of his amendment. Please also specify what actions the Government has taken against these groups or for that matter what action has the Singapore Government taken against the US government that warrants a rejection by this House? In my view, as I said, the Singapore Government has conducted itself honourably as far as the US government is concerned. I think the Member knows it though he refuses to admit. Thirdly, Sir, what does the Member for Potong Pasir mean by calling upon the Government to be "more open and tolerant"? He has used vague words. What is the meaning of "open and tolerant"? May I ask how open and how tolerant? I have said we are an open society and we debate openly. What more does he want?”
“My question is: is he challenging the truth contained in those paragraphs when the US Ambassador to Singapore did not? Perhaps he knows more than the US Ambassador. Would he care to elaborate them? Furthermore, Sir, I would like to refer to the front page in today's Straits Times where it is captioned "'Baseless charges' can harm close ties, US warns Singapore". In my view, Sir, it is clear from the statement made by a State Department spokesman, one Charles Redman, when he said: "'The United States is not, and has not been, engaged in interference in Singapore's domestic affairs," he said, and added: "What our embassy officers do in Singapore is no different from the normal diplomatic contacts of our diplomats in every country of the world. It is also no different than the conduct of Singaporean diplomats in the United States."' We have to take this statement very cautiously. In my view, Sir, it is clear from the statement that the US government says that Mr Hendrickson and some US State Department officials have done nothing wrong. Therefore, I would like to assert that it is very important that the people of Singapore will have to take a sharp second look at all American embassy officers here from now on. In this respect, I would ask the Member for Potong Pasir: does he agree to the US State Department's statement and therefore allow the Russians to do likewise? Similarly, Sir, the Chinese, should diplomatic relations between Singapore and the People's Republic of China be established at some future date. Please say yes or no. In the same manner, I would ask of our US friends the same question.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to urge this House to reject in toto the Member for Potong Pasir's amendment to the motion standing in the name of the Member for Braddell Heights. The Member for Potong Pasir calls it an amendment. But, Sir, anyone with some commonsense can see that it is not an amendment. It is, in fact, a completely new motion he is moving. Sir, we are an open society and we subscribe to open debate. Therefore, we give him full opportunity to debate his amendment. In moving his amendment yesterday, Sir, the Member spent the better part of his time to quote from the newspapers. He had nothing to offer nor did he make anything substantive. But I have several questions to ask of the Member for Potong Pasir. First, why does the Member for Potong Pasir persist in making reference to "alleged subversive activities"? Surely he can read and comprehend the numerous statutory declarations and Government statements reproduced in the local newspapers. If not, surely he can understand the news readers of the Singapore Broadcasting Corporation (SBC), that is to say, if he watches television. Anyone with commonsense can see that the disclosures so far have shown that the Singapore Government has acted justifiably in the interests of the security of Singapore. No one, including the US government, has challenged the truth of the disclosures. I am not for one moment suggesting that the Member for Potong Pasir has no commonsense. Perhaps he has a short memory. Let me refresh his memory and draw his attention once again to paragraphs 25, 26 and 27 of the Press Statement released by the Government on Friday, 20th May 1988, and I do not wish to belabour the House with repeating what is stated in the three paragraphs.”
“I recall that the National Theatre did not last very long. I know that this building was designed by professionals in the private sector. It is important to assure the people that the high-rise buildings they live in and work in are safe. Therefore, we welcome the committal of this Bill to a Select Committee. This Bill affects not only developers, building contractors, architects and professional engineers but also the general public. We hope that the public will come forward to give their views and suggestions so that together we can strive to keep our high-rise buildings safe to work in and live in. In conclusion, Sir, we reiterate that we generally support the Building Control Bill 1988. We have not discussed the Bill in detail as we leave the thrashing of the finer details to the Select Committee appointed to undertake the task. EXEMPTED BUSINESS (Motion) Resolved, That the proceedings on the item under discussion and the remaining items on the Order Paper today be exempted at this day's sitting from the provisions of Standing Order No. 1. - [Mr Wong Kan Seng]. 3.12 pm BUILDING CONTROL BILL Debate resumed.”
“Once a Certificate of Statutory Completion has been issued by the Building Authority, the question is: are the architects and engineers discharged from liability for structural defects that may surface later? Can the Minister also tell us how much confidence such a certificate is expected to give buyers? We are concerned with how the Government fits into the picture. We are of the view that the Building Authority's role in maintaining control over construction and of certifying that buildings are fit for occupation should be examined further. At the end of the day, the Building Authority certifies that the building is fit for occupation. Yet, the Building Authority is never liable should defects be found later. Could the Minister look into this and give us an explanation? We note that the Bill seeks to introduce a number of penalties for errant developers, etc. However, as mentioned earlier, who is to bear responsibility if defects are discovered only years later and the developers, architects and engineers concerned are nowhere to be found. Has the Minister considered setting up a common fund or imposing some sort of compulsory insurance or other methods for dealing with this problem? Before concluding, I would like to comment in passing that the Bill is silent on poor workmanship. While this may be more relevant to the Housing Developers Control Act, the layman may not be able to distinguish between structural defects and poor workmanship. Indeed, the latter may seem more important as it is visible. Although poor workmanship may not be the basis of structural defects, it may contribute to it. Will the Minister consider looking into this lacuna in the law as well? In our view, buildings should be built to last as long as required.”
“Besides the Cheng Hong Mansion which was mentioned earlier by the Minister, which was discovered to be structurally unsafe last year, what other buildings have also been found unsafe? What steps the Government will be taking to instil confidence in the people? We are talking about people who have put in their life-long savings into a flat only to find that the building, of which their flat is a part, is declared structurally unsound. We understand that for these people, to seek legal redress means a long drawn and expensive affair and the results usually leave much to be desired. By the time the defect is discovered, the developers may have been wound up and the architects and engineers difficult to trace. Therefore, we would like to pose a question to the Minister. What recourse would the people affected have then? We are aware that this may be outside the ambit of the Building Control Bill but we urge the Government to look into this problem now. 4. Exemption of Government buildings Sir, we note that Government buildings will be exempted from the provisions of the Building Control Bill. The Minister said just now that the PWD has its own internal checking system for Government buildings and that the statutory boards will be required to institute proper internal checking systems. However, the Minister was not succinct as to what "proper internal checking systems" were. Would he like to elaborate? What is it about these internal checking systems that make it unnecessary for Government buildings to undergo the stringent requirements of the Building Control Bill? 5. Certificate of Statutory Completion Sir, I would like to ask the Minister to explain the significance of renaming the Certificate of Fitness to that of Certificate of Statutory Completion.”
“If so, what changes are being considered to assist the Building Authority to cut down the extra time needed to allow for compliance with the new regulations? The Minister had in his statement on 9th November in this House mentioned that the proposed checking system would cost developers an estimated 0.11% increase to the total construction cost or 1.6% to the total consultancy cost for a building project. We are concerned about this increase. We understand that the developers can pass off such an increase to the buyers or tenants. Has the Minister considered ways by which such increase can be avoided or made minimal? Although one can argue that these new regulations are ultimately for the good of the buyers and tenants, we must remember that it is the developer's responsibility in the first place to erect structurally sound buildings. We are of the view that it is unfair for buyers and tenants to have to bear in full the increase in the developer's costs in providing what they are entitled to. 3. Maintenance in checking of completed high-rise buildings Sir, we commend the move to subject high-rise commercial and residential buildings to periodic maintenance checks to ensure that these buildings are structurally safe and fit for occupation. However, we are concerned whether the Building Authority can conduct the periodic checks efficiently. It is no use having such a regulation without the manpower to implement it. Can the Minister elaborate on how the Building Authority proposes to cope with this monumental task? Indeed, it will be no mean feat to complete the checking of all the completed high-rise buildings in Singapore just once, let alone periodically. Sir, today, most Singaporeans work or live in high-rise buildings. For some, it is both.”
“However, do we have sufficient well-trained and qualified site supervisors to go round? What are the training programmes available? What happens when the exigency of the situation demands that work on the construction site be carried on beyond normal working hours, perhaps even round the clock? While construction workers can be spread out by introducing working shifts, what about the site supervisors? Surely they cannot be expected to be present at the site 24 hours a day. Can the Minister assure the House that this situation will be adequately covered by the proposed Bill? We agree that the requirement of keeping records of the progress of contruction is good. Nevertheless, the Building Authority still has to counter-check by conducting spot checks of construction sites to ensure that building regulations are complied with. We are concerned as to whether the Building Authority can perform its role efficiently. Can the Minister also assure the House that the Building Authority has adequate qualified and reliable manpower resources to carry out its responsibilitiess? 2. Implementation of the new requirements and procedures Sir, we are aware of the delicate balance between ensuring proper control and creating excessive red tape. However, in the zeal to ensure proper control, we should not impose so many cumbersome and complex requirements, procedures, rules and regulations so as to cause unnecessary delays in obtaining approval to building plans. The last thing we want is to discourage development enterprise, especially when we want to give the construction industry a boost. Can the Minister give us an indication whether it will take longer to obtain approval to building plans when the new regulations are implemented?”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the GPC for National Development supports in general the Building Control Bill 1988. This Bill incorporates the recommendations of the Working Committee appointed to consider the findings of the Commission of Inquiry into the collapse of the Hotel New World. We are of the view that this is an important Bill as it is a matter of great public interest. The people of Singapore will not easily forget the disaster that brings us here today for the Second Reading of this Bill. We trust that the Government also shares our view. But, Sir, we shall not go into the details of the proposed legislative amendments at this point. The Select Committee will deliberate and examine the proposed legislative amendments in extensive detail later. However, Sir, whilst the GPC for National Development and Housing supports the Bill in general, there are several areas of concern which we feel should be discussed, namely: (1) adequate manpower resources; (2) implementation of the new requirements and procedures; (3) maintenance and checking of completed high-rise buildings; (4) exemption of Government buildings; and (5) the Certificate of Statutory Completion replacing the Certificate of Fitness for occupation. 1. Adequate Manpower Resources First, in his statement in Parliament on 9th November 1987, the Minister for National Development and Foreign Affairs said that the Government would implement a checking system by accredited professional engineers. However, the Minister did not specify the criteria by which the proposed list or register of accredited engineers is to be drawn up and by whom. Will the Minister kindly elaborate? Secondly, we support the requirement of proper supervision by full-time qualified persons at construction sites.”
“BG Lee Hsien Loong: --- or a lobbyist, voluntary one, I am happy to meet the lobbyist in this House or anywhere. There is no difficulty. But if the Member for Whampoa does not wish to bring up their case, I hope he does not blame me for it.”
“So the Government can in no way be said to have been unreasonable to them. I do not have a figure for their contribution to the GDP. I would guess maybe 2%, 3%, not more. In terms of turnover, the industry accounts for more than a billion dollars a year. In terms of income tax, about $3 million. Negligible. Why? Because many of the companies have not done well for many years, at least on the books, but yet show no imminent compulsion to close down. An hon. Member: Why so? BG Lee Hsien Loong: Why so? Because this is an industry where transfer pricing is possible. It is a matter of accounting conventions and techniques. If you took the figures at face value, you would conclude that you should close down the industry straightaway since this is a money losing business. I do not take them at face value. I do not think anybody does. But therefore we should take protestations that doomsday is nigh, with a pinch of salt. I have already stated that we have not made a decision for next year's levy and next year's quotas, how it will be allocated. I think the Members are trying to put pressure on me even before the event, to concede and do nothing or concede and be generous. I think that would be irresponsible. Let us wait for the data. Let us see how this year develops. We can settle it later on in the year. The members of the Textile and Garment Manufacturers' Association can see the Chairman of the GPC on Trade and Industry. We have no objection. In fact, if anybody told them not to, I would ask him to desist, because it is up to them to make their own calculations, whom they wish to see, what they wish to state, and if they believe that the Member for Whampoa can be an effective advocate for them --- An hon. Member: Lobbyist.”
“Sir, out of interest, could I ask of the Hon. Minister for Trade and Industry, two simple questions. How much does this textile industry contribute to Singapore in terms of its GDP? That is the dollars and cents. The other question is, how much income tax has been paid by this industry. BG Lee Hsien Loong: Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the easiest way to be a highly popular Minister is to give money away. There is no difficulty. All you have to do is to declare a bonanza and you win popularity, maybe even votes. Is that wise? A scarce asset has to be allocated, whether it is quotas or whether it is land. Should it be given away simply on the principle that the Government does not need money and can always afford to do with less? It is a reckless principle upon which this Government has never acted and does not ever intend to act. And I do not think even the Member for Whampoa would urge me to adopt it. The industry is a highly protected one worldwide, because in the developed countries the industry is in difficulty. They are losing jobs, it is causing political difficulties, so political pressures are brought to bear. Congressmen and senators move protectionist legislation to try and preserve the jobs of their supporters or the firms of their campaign contributors. So we are caught up in the MFA. In Singapore we have let it operate as freely as possible. In fact, the government has helped it to operate because it has allowed textile and garment manufacturers in Singapore have one of the highest proportions of foreign workers amongst all the manufacturing industries. There are as many foreign workers manufacturing textiles and garments as there are in the electronics sector, a considerably larger chunk of our economy.”
“In that case, Sir, can I ask whether Hougang can also have that kind of enjoyment?”
“In that case, Sir, how is it that Pasir Ris, which is not yet completed, has an MRT line viaduct already in considerable progress of development? Dr Yeo Ning Hong: Sir, the viaduct is for Phase 2B which is already under progress. It is under construction. If all things proceed smoothly, if the public continues to give us their full cooperation and if there is a minimum amount of delay, we hope to be able to go to Pasir Ris when it is populated by the middle of 1990.”
“Point of clarification, Sir. Is the Hon. Minister aware that there is a MRT viaduct that is being built into Pasir Ris New Town, and the New Town is not yet completed?”
“Sir, in view of the assurance given by the Senior Parliamentary Secretary, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.”