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 3 of 38.
“Can I ask the Hon. Acting Minister for Health whether the dates of completion of the polyclinics that he named are firm dates or are they just estimated dates of completion, and when will these polyclinics be operational?”
“In that case, could he and his colleague, the Minister in charge, work together so that either of them is able to stand up and answer the question?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, before the Minister answers, could I suggest to the Minister that he should attempt to answer the question and not pass the buck to another Minister.”
“Therefore, Sir, in our view, we would like to ask whether the Hon. Minister would consider continuing to assist such property owners whose only residential property is acquired. I hope, Sir, that he would be forthcoming in his reply. Finally, Sir, there are various occasions in the past when properties were acquired for public development purposes but were left to waste for many years before they were eventually developed. We would like to urge that great care be taken to ensure that land acquired for public development is taken off for development as soon as possible after the acquisition. In making this observation, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, we note that some lands acquired have not been fully developed, as had been indicated in the various replies given in this House to the Questions for Oral Answer. Sir, we support the Bill.”
“(Punggol) Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I shall be brief. This Amendment Bill is a long awaited piece of legislation which makes the amount of compensation paid for properties acquired more equitable. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, my GPC met and discussed this Bill together with members of our Resource Panel. We are in support of this Bill and welcome Government's move to amend the Land Acquisition Act (Chapter 152 of the 1985 Revised Edition) as has been explained just now by the Hon. Minister for Law. However, Sir, we would like to ask of the Hon. Minister first to explain why it is necessary to provide in the Bill for compensation payable for any property acquired after 30th November 1987 to be pegged at the market value as at 1st January 1986 if the market value of the property at the date of acquisition is higher than the market value as at lst January 1986. Then why is 1st January 1986 taken for valuation purposes? Would it not be more equitable if the compensation is based on the market value as at the date of notice of acquisition? Sir, we discussed the question which concerns owners of only one residential property. They may continue to face hardship if their residences are acquired and compensations are paid to them according to the provisions in the Bill, especially if the property values of residential properties are escalating. They would feel even more aggrieved if they had purchased their residences after 30th November 1973 or more recently and at prices higher than that of 1st January 1986. The price or prices they paid for their properties would have been included in the cost of the development of the land in the vicinity of their property. So in a rising property market they would not be able to secure an equivalent residential property.”
“I am a democratic socialist. The Russians call themselves socialists too. So do the Chinese. But I would not allow myself to be drawn aside. So I come straight to the point. Point (1), he has not fully answered the question. Point (2), he portrays himself as the champion of the Malays. Article 152 of the Constitution makes it pernicious according to him, and he has asked me to rebut. No, he has to answer that because he has put it that way. In fact, yesterday, when he had the Floor, he asked all the PAP MPs to come out and speak up on how they feel. He has got it. But in my own way, I would not allow him to take the Floor and have his say, so as to mislead and beguile the people. I do not think I can allow that, Sir. Point (3) Sir, that explanation or by his remarks, make it appear that the Presidential Council on Minority Rights is redundant. Then why would he not move an amendment that it be repealed? On mixed marriages, I have got nothing against it because all these are personal matters. There is such a thing as privacy. But we have to respect people's feelings. I say how can he so fallaciously believe that by entering into mixed marriages we can have one race, one people. Who is he talking to? The people of Singapore are not foolish enough or gullible enough to believe him. He has said it. That is his definition of multi-racialism. That is his interpretation of what a multi-racial Singapore is. Far from it. Sir, I hope he will address himself to the questions that I posed and not try to sidetrack.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I am a bit surprised that once again he has totally digressed, hoping that by his roundabout answers he actually need not answer the questions I posed. First, in the constitution of the SDP, it is not stated that it subscribes to a multi-racial Singapore. That has been pointed out to him. All I am asking is: is that an oversight? If it is, would the Member for Potong Pasir and the SDP amend the constitution of the SDP? He has not fully answered that. Instead he has gone on to describe that I am a socialist and what socialism is all about.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, first, I rise to speak in full support of the amendment Bill moved by the First Deputy Prime Minister. I will come straight to the point. I am surprised that the Member for Potong Pasir did not answer the Hon. First Deputy Prime Minister's point when he took part in the debate and delivered his speech yesterday. The point is this. The SDP's constitution does not state that it subscribes to a multi-racial Singapore. Sir, may I ask him whether this is an oversight? If it is, whether he and the SDP intend to amend it accordingly? Because he himself said that he is all for a multi-racial Singapore. Furthermore, he portrays himself as a champion of the Malays. Here I would like to ask him again whether the Presidential Council for Minority Rights has now become redundant. And also according to him, since Article 152 of the Constitution is pernicious, would he move that it be repealed? If not, how can he fallaciously believe and subscribe to a multi-racial Singapore, in his own description, "one people, one race, out of mixed marriages, mixed religions"? I think this House would like to be enlightened on this, and I hope, Mr Speaker, Sir, you will be so kind enough as to enable the Member for Potong Pasir to make his clarifications.”
“Sir, in this case, could the Minister of State indicate what main farming activity is being carried out?”
“Sir, could the Minister of State enlighten the House how successful has been the tendering of these plots of land for non-pollutive farming activities?”
“Sir, will the Minister of State consider asking the HDB to build kiosks in the existing estates so that such facilities can be provided?”
“Sir, could the Minister of State indicate the number of participants in the multi-tier or joint balloting schemes for the HDB flats?”
“Sir, may I ask the Senior Parliamentary Secretary whether there will be a resultant increase in the pricing of HDB flats?”
“No, all the parts. May I ask the Hon. Minister for Home Affairs why was this not disclosed earlier? May I also ask him why was action not taken to bring in Father Edgar D'Souza for questioning in the light of his close links with those involved in the Marxist conspiracy?”
“In view of the revelations made by the Hon. Minister for Home Affairs which I find disturbing, may I ask him ---”
“Sir, can I ask the Hon. Minister what are the measures his Ministry will take with a view to totally eradicating this Aedes mosquito menace. And if these measures are not possible to totally eradicate such a menace, what other steps does his Ministry propose to take to reduce the mosquito population?”
“In the past, he had the alternative to rent a shop.”
“Sir, can I ask the Minister whether he will try to understand the position of the affected shopkeeper by giving his impression as to how much or how long the $26,000 cash compensation will go to overcome or to resolve the shopkeeper's temporary predicament or maybe for the rest of this life? In other words, I am trying to suggest that the $26,000 cash compensation is just a mere paltry sum. It is depriving a shopkeeper of his livelihood thereafter.”
“Why can we not let them have an option - either take the cash or give them the alternative of renting the shops, as was the case in the past? As I understand the position, is it not a fact that it is Government's duty to make sure that resettlement is made less painful and more humane?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, whilst I am not entirely in disagreement with the Hon. Minister's answer, nevertheless could I ask him to ascertain from the HDB whether they could increase the number of shops available? The figure given here is 150 which, I think, is hardly sufficient. Also, could he not reconsider this question of letting the resettlement cases have priority because, as he put it, there are 50 to 100 cases per year from 1988 and beyond?”
“We want a mix of resettlement shopkeepers as well as new businesses. So we just do not have enough shops. I have looked at this matter very sympathetically. I have asked the officials to try and examine whether we can accommodate those on whom Notices to Quit have been served and who want shops, and whether we can in fact offer them shops. Sir, the facts are these. Of the 546 shops that are now available, not all of them when tendered out will be able to survive. Quite a few of them are shops which have become vacant many times because businesses have not been able to make a go at that particular site. We really have just too many shops catering for too few people in the HDB areas. This is the reason why HDB has decided that from next year, they will build only 150 shops a year. So taking all these figures into account, it is not possible with all the goodwill in the world to try and accommodate the request of the resettlement shopkeepers. I must also mention that the revised resettlement policy allows a cash grant for shops in temporary premises. The shops in temporary premises did not have this option of taking cash under the previous policy. So at least they have a cash grant now.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, may I know why the Hon. Minister cannot reconsider - I say "reconsider" - the position with a view to giving those shopkeepers affected by resettlement the option to rent the shops, as was the case in the past? Mr Dhanabalan: Sir, the answer is very simple. We just do not have enough shops. With your permission, Sir, may I distribute this table which sets out the availability of shops at the present moment? [Copies of table distributed to hon. Members.] Mr Speaker, Sir, as the Member for Punggol can note from this schedule that is being distributed, as I mentioned in my answer, there were 2,075 resettlement shops as at 28th July 1987. There are several categories. Some were already offered shops but they did not accept; there are 600 of them. Others had Notices to Quit served on them but no offer has been made yet, and there are still others who have been already identified and they know that they are going to be cleared but no Notices to Quit have been served. So there were 2,075 resettlement cases as at 28th July. Since we have already cleared most of the squatter areas, we expect over the next few years to have another 50 to 100 new resettlement cases as from 1988 onwards. As against this potential demand for resettlement shops, you can see that the supply is only 546 at the present moment, with another 150 new shops which HDB will complete every year for the next few years. Mr Speaker, Sir, even if half the resettlement cases want shops and the other half are prepared to settle for cash, there are still just not enough shops to offer all resettlement cases. Moreover, Sir, I think it is bad policy and not in the interest of the public and the residents in HDB estates to allow all shops to be taken up by resettlement cases .”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, as I understand it, the responsibility of the Building Authority will be transferred from the Deputy Director of DBCD to the Director-General of Public Works. I think the Minister stated that the Director-General is in a better position to marshall the necessary technical resources within PWD. In this respect, does the Minister not envisage a problem during the transitional period when the Building Authority is transferred to the Director-General of Public Works?”
“I want to emphasize that developers should not take these measures as measures just to comply with Government requirements. These measures are to protect them and the public. Therefore, even before the legislation is in place which will force them to use checkers, they should start using them to protect themselves and the potential buyers. Procedures for tests during construction and spot checks of construction sites will also be implemented shortly and the targetted date is January 1988.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, whilst my Government Parliamentary Committee did not have the opportunity to study the Report of the Working Committee, nevertheless we are giving it a general support, and therefore we would like to pose some questions to the Hon. Minister. First, what are the main problems his Ministry will face in implementing the proposals as stated in the Report? And which are the measures likely to be introduced first? Mr Dhanabalan: Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, all the recommendations of the Committee can be implemented. There are no big problems. The problems really arise from the rate at which they can be implemented. As I have already mentioned in my statement, it depends upon how quickly we can introduce the procedures, legislation and recruit the manpower. Some of the measures obviously require amendments to existing legislation, the Building Control Act, for example. These could take a little longer because we have to draft the amendments, present them to Parliament, debate and pass the amended legislation in Parliament. We would also take some time to recruit the necessary engineers and supporting staff to implement the measures. The DBCD has already prepared the groundwork on the accreditation of checkers. In this, it will be working very closely with the professional bodies in Singapore. Applications for accreditation of checkers will soon be invited by DBCD and these applications will be evaluated by a selection panel comprising eminent engineers from both the public as well as the private sector. Design checks can be implemented once the accredited checkers are selected. Even though the legislation may not be in place, once we announce the list of accredited checkers, I am sure developers would want to use them.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, after giving such advice to the Homes concerned, may I ask of the Minister for the Environment what follow-up action will be taken to ensure compliance?”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, with due respect, I did not quote it from there. I have read it. It was quoted by my friend and colleague, the Member for Ayer Rajah. Read the specific part. Let the Member for Potong Pasir read the specific part that was read out by my good friend, the Member for Ayer Rajah.”
“On a point of clarification, Sir, if he will give way. Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Chiam, Mr Ng is asking for a point of clarification. Are you giving way?”
“He should take note of what I said earlier on. We could have killed the motion but we did not so as to enable this Parliament to discuss the matter openly before the people of Singapore, the press and TV. This is the forum.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the Member for Potong Pasir asks, where is the forum? This is the forum.”
“But I am of the view that the 15 detained are merely figures based on available evidence. I shudder to speculate how many are at large because there is insufficient evidence for the Government to act and how well these people will have covered their tracks by this time. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, in conclusion, I would like to point out to the Member for Potong Pasir that he will not be sitting there proposing this motion nor will I be standing here should these people succeed in subverting our State and establishing their Marxist society. I know this better. We may not even be extended the courtesy of being locked up as political detainees. To put it mildly, Sir, we would be disposed of in the literal sense. Therefore, we will not allow ourselves to be intimidated by them. I am confident that this Government will continue to fight all forms of subversion to ensure that we maintain our political stability, our peace and our free society. Sir, I support the amendment to the motion. 2.50 pm”
“Minister for Home Affairs if there is any truth in this. For myself, I am fully satisfied that any allegation of torture is untrue. The Member for Ayer Rajah pointed this out just now. In fact, he quoted from an article. However, for the sake of the Member for Potong Pasir's peace of mind, I think the Hon. Minister concerned should say a few words of assurance here. Sir, several speakers earlier referred to the many people who watched the television programme "The Marxist Conspiracy" saying that the detainees looked harmless and innocent. Is it possible that the Member for Potong Pasir has been beguiled by the soft- spoken, mild-mannered, self-confessed followers of Marxism? Surely he has heard before that appearances can be deceptive. He might have seen with his own eyes. But did he not listen to what they had to say? Did he hear what Vincent Cheng had to say? Did he not hear Vincent Cheng saying that he was willing to foment violence if peaceful means did not work out? Did he not hear Vincent Cheng saying that when political turmoil turned violent, other leaders or Tan Wah Piow would have emerged to take care of the problem? These are dangerous people. They manipulate and instigate others to do the job for them. They do not get their own hands soiled. When it comes to the crunch, they will stand by and smile, an innocent smile, while others fight their battle for them. That is the surest way to self-preservation. They will never risk their own lives. They will persuade others to risk theirs for their so-called "noble" cause. Surely the Member for Potong Pasir, being the man he is, does not judge by appearances alone. Sir, we do not know for certain how long these people have been at work. Nor do we know for sure the extent and strength of their network.”
“But to hide under the protective umbrella of innocent non-political organizations, like cultural groups, old boys' associations, students' unions, which was highlighted earlier on by the Member for Chua Chu Kang, and now churches, and to use organizations like these to propagate political ideas, manipulate young impressionable minds under the guise of religious instruction - THAT the Government cannot allow. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I would like to ask the Member for Potong Pasir if his reason for proposing this motion is that he thinks the 15 detainees are victims of an attack by the Government against the Roman Catholic Church. If so, I must state my disagreement in the strongest terms. Like my good friend, the Member for Clementi, I would be the first to oppose such an action. The 15 were detained for their activities as individuals. The Church and other institutions were being used by these 15 as a convenient cover. These people knew the Government would tread carefully and be very certain before closing in on them. Sir, I would like to remind the Member for Potong Pasir that although the Government owed no explanation and had every power to do what they did, the Hon. Prime Minister nevertheless went to the extent of meeting the Archbishop and several lay members and priests. This was referred to by some Members. The events that followed are history. Sir, the Member for Potong Pasir alleged that the detainees were subjected to torture in order to extract from them the necessary statements. Like other Backbenchers, I ask the Hon. Minister for Home Affairs to comment on his allegation. Does the Member for Potong Pasir think that the television broadcasts were all a hoax and the confessions staged? Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, here again I would like to ask the Hon.”
“How can they, when they are so far away and have never experienced the threats posed by such people to our society? Should the Government bow down to all these pressures from outside? Of course, not. The critics abroad only consider "human rights, rights of the individual". They view the world and they view society through their eyes, their set of values and their history. That is well and good for them but that is not for us. Politely and firmly we tell them we know what we are doing. This is our internal affair. It is our sovereign right to govern our nation as we see fit and it is not for other countries to tell us what to do. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, is the Member for Potong Pasir bowing to such pressures in proposing this motion before the House? The Member alleges, as some critics also do, that the detention of these people is a move to snuff out opposition. Can he be so naive as to believe that? If the Government could make use of the ISA to silence opposition, then may I ask, why isn't he put under lock and key? The purpose of preventive detention has never been to silence opposition. And as mentioned by the Member for Ayer Rajah earlier on, any political party is free to voice its opposition at political rallies, forums and in their publications. These are but some of the outlets for political opposition to find its voice. I say - do it openly under the name of a political party or society, and the Government will not interfere.”
“We cannot afford to be complacent. The Government must be ever vigilant against subversion and nip any conspiracy to alter the status quo by violent means in the bud. The Government need make no apology for detaining these people under the Internal Security Act. The Government has the mandate of the people. The Government has been elected by democratic process after (I stress the word "after") the Opposition has made the ISA an issue in several elections and despite this, the PAP has been returned time and again. Sir, as mentioned by some of my Backbench colleagues, this sensitive piece of legislation, the ISA, was not concocted by this Government. It was the British who introduced preventive detention in colonial Singapore. And they had good reason too. The British were faced with activists who knew very well how to operate within the law while spreading and strengthening their network. By the time the activists were ready to come into the open and break the law, it would have been too late to stem the civil unrest, violence and bloodshed that would inevitably follow. That is why the ISA cannot be abolished. Here, I must point out that the Member for Potong Pasir has not called for the repeal of the ISA in his speech. That is significant. However, Sir, many critics from abroad, especially those from the West, including the USA, cannot understand preventive detention. As mentioned earlier, they ask for the immediate release of the detainees or that they be charged in a court of law. They ask for the abolition of the ISA saying that detention without trial is against human rights, against individual rights, against the rule of law. They do not understand our situation.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I rise to oppose the motion moved by the Member for Potong Pasir. I must! The Government has done the right thing. The 15 detainees are people who calmly and single-mindedly pursued a course calculated to bring about unrest, chaos and even bloodshed to our country. I am glad, Sir, that the Government has decided to allow an Opposition Member's motion to be seconded by one of its own Backbenchers when the motion could just as easily be killed. It is testimony to the political maturity of Singapore that we can have such an issue discussed openly in Parliament and also shown to all Singaporeans on television. However, although itis good to have these things aired, I could not understand the motive of the Member for Potong Pasir for raising the issue. Therefore, Sir, let me place before the House the possible motives of the Member and let us together examine whether they have any justification. I ask the Member for Potong Pasir, who is he championing? Whose side is he on? Is he proposing a motion merely out of consideration for the 15 detainees? For their human rights? I ask him, what about the rights of the rest of our population? The right to a peaceful, prosperous and harmonious society. The right to an open and free society. The right to a life free of subversion and manipulation by pro-Communist elements. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I am asking the Member for Potong Pasir to look at the Government's action as a whole and not lose sight of the forest for the trees. We must look at this from a higher plane. There is more to all this than just the detention ofthe 15 persons. We are a very fragile society. The fine threads of peace and harmony that bind our multi-racial society can be easily broken; and once broken, they cannot be easily repaired.”
“When you have got just one party, and when there are no persons who dare to come forward and tell the Government even if they are right, if we have reached that stage, it is dangerous for Singapore. I hope I have made out a case for these 15 people. I must say that I am not in any way connected with them, no affiliations whatsoever.”
“I just read yesterday, I do not know whether the Minister of State for Education is here, but he says there is no problem in the Singapore Polytechnic. Only a few are involved. So why is there this big scare that you are putting up to the people? It is from the horse's mouth himself, from your own people. He says the Polytechnic is OK. There is no problem there. Only a handful are involved. And then you put it here, "Part of the Marxist network." You contradict yourself. Over here, you say it is part of a dangerous Marxist network. It says here, "Cheng's role in Marxist network." You can see for yourself [indicating]. This is really laughable. Then we have got these National Service groups. I do not know what these groups are. Next, we have the Geylang Catholic Welfare Centre. This one, I think, has got the support of the Government. In fact, the Government has even rented to this organization a former community centre at Irving Road. Now, of course, the Land Office is taking it back, and I believe if there is any problem with maids, the Labour Ministry will say, "Please send them to the Geylang Catholic Welfare Centre." So they are doing good work. If they are not doing good work, I do not think the Government department will say, "Please send them over there." If there was a beehive of Marxist activity there, do you think the Government will send people over there? If you look under the microscope and closely scrutinize all this hullabaloo that has been put up, there is really nothing to it. What Marxist plot? I really cannot see it. For the sake of Singapore, I would like to mention this last bit.”
“National University of Singapore Catholic Students' Society. By the way, they are all Catholics. Most of them are in sympathy with the Catholics or are Catholics themselves. In fact, the Government knows that the Catholics are the ones who oppose the Communists most. Look at Italy. If it were not for the Catholics, probably it would have gone Communist. Then the Justice and Peace Commission was also mentioned there. It was specifically set up - I read a letter published in the papers - to fight the Communists because the target group is the same, ie, the poor people. The Catholics aim at the poor. The Communists also aim at the poor. So the Catholics are working very hard to prevent the Communists from influencing the poor, and they play a very big and active role. I believe the Government recognizes this and the Government supports the Catholic church. So how can the Catholics be used to overthrow Singapore? Of course, you say they have got liberation theology. This is something new to me - liberation theology. Apparently it has been used in South America and in the Philippines. We cannot compare. Philippines and Singapore are worlds apart. This Government is very fond of comparison. They have got 85% Catholics there and the people are different from us. Most of us have got Filipino maids! They are a completely different people from us. Maybe their Catholics can be successful over there but, if anybody wants to lay a bet with me I am willing to bet, the Catholics here have not got a ghost of a chance to practise the so-called liberation theology. The other group is the Singapore Polytechnic Catholic Students' Society. Then there is the Singapore Polytechnic Students' Union.”
“If everybody thinks like you, then I do not know where we are going. We have reached, of course, a certain stage of affluence. We have. But as the former President has said, we have got no soul. If a man has no soul, then it is really not worth living. If a man has lost his soul, of course, he has lost everything. Is there a soul in Singapore? Our own Singaporeans, our own boys who have been educated in our own system, undergone our own national service and given the sword of honour, we think they are very good people and yet we incarcerate them, thumb them down and treat them like common criminals. If one of them is your relative, how would you feel? So we have to balance nation building on the one hand, the type of society we want, and security on the other. I think we should not go to the extreme and over-react when every person that comes up and talks a bit of Marxist and have a few organizations, we arrest him as if the whole world is coming apart. I managed to photostat this article and let us have a look at this "dangerous Marxist plot", as the Government has made it out to be. We have got little arrows pointing from one name to another name. This is called the network. I do not want to refer you to the arrows pointing to just a few names. I want to refer you to the arrows pointing to the organizations. What are these organizations? Are they militant, dangerous organizations? The Student Christian Movement. I have got many friends who are in this Student Christian Movement. In fact, I have got a relative who is involved in the University and he is very active in all these kinds of things. I do not think they are capable of a revolution. The Young Christian Workers' Movement. Again, is this the organization that is going to overthrow Singapore?”
“But there are also other important considerations for our country. We have to ask the question: What sort of Singapore do you really want? You have to tell the people. Do we want a Singapore where only because of a slight dissent against the Government, people are arrested? Do you want a country that has a widespread fear, apathy? Do you want to continue with your authoritarian rule? Is this the Singapore you want? I know there is apathy in Singapore. I walk around a lot of places in Singapore. There is a lot of apathy. The PAP is purported to want to have freedom because they want to fight colonialism. They want to be independent. They want to be free. What is colonialism? Of course, the classic definition of colonialism is one power ruling another country by force. They are made the subject people of a country that is in power. But more importantly, what are the characteristics of colonialism? When we talk of colonialism these days, we do not mean one country ruling another country because there are very few left. The characteristics of colonialism are fear, apathy, lack of democracy. These are the more important aspects. If we want really to get rid of colonialism in our midst although we are supposed to be independent, we should get rid of all these characteristics. Then we can really progress. There must be a free exchange of ideas. Just because somebody stands up and says something different from you, you thumb him down. It is no different from the early days of Galileo. He said, "You know, I can look into the sky." All the church members at that time were very angry with him, "How dare you! That is heaven." If there are no people like Galileo, how can the world progress? Similarly, in Singapore, there must be people with differing opinions.”
“You arrest people for fanning racial and communal hatred. You arrest people for a Marxist plot, for a communist plot, and you tell the people the economy is still very shaky. All this is just to prepare for the general elections so that the people will say, "Yes. There is only the PAP to save us from all these things. Better elect them. Vote them in again." It is as simple as that. This type of tactics has been repeated since the 60's, 70's and replayed in the 80's but, fortunately for the people of Singapore, the 80's is a completely different period from the 60's or 70's or even the 50's. So it does not work. How are you going to scare the people unless you can convince them that there is a real threat? But Singapore is a small place. You arrest people whom they know. The PAP is going to introduce a very controversial law on team MPs and an elected President. How are you going to push this through and get the support of the people? So you are preparing ground for the introduction of this very controversial law. You say that you need to exercise the powers given under the Internal Security Act for the security of Singapore. Of course, I believe in the security of Singapore. Singapore, you say, is vulnerable. Of course, it is vulnerable. But we have got to look at each case on its own merit, and I say that in the case of these 15 people they are certainly not a danger to Singapore. Maybe in other cases I believe you. When other cases crop up, if you can convince me and after I have looked at it I can say, "Yes, these people are really dangerous. All right, I agree with you. Keep them in." But not these 15. Certainly not them. I really feel very sad about it. You have got powers of detention without trial. You say you want security.”
“In fact, if you say you are a democratic country, you must have pressure groups as institutions of a democratic system. If you are scared of pressure groups, you silence everybody. What sort of democracy is that? You are scared of dissent, you are scared of people with different ideas, opinions. You want to have a monopoly of all the ideas. History has proven over and over again that if you have just one strong party deciding for the whole nation, that nation would not go very far. Can the two influence the Law Society and use it as a pressure group? On record, it cannot, because whatever ideas or whatever differing opinions they want the Law Society to make, these must be vetted by their own Sub- Committee first and, having satisfied their own Sub-Committee, then they will be brought before the Bar Council. These people are not stupid. They are trusted people both by this Government and by the people who have elected them to hold office. There is no way that two of these people who were detained can independently use the Law Society to propagate their own opinions or to say things against Government policies. That is not possible because they have to go through the Council of the Law Society and they have to be approved. So there is no way they can use the Law Society as a pressure group. Again, you cannot make out a case against these persons in a court of law. If there is really no case against them, why continue to detain them? There may be some truth in what people are saying - just to scare credible people who would like to join the Opposition to prevent dissent and probably to prepare your ground for the next general elections. I think that is a more likely reason. PAP's record is for everybody to see. What is their record? You create a crisis.”
“That is about it. If you think they are wrong, all right, you have already put them in, gone through the television programme of confession. You have already got everything from them. They have already confessed. Why still continue to put them in prison? Let them out and celebrate the National Day. They are Singaporeans also. I do not know how this Party can celebrate National Day when they know that all these poor chaps are in prison. That is the reason why there is so much protest. Because people abroad know for sure that these people who are detained by the Government are not dangerous elements as the Government would like to make them out. That is the reason. As for the other four Malays, nobody knows them. Mohamed Noor, whoever, we never heard of them. So how can these people protest when they do not know any of them? It is also difficult for me to protest unless I know more facts. But these 15 people, or at least one of them, Teo Soh Lung, whom I know, cannot be as dangerous as what the Government would like to make her out to be. She is a member of the Bar. How can she carry out a revolution? As I was saying just now, if you bring them to court, I think Mr J.B. Jeyaretnam would be the first one to come and give evidence, and you would not like it. They had not infiltrated the Workers' Party. They were invited in. There is a big world of difference between infiltration and being invited in. The Government says that they infiltrate. But the people who knows best says they were invited in. So within two minutes your case will be thrown out of court and you would have to pay costs on top of that. What about using the Law Society of Singapore as a pressure group? I do not know why the Government is so scared of pressure groups.”
“I am sure a telephone call to any one of them, and they would gladly come to the Internal Security Department and cooperate with them in any way they wanted. Don't treat them like criminals. They are not. What is their real crime? To my mind, their real crime is that they are against the Party in power. Because, as I say, in the case of Lim Chin Siong, he was with the PAP at that time. Although he was a known Communist, yet he was released. A Communist, but who cooperated with the Party, was released. I would not say that these people have been broken down. They are ineffective as Communists and yet they are still being detained. They are punished because they wanted to go against the ruling Party. Of course, we have heard many a time: why is it that, internationally, there are no complaints about the four Malays who were detained? And yet when these people were detained, you get a hue and cry from across Malaysia, and one member said, "Why don't we protest?" We have got something like 200 protest letters received from Australia, New Zealand and elsewhere. Why is there this big number protesting? It is obvious, is it not? It is not because these people are their supporters hoping that they will carry out the Marxist revolution here. It is not like that at all. I think the Government got it wrong there. The reason for so many letters of protest is that these people have got friends abroad, friends who know that these people are incapable of carrying out a revolution and establishing a Marxist state in Singapore. They are just intellectuals exercising their minds, but not in the way the PAP likes it. In fact, Amnesty International calls them "prisoners of conscience", not allowed to practise or carry out their beliefs by non-violent means. That is how they define them.”
“I notice that a question was put to one of them, Tang Fong Har, a lawyer, "How do you feel now?" She hesitated. She had to search and think of an answer to make sure that she gave the correct answer. From the television programme that I saw, it was so obvious that a lot of editing was done. When they continued to say a lot of good things in their favour, it was cut off. When they were saying something which implicated them, all right, there was a close-up view, zoomed. We are all living in the 1980s. Everybody knows this thing. You cannot hide anything. Nobody will believe you. What evidence? There are a few letters of exchange between Tan Wah Piow and a few of them. I think there must be a lot of people having letters of exchange, what they can and cannot do against the Government. But does that exchange of letters justify their further imprisonment after you have put them through such humiliating situations? You have already broken them down. What more do you want? You have got more than your pound of flesh. Perhaps the Minister could confirm that there was no continuous interrogation for 72 hours. I read somewhere that there was one girl who was interrogated for 12 hours, and she broke down. Really she broke down. Why? There were signs. She vomitted, got sick. She just could not take it any more. I think there must be hospital records to show that she was admitted to hospital. Poor thing. She could hardly, I suppose, walk, not to say, run. And she was handcuffed to the bed. Why the need to handcuff her? The poor girl was already sick and suffering, and you handcuffed her. Is she a common criminal? She is not a common criminal. In fact, all of them are not common criminals. They should not be arrested in the way they were arrested.”
“If you have got a case - I am not repeating what the other people are saying, I am saying it myself - you should bring them to court. The fact is that you do not. You do not have a case. What is the case against them? What evidence do you have? Although the Government has been saying, "Yes, we have evidence, otherwise we would not have arrested them." What evidence? You tell me. There is no evidence. The only evidence is their own confession. That is all. Any court of law would throw out this kind of a confession. You arrested them at 3 or 4 o'clock in the morning, hauled them roughly to their offices, searched them, treated them very roughly and brought them to the Internal Security Department, not allowing them to contact anyone. No lawyers and no relatives were allowed to talk to them, at least for the first initial stage. They were interrogated, continuous interrogation. The Government says there is no torture. But this is a form of torture. Continuous interrogation is a form of torture. According to reports in the papers, one of them has been interrogated for 72 hours continuously. Perhaps maybe the Minister could clarify all these points. I should be grateful if you would allow me to talk to these people who are under detention. There were allegations that some of them were held in a very small room underground, totally dark, no windows, and the room was lit by an electric bulb which was never turned off. These are all reports that I read. Of course, this is being done, interrogation in a cold room, air-conditioned room. One of them even had water poured over him. Can you imagine the cold? They were interrogated under these conditions. I did not watch all the television programmes in which they were interviewed. I watched the last one.”
“Is it the Communist Party of Malaysia? Mr Chiam See Tong: No, Communist Party of Malaya. I also had the benefit of reading only one equivalent of a charge sheet, only one out of the 15, not all. There is nothing in it. This particular person, under Allegations of Fact, is supposed to facilitate infiltration of the Workers' Party by a certain Marxist group and also to help them to use the Workers' Party as a vehicle for their Marxist objectives. The other charge is that, together with another lawyer, they are supposed to have used the Law Society to make it into a pressure group. These two charges are so frivolous, shall I say, so rubbishy, that I think no court would give a conviction. The reasons this Government has given in the past as to why they were never hauled to court are that their activities were clandestine and it was difficult to get evidence for them to give in the normal open court, and also that witnesses coming to testify against these people are liable for assassination. This one is difficult to believe. I do not think Teo Soh Lung or anyone will get somebody to assassinate the witness who comes forward and testifies against her. If you are talking of people that we do not know, maybe we will give you the benefit of the doubt. But you are talking of people we know. It is just impossible for any of them to be getting people to kill any of the witnesses. This is the most far- fetched reason that the Government has given. Of course the third reason is not an issue, ie, religious extremism and people who indulge in Communism and communalism. If they are brought to open court, the publicity and the rhetoric would inflame the situation and create more racial hatred. But that is not an issue.”
“It is important therefore for the Ministry of Law to embark on a public education programme to help the public to get a better understanding of the provisions in the Bill. This is necessary because almost 90% of our population live and work in highrise buildings. They would indeed like to know how this Bill will affect them. I hope, Sir, that the Hon. Minister will look into this and consider ways to help the public to get a clearer understanding of the provisions in the Bill and the impact the Bill will have on them and their properties in highrise buildings. For example, with the assistance of the media, some of the key provisions could be presented in simpler layman's language with interesting examples thrown in to help the general public to better understand them. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, on behalf of the GPC on National Development and Housing, I support the Bill.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I am happy to note that various suggestions which were made during the Select Committee's hearings have been incorporated in the Bill. Therefore, I would like to commend the Select Committee for their thoroughness in going through the Bill and the Second Minister for Law's report to this House on the changes that have been incorporated in this Bill. Changes have also been introduced to make provisions in the Bill more clear. These include a new definition of subsidiary proprietor, amendment to section 6 to define charge and so on. Sir, I note also that the Ministry has studied Land Title Strata legislations in other countries and has incorporated in this Report useful features found in such legislations. For example, as indicated by the Second Minister for Law, the new section 66 which is based on a similar provision found in the New South Wales legislation. I also welcome the introduction of the new Part VI to provide for the establishment of one or more strata titles boards to adjudicate disputes between subsidiary proprietors and between management corporations and subsidiary proprietors. These boards will help ensure that such disputes will be more expeditiously dealt with. It will, of course, save both time and money for those involved in disputes arising from the use or occupation of lots in subdivided buildings. Sir, in my view, the introduction of these changes will help ensure that subdivided buildings will be more effectively managed. But perhaps when the Bill is passed, the provisions should be reviewed from time to time to ensure that the management of the subdivided buildings is effective. Therefore, the Land Titles (Strata) (Amendment) Bill is a complex legislation.”