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 38 of 38.
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head 0104 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 2012. Sir, the recent decision of the Malaysian Alliance Council Meeting in Kuala Lumpur to withdraw hostel facilities from Singapore students studying abroad is a matter of great regret. This is yet another political move -”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, in view of the information supplied by the Minister of State for the Prime Minister's Department, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head 0104 be reduced by $10 in respect of subhead 2005. Sir, I wish to find out from the Minister concerned the number of scholarships granted under this head in 1965, and also the number of Singapore holders, and whether there are any Malaysian holders. Sir, I beg to move.”
“In doing this, we will show to our neighbours that even though we are a small nation, yet we are not an easy prey for them. We have the determination to ensure our survival as an independent and sovereign nation. We mean to keep what we have built and achieved in the past six years, and also to chart a course in which an equal and more just, muiti-racial, multi-lingual, multi-religious and multi-cultural nation will emerge. Lastly, Sir, to those anti-national elements who think they can create trouble in our midst, I have this to say. I think the army is not going to lie or keep still while the interests and security of our country are threatened. The army, I am positive, will deal a strong blow at such elements. So, all in all, I strongly urge this House to give its fullest support to the Bill.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I speak in support of the Singapore Army Bill introduced by the Hon.Minister of Defence. I am not going to touch on the Bill in detail, but I shall touch on matters of general policy. I must stress that the building up of a Singapore Army is an absolute necessity. We need to build an army to protect and defend our national integrity and sovereignty because we must always beware of the territorial ambitions of a hungry neighbour whose country is many times bigger than Singapore. Sir, it is because we are a small country that we must be prepared at all times to meet any emergency. There is an order in an army parade - that is, the order "On guard" is occasionally used to test the alertness of the soldiers when a parade is held. So this House will fully agree with me that we must be on guard at all times. Sir, as Singapore is a small multi-racial nation, I therefore think our army that is to be built should also be multi-racial in character. As I have just mentioned, Singapore is a small island nation. But the very fact that Singapore is a very prosperous nation in which her people are enjoying the highest standard of living in South-East Asia is amongst her bigger and stronger neighbours. This may, therefore, tempt her bigger and hungry neighbours to try to swallow us up, not only to rob us of our hard-earned wealth, but also of our homes and also with a view to enslaving us. Sir, I am sure you yourself would not like to be shackled nor put in chains. Further, I think all able young men who have the interests of our country at heart should choose army life as a career. They can be assured of an interesting and adventurous life in the army.”
“I believe this proposal of mine can help, in however small a way, in this urgent task and I humbly beg to put it forward for the consideration of hon. Members of this House.”
“This is some kind of insurance against default of payment by overseas buyers. At present, manufacturers, especially the smaller ones with a modest capital, are reluctant to export even if they could do so for fear that they may lose their capital. With this fear removed, we can expect to see a greater drive in industry to export. Many industrialised nations to whom an export market is important have this export guarantee system. Japan and the United Kingdom are two of the countries that come to mind. I confess that I have not made a study of any existing system and cannot, therefore, recommend how this system in our country should be set up. This task I shall leave to the experts in this field. I wish, however, to anticipate one criticism that is invariably levelled against any export guarantee system, i.e., that it invites reckless exporting by manufacturers resulting in a loss to the exchequer though not to the manufacturers themselves. This may be true in uncontrolled 100 per cent guarantee. But this defect can easily be overcome by guaranteeing not the full amount of the exports, but, say, 50 per cent. This will leave manufacturers to bear a proportion of the loss and will induce them to exercise caution. Further, exports can be controlled by commodity selection for export and quality control grading of export markets according to their risk, etc. But these are details which, as I have said, I shall leave to the experts. I also envisage this agency working hand in glove with our overseas trade missions which will advertise our products abroad and provide us with accurate information about the conditions and needs of our overseas markets. Mr Speaker, Sir, finding overseas markets to support our industries has become an urgent task in our exercise for survival.”
“Pioneer industries enjoy special privileges, the most important of which is exemption from income tax for five years. Most of the new industries, therefore, would enjoy tax exemption for an initial period of five years and the double deduction in respect of expenses for overseas market development does not, therefore, benefit these pioneer industries. The same argument applies to accelerated depreciation, although in this case it is possible for manufacturers to postpone depreciation until after the first five years, i.e., after the period in which they are exempted from income tax. It is also well known that taxation is not a disincentive for capitalists. The reason is that as long as there is money to be made, capitalists do not mind paying taxes. What they worry most is the prospect of losing money. Exporting to overseas markets is a new experience to many of our industrialists. It is something of an adventure to them. To sell our goods abroad, we must give the foreign buyers some sort of inducement. We can hardly expect them to buy for cash. We would, therefore, have to sell on credit. It would be a great help, of course, if the Government could finance this export trade, especially for the small manufacturers. But this would throw an unbearable burden upon the exchequer. Financing the export trade is a more risky business than financing internal trade. This is especially so when we have to break into new markets overseas. So even if private industries can find the money to finance their exports, they would be slow to do so unless there is some sort of guarantee that their capital will not be lost. And here is where the Government can help. I have in mind, Mr Speaker, Sir, some kind of an export guarantee agency.”
“Even before Singapore joined Malaysia, Singapore embarked on a programme of industrialisation as the traditional entrepot trade was found to be insufficient and unable to create enough job opportunities for our fast growing working population. After Malaysia, however, industrialisation proceeded on the not unjustifiable basis that there would be a Common Market. With the separation of Singapore from Malaysia, the prospects of a Common Market become remote. Singapore by herself, however, forms too small a market to support an industrialisation programme. In order to industrialise effectively, an alternative to the Common Market must be found; in other words, we must find alternative markets to absorb the goods that our factories are able to produce. Unless these markets are found, our industrialisation programme will come to grief and we will face more than an unemployment problem. It is gratifying to note, therefore, that the Government is doing its utmost to find overseas export markets for our industrial goods. It is doing so on the official level by direct approaches to foreign governments. It is also encouraging private enterprises to look for overseas markets by providing suitable incentives like double deduction for tax purposes for market development overseas and for increased allowance for advertising. There is the further provision for an accelerated rate of depreciation for tax purposes for export-orientated industries. These measures proposed by the Finance Minister may be powerful incentives in normal times. We are, however, living in times that are not quite normal. Our industries are not long established. Most of them have just started production. Most of them too are pioneer industries.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I wish to congratulate the Finance Minister on presenting to this House a practical and useful Budget. There are inherent difficulties facing any Finance Minister in budgetting for this small island State. We are a small nation with a population of some two million and we have no natural resources. We have a big neighbour with whom, in so many ways, we are still closely linked. For example, we share a common currency. Because of this close link, any Finance Minister will have to look over his shoulder to see that any of his proposals will not invite retaliation from across the Causeway, or that any proposal will not be defeated simply because our neighbour is there. Let me give an example to illustrate my point. The income tax on companies is 40 per cent in Singapore. It is also 40 per cent in the Federation. Should we decide to raise the tax on companies to, say, 50 per cent, we have to make sure that the Federation do likewise. Otherwise, companies will move to Johore and conduct their business from across the Causeway. This little example goes to show the difficulties our Finance Minister faces in formulating economic policies for Singapore. It further goes to show how unnatural it is that Singapore and the Federation should be two economic entities instead of one whole. Be that as it may, we are now independent and sovereign. We have to manage our own affairs. The problems after independence are not quite the same as those before independence. We must find ways of meeting these problems. We must respond to the challenge.”
“All the emphasis is on material happiness and mechanical control, and what I fear is that in lowering our population rate by the sort of campaign envisaged here, we are in grave danger of lowering the whole moral tone of our people. We are producing a generation of soft and thoroughly selfish people, interested solely in their own comfort, lacking the vigour and generosity which are so vital to our nation today. If this should happen, the cure, in my opinion, would be much worse than the disease. 4.07 p.m.”
“For instance, to tell a woman, whose family due to financial difficulties have to accept public assistance, that unless she consents to family planning, she may not get any assistance at all, would, in my opinion, be nothing short of moral blackmail. This would be victimisation of the poor. What worries me is that I do not think the White Paper makes it sufficiently clear that the Government recognises the fact that the responsibility for deciding on the number of children they want belongs to the parents alone. The State exists to help families, not the other way round. Therefore, instead of the slogan "Family Planning for All", I would prefer to see the slogan "Responsible Parenthood for All", Another point is that the White Paper seems to ignore completely the fact that there are tens of thousands in Singapore who do not consider most of the methods mentioned here as morally acceptable forms of family planning. They consider that marriage is a noble and demanding vocation and that true happiness in marriage requires self-sacrifice, self-control and cannot he achieved just by mechanical control. Everybody must be free to follow his own conscience in this matter. But I seek an assurance from the Minister for Health that doctors and nurses in Government Service will not be required to act against their consciences by being ordered to do things which they consider morally wrong. I regret that I do not find in the White Paper any mention of the dignity of marriage and parenthood and of the necessity for a careful all-round preparation for this noble vocation. In my opinion, too much stress is put on material prosperity, as if it alone will bring happiness. There is nothing about the importance of educating our people to become morally mature responsible citizens.”
“But after reading this White Paper, I get the impression that the Government is proposing an over-simplified solution to a very complex human problem. There are some assumptions in this document that I would question. For instance, that small families are happier than large ones. Many of us here, I am sure, have been happily brought up in families, not of two or three children but of five or more. We have seen the good results of such an upbringing where children are taught discipline and tolerance, self-sacrifice and a willingness to help, in short, those virtues most needed in society today. We are always hearing about the unusually large families of 14 or 16 children living in miserable conditions. Let us not forget the many moderately large healthy and happy families who are living in modest comfort. My point is that it is one thing to provide advice and help for those who wish to space their children or to limit the size of their families. It is another thing altogether to start a campaign aimed at persuading people to have small families whether they like it or not. The White Paper constantly says that its intention is to increase the happiness of families in Singapore. But I disagree with the view that families of two or three children are necessarily happier than larger families. Secondly, the White Paper states that it is the Government's intention to advise the woman at her request of the best available method of family planning. I have nothing against this, hut I seek the assurance of the Minister for Health that no pressure would he put on anybody to volunteer for artificial methods of birth control.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, although Singapore is now out of the Federation of Malaysia, I still maintain that the people of both territories are still one and that nothing can prevent the people from thinking as one people - the people of both Malaysia and Singapore. For more than 140 years both territories were ruled by the same colonial masters, shared the same masters, and jointly struggled for independence so as to he free from the shackles of colonialism. This was achieved, hut both were to be separated after barely two years. Both are aware that whatever happens in one territory, there will he repercussions in the other. Both are inter-dependent of each other on a long-term basis in order to survive, for the simple reason that the people share a common destiny. This artificial separation by a legal stroke is not going to make the people who was one, into two separate peoples. I sincerely hope that sometime in the not too distant future, Singapore and Malaysia will be hack in one fold and become one people in which a Malaysian Malaysia will emerge. Lastly, Mr Speaker, Sir, another point I wish to bring out is about the White Paper on the Government's family planning policy. It is out of personal and religious convictions that I would like to deal with this. Furthermore, I feel certain that I am speaking for quite a large proportion of my constituents who share my views on this matter. Now, all of us realise that irresponsible parenthood is a bad thing, both for the individuals concerned and for the State. I would he very happy, therefore, to support the Government in a campaign to educate the people towards a more responsible attitude to parenthood.”
“This is a big step forward towards the building of a multi-linguistic and multi-racial society in which young students in our multi-racial society will not only be able to converse in more than one language but also write in and understand more than one language, and who will be geared for their future role as the leaders of tomorrow when the responsibility of government falls squarely on their shoulders. There is, I notice, an emphasis on scientific, vocational and technical education to meet the needs of industrialisation. I think our education system needs a careful reappraisal because of the circumstances, We are developing a generation of certificate-conscious and utility-conscious people and there is apparently little or no attention paid to developing the innate talents of the children, culturally or otherwise. Because the young students have so many subjects in their school curriculum and with these topics upper-most in their minds, they have practically little or no time at all to develop their cultural talents, May I propose that the Ministry of Education see to the proper channelisation of time and effort towards the teaching of the appreciation of art, music, culture, and the fine arts in the school curriculum which, after all, is part of the development of human personality. Although technicians and skilled workers are required in the industrialisation of our country as industry develops, a non-Communist, democratic, socialist government should also see to it that the citizens also know how to enjoy their leisure profitably.”
“Here again, Mr Speaker, Sir, may I quote from today's Straits Times on Zambia's attitude, or Zambia's support to such a policy? `Zambia's Minister for the Western Provinces, Mr A. B. Mutemba, ... described Singapore's foreign policy as "practical and far-sighted."' He went on: '"As a young nation you could not have done better."' In being friendly, we are not to be construed as meek and weak and that the internal affairs of our country can be tampered with. Non-interference in internal affairs should be the basis and prerequisite to the establishment of friendliness. With this clear-cut policy, we will maintain our survival in this turbulent part of the world. There are some countries which have bilateral defence treaties and which are non-aligned, and they have not been branded as neo-colonialists, in pursuing a non-aligned attitude we are prepared to accept economic, technical, military, and foreign aid without prejudice. You see, Mr Speaker, Sir, our Government can only carry out policies after much meticulous deliberation and planning, unlike the Barisan Sosialis who act on impulses. I would like to pose this question to the Barisan Sosialis since they have been shouting slogans of phoney independence, neo-colonialist and imperialist plot. What happens when Peking or Djakarta decides to recognise us? What have the Barisan Sosialis got to say on this matter? The next point, Mr Speaker, Sir, is about the education system of our country. It is heartening to note that as from next year the study of a second language, beginning with Secondary 1, will be compulsory in all secondary schools and that this second language will be additional to the medium of instruction.”
“These posters and handbills claimed that the people of Singapore would not like to fight their own people and that they wished to eat bread. Did they succeed? Far from it. They failed miserably, for the response to our country's call was overwhelming. And I am quite positive that by the middle of next year our first batch of Territorial Army volunteers would have been adequately trained to assist in the local defence of our country. Let me make this point clear to the Barisan Sosialis. They need not fear, because the Territorial Army is intended to safeguard our national integrity. But I say this: to those who resort to violence and unconstitutional methods, thereby threatening the security of our country, then we will not hesitate to deal with them firmly. Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to dwell a little on our foreign policy. First, I would like to draw the attention of this House to the noteworthy success of the Goodwill Mission headed by the Deputy Prime Minister to the Afro-Asian and some Eastern European countries. The Mission took pains to explain to these countries not only our problems regarding the presence of foreign military bases in Singapore but also our non-aligned policy, and to win and to establish friendly ties with them. We are non-aligned in any of the world power bloc conflicts, be it Western or Eastern. We wish to be friends with whoever wishes to be friends with us, so long as our domestic affairs are not interfered with. As His Excellency has said in his gracious Address - here, I quote [Hansard, 8th December, 1965, col. 11]: `Our security depends upon having the minimum number of unfriendly countries and the maximum number of friendly ones.' So this non-aligned policy is very necessary for our survival.”
“' Moreover, talks will he held soon with the United Kingdom Government to sign a bilateral defence treaty in which Britain would be responsible for the defence of the territorial integrity and sovereignty of this island State, and that the bases would not he used for aggressive purposes, it is also a well-known tact that military bases for defence purposes are highly expensive to set up and, therefore, cannot be built in one day, just as Rome was not built in a day. What happens if we ask the British to dismantle their bases when we are not yet formidably equipped to defend ourselves? We will then fall easy prey to our hungry hitter neighbours. This is what the Barisan Sosialis would like us to be - to be colonialised again. Never, I say never, will this happen so long as this Party is in power. In fact, the bases here employ some 40,000 workers who, on an average, have each to maintain a family of five. And as what the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Culture and Social Affairs has pointed out just now, the bases have directly been a source of livelihood to some 200,000 of our population of 1.9 million. A helpless situation is what the Barisan Sosialis would like to see happen, so that in a non-stable society where hunger exists and where the people are demoralised and angry with a weak government, they could capitalise and seize power in consequence. Last month, Mr Speaker, Sir, the Government instituted a campaign to recruit volunteers for our Territorial Army for local defence. Again the Barisan Sosialis came out in open condemnation of such a campaign and tried vigorously to get the people not to join. Posters and handbills were plastered all over the place calling on the people not to join the Territorial Army.”
“For consequent upon Singapore's declaration of independence, a delegation led by the Deputy Prime Minister went to the United Nations to seek Singapore's admission into the world body. And Singapore was admitted into the United Nations without dissent, not even an abstention nor opposition to admission was encountered. Some 116 members voted for our admission. Why is this so? If the independence of Singapore had been phoney, then Singapore would have been rejected on application. Mr Speaker, Sir, when our Goodwill Mission went to the Afro-Asian countries and some Eastern European countries to explain to them the circumstances leading to Singapore's eviction from Malaysia, the Mission found sympathy and understanding wherever they went, and the Mission returned home with success. Another allegation which the Barisan Sosialis made is that because of the presence of both the British military bases and some Malaysian Army units in Singapore after the declaration of independence of Singapore, this independence is phoney. To this allegation it has been explicitly explained not only to the world, but in particular to the Afro-Asian world, that the presence of the British bases is necessary for defending our territorial integrity and national sovereignty. Here, Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to quote from today's Straits Times, 15th December, back page: 'Bases: You are quite right, says Zambia Zambia's Minister for the Western Provinces, Mr A. B. Mutemba, said today that Singapore was "absolutely justified" in retaining the British bases because it was not strong enough to defend itself. He added that if there were no British bases the security of not only Singapore but also neighbouring countries like Malaysia, would he threatened.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I wish to associate myself with the Prime Minister in thanking His Excellency the Yang di-Pertuan Negara for his Speech to this House last week when he graciously declared this first Parliament open. Before I proceed to the debate proper, permit me, Sir, to make an observation on the total absence of the Hon. Members of the Opposition. The Barisan Sosialis have pointed out in their Party organ and in their local newspapers the reasons for their Members' absence and their boycott of this Session. This performance on their part can be construed as an act of irresponsibility to the constituents they represent. The Members elected to this House are to be the voice of the people and to serve their constituents well. Time and again, Mr Speaker, Sir, the Barisan Members have stressed and maintained that they represent the people. Curiously enough, they choose to absent themselves from attending this first Session of our Parliament, I really feel sorry for the people who elected them, for they are now without their representatives to voice their opinions for them in this House. Instead of bringing up their arguments in Parliament and facing up to the replies of Government Back-benchers, the Barisan Sosialis choose to use the people as the vanguard for their opinions. Truth is what we cherish and truth is painful to the Barisan Sosialis. But, nevertheless, we on the Government Benches will continue to deliver our replies in this House. Mr Speaker, Sir, on the Barisan Sosialis' allegation that Singapore's independence is an imperialist colonialist plot and, therefore, phoney, let me say this. This allegation denotes stupidity oil their part.”