Ong Chit Chung
Singapore
“Sir, the SAF may buy the best aircraft, best tanks and the best ships, but the real core of the SAF remains its officers and men. Without the commitment of the officers and men, the SAF would be nothing. Besides the full-time and Operationally-ready Servicemen, the SAF has to attract and retain good career officers and men.”
“Sir, I know that in geopolitical terms, it is better to keep Myanmar within ASEAN than to leave it out. It may help to prevent Myanmar from being too drawn into or be dependent on China, but there is a limit to the price for keeping Myanmar within the ASEAN fold.”
“Have we rushed into such a proposal without taking into full consideration the internal dynamics of Indonesia? What are the prospects of such an agreement to be accepted? How would the anti-competition charges against Temasek Holdings affect bilateral relations and the future flow of investments into Indonesia?”
“Sir, I wish to seek some clarifications from the Minister on Myanmar. Many of us feel that ASEAN has no teeth, but the Minister clearly thinks that ASEAN has a tongue. I would rather describe it as a tongue-in-cheek way of explaining how ASEAN deals with Myanmar.”
“Sir, I would like to ask the Senior Minister of State whether the Extradition Treaty will undermine or, to use his own word, compromise Singapore's position as an international financial centre, and whether Indonesians will hesitate to invest, put their money or buy property in Singapore because of this.”
“Mr Chairman, Sir, I will leave the Minister to describe the elephant, but I would say that the SAF has embarked on what some call a "Revolution in military affairs", employing IT and state-of-the-art technology to transform the SAF into a 3G fighting force: I believe, a decisive force, an effective deterrence against any would-be aggresso…”
The complete record
Every one of 575 lines we hold for Ong Chit Chung, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 12 of 12.
“Our two roving ambassadors to Papua New Guinea and the Latin American countries have served us well, and in the last Budget debate, the then Minister for Foreign Affairs agreed that more should be appointed. However, up to now, no new appointments have been announced. I am sure the GPC on Defence and Foreign Affairs would be happy to act as talent scout and supply the Ministry with a list of names of potential ambassadors. There is also the issue of training for the Foreign Service Officers. The diplomat's job, Sir, has become more and more complex. The current practice, however, is to recruit the officer and let him learn on the job, calling it on-the-job training. Sometimes the officers are sent overseas for short courses or post-graduate courses on an ad hoc basis. Such improvization would not do. There should be a thorough review of training. New recruits should be put through two years or at least one year of intensive training, especially training in languages, which are essential tools for the diplomat. And I believe that our Foreign Service Officers are weak in this area. The numbers, Sir, are too small for the establishment of a School for Diplomats, but surely an experienced diplomat could be appointed as the in-house Director of Training, who could draw upon the expertise of consultants from such institutions as the Fletcher School of Diplomacy and the Royal Institute of International Affairs in London. With regard to overseas missions, the GPC on Defence and Foreign Affairs has done a study and submitted a copy of the report to the Minister. In this study we found that there are glaring gaps in our overseas representation. Firstly, the NIEs constitute an area of dynamic growth and opportunities.”
“Sir, with your permission, I will take items (a) and (b) together. Sir, as our economy expands and becomes even more export-oriented, we need to expand our representation in various parts of the world. As it is, it is a more complex, and sometimes bewildering, world. My question is: have we recruited a sufficient number of high-calibre officers for this vital Foreign Service? I understand that there are at present about 100 Division I officers in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs manning the Headquarters and 26 overseas missions, and the net increase in the last few years has been insignificant. This, I believe, is hardly sufficient for our needs. I suggest that the Ministry take stock of the situation and review its recruitment exercises. Are the terms and conditions of service sufficiently attractive? We hope it will improve with today's announcement. Are the Overseas Cost of Living Allowances (OCLA) adequate? Are there any publicity campaigns in the mass media? I think that the recruitment mechanism will greatly improve if a separate Foreign Service Commission is set up to recruit and review officers for promotion. It can be structured along the line of the Legal Service Commission. The Chairman of PSC or his representative can sit on the Foreign Service Commission, but within its structure, the Commission will have greater flexibility and will be able to devote itself wholeheartedly to the task of recruiting and grooming our Foreign Service Officers. There is also a precedent in the Armed Forces Council which takes charge of all personnel matters in the SAF. We, Sir, should do likewise for the Foreign Service. And to fill the gaps in-between, the Ministry should appoint more roving ambassadors.”
“I understand that some regulars are dismayed by the stiff criteria for contract extension and the limited number of years offered for extension of service. The Minister should also state the policy for absorption into permanent service and explain if steps are taken to help servicemen who are leaving the SAF to prepare them and to help them to choose a second career.”
“Sir, I would like to follow up what Mr Das has said. The introduction of the SAF Scholarship Scheme in 1971, I believe, is a landmark in the history of our nation. The SAF scholars have contributed immensely to the success of the SAF. Some of the SAF scholars have left the SAF upon the completion of their bonds, but they are still contributing as reservists in key appointments, and wherever they serve in the civvy street, they bring with them their wealth of experience and training. The nation as a whole, I believe, is enriched and served by the SAF scholars, whether they are in or out of uniform, whether they are in the private sector or the administrative service, or on the Government Front Bench, witness the two BGs as Ministers of the Government. Sir, my question is, are we still attracting the best and the brightest to enrol as SAF scholars? Is the scheme sufficiently rewarding in view of the competition from other sectors in a prospering economy like ours? And is there an adequate core of scholars who would stay on beyond their bonds to continue to serve and lead in the SAF. Sir, I also believe that you need not only planning but teamwork to fight and win wars. Therefore, while we cultivate and groom the SAF scholars as we must, we should at the same time nurture and promote SAF officers and servicemen who enlisted as regulars in the SAF under other schemes. Sir, they are all part of the SAF team, and the chain can only be as strong as each of its component parts. In this connection, I would like to ask the Minister to clarify the Mindef policy on the granting of contracts and permanent service status to SAF regulars.”
“" Or remember Machiavelli, the 16th century Italian writer, who declared that "The foundation of state is a good military organization. The first way for a state to lose its independence is to neglect its defences." Sir, without a strong SAF, there will be no Singapore.”
“Sir, since independence, the Government has built up the SAF into a formidable fighting force, with a fearsome set of teeth which would bite the ear off any would-be aggressor, and do more. However, of late, there is some concern that we might be falling behind some of our neighbours in the acquisition of the latest military hardware and technology. According to reports, one neighbouring country has received or placed orders for American F-16 jet fighters, Rapier ground-to-air missiles, seabed mine disposal equipment, naval mine hunters, shipborne super Puma helicopters, new submarines and a significant number of new frigates, armed with harpoon missiles. Another neighbour further North has signed a Memorandum of Understanding with Britain for the purchase of o1 billion (S$3.3 billion) worth of military equipment which included Tornado jet fighters, Rapier surface-to-air missiles, Javelin ground-to-air missile launchers, 105mm field guns, 155mm howitzers and Oberon-class submarines. It is also building a large military base and is reported to be shopping around or considering the further purchase of E-2C Hawkeye airborne warning aircraft, Mirage 2000 and F-16 jet fighters. Sir, as others go on a shopping spree, we should not fall far behind. I am not saying that we should keep up with the Jones's, but to take stock of the situation and consider if our defence budget is adequate for our needs. Are we allocating sufficient manpower and financial resources to the SAF? Sir, we should learn from Sun Tzu who said, more than 2,000 years ago, that "war or defence is a matter of vital importance to the State, the province of life or death; the road to survival or ruin.”
“However, we know that in some cases the effective tax on old properties has been less than 4%. Therefore, the tax rate has increased, not decreased, I wonder if the Minister agrees with this viewpoint.”
“However, I would like to know, out of the $61 million, how much of it was spent on people whose income was less than $750 per month. Another feature of this year's budget is the promotion of certain social policies through taxation. Last year, I requested the Minister for Finance to give greater tax relief to taxpayers with handicapped dependants. The minister turnd down my request. One of the reasons he gave was that it was difficult to define "handicapped dependants". However, he was not very emphatic when he turned down my request. I felt there was still hope. I am pleased to note that this group of people who have handicapped dependants, brothers, sisters or children will have their income tax relief increased from $750 to $2,500. However, on further analysis, we find that the relief for ordinary children has been increased to $1,500. Therefore, the difference between the relief for normal children and for handicapped children is only $1,000, and the actual rebate may only be a litle over $100, assuming that taxpayers pay about 12% to 15% income tax. We know that families with handicapped children spend very much more than this amount on medical expenses, especial care, transport and education. Moreover, it is a very heavy mental burden to look after children who are handicapped, and if the families are not particularly well-off the quality of care would not be adequate. Therefore, I would like to suggest that the tax relief should be given according to the individual need. For example, if the medical expenses are very high, the quantum of tax relief should be applied with some flexibility. The last point I would like to touch on is the tax rate on owner-occupied properties which will be reduced from 23% to 4%.”
“The revenue generated was not enough to cope with the ever increasing expenditure because social welfare and medical costs have been enormous. In time their reserve's dwindled and their treasury is depleted. Foreign debts multiply. However, Singapore does not need a credit balance each year. If the expnditure is incurred on infrasturcture, such as an inproved telecommunication network transportation, airport facilities and environmental hygiene, then it is beneficial to Singapore in our development plans as a regional business and financial centre. A short-term deficit in the budget will not be a problem. The second reason is that the statutory boards in Singapore have maintained their surpluses year after year. This can be made use of to make up for a short-term deficit. In considering the public sector's financial position as a whole, the statutory boards should be included. There is a close relationship between manpower training and our future. I am happy to see that the budget for the Ministry of Education has increased from 3.5% to 3.8%. This is laudable. The BEST programme is very important. More than 116, 300 people have enrolled for these courses since the beginning. I would like to know how many of them are non-citizens, and if they return their countries eventually, then the training effort would have been wasted. Last year's Skills Development Fund outlay was about $61 million and training opportunities were created for 200,000 people. I am glad to note that more than half of the outlay was for training of workers whose monthly wages were less than $750, whereas in the past, the training had been concentrated on the middle level supervisors or managers.”
“He said that after World War II, for a number of years the budgetary deficit in percentage terms had been greater than the present one. The question was to allow the private sector to invest according to the demand of the market to stimulate the economy. Secondly, according to him, the trade deficit meant that there was s surplus in capital account. A lot of Japanese capital flowed into the US market buying up properties and bonds in the US market. This reflected the confidence of foreign investors in the US economy. Therefore the trade deficit is not a serious problem to US although it is so to many Third World countires. In Japan, the rising Japanese yen has made the Japanese to focus attention on cost reduction and productivity gains whilst they adapted themselves to the new situation. They chose to maintain market share and have not raised the prices of their goods following a rise in the exchang rate. For example, from 1985 to 1987, there was an increase in the exchange rate between Japanese yen and US dollar to the tune of 65%. Yet the export price of Japanese cars to the US had increased by only 26%. The appreciation of yen has led many Japanese to venture out of the country to invest in other countries, especially in South-east Asia, making use of the lower cost of the region to enhance their competitiveness. Therefore, to many Asian countries Japan has replaced US as the major economic power in the world. Let us look at the Budget Statement. One of the objectives is to maintain a balanced budget. This move is correct, because in many Third World countries, even in many developed countries, there have been huge deficits in their budgets.”
“Mr Lau Ping Sum (Yio Chu Kang)( In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, the Minister for Finance delivered his Budget Statement on 3rd March. This Budget Statement has three basic objectives: (1) To maintain a balanced budget for the long term; (2) To continue investing for the future; and (3) To foster growth of the private sector. When we review 1988, we find that the performance of world eocnomy has been very good. In the OECD countries, there was 4% growth; America, 3.8%; and Japan 5.8%. By the end of 1988, the forecast for had not materialised. In face, the growth in Singapore had reached 11%. For the last few years, Japan's rapid economic growth was fast catching up with the United States. In June last year, the G-7 countries met in Toronto (Canada) and the Japanese Prime Minister put up a very creditable performance. He announced that his foreign aid planned for the next five years amounted to US$5 billion. On the other hand, the US twin deficits, in the balance of trade and the budget, increased tremendously, gradually losing her image as the greatest economy of the world. Now the US government has adopted policies to promote her exports and reduce imports. There are many eminent economists in the United States. Many of them have won Nobel Prizes, and they have got MBA courses in Business Administration in the universities. And they have trained a large number of graduates who can analyze problems. However, their productivity and economic efficiency has declined. The views of the economists have been divergent. I remember mid-December last year Prof. Friedman published an article in the Wall Street Journal saying that the twin ddificit was not a grave problem.”
“Many, I suspect, are not prepared to work overseas, and some are deterred by the disruption to their families and their children's education. But as the economy develops, this is an avenue for further development. And I believe the Government should examine problems in this area. In terms of budget surplus, we must commend the Government for its financial prudence and wise stewardship in running up surpluses far exceeding its own conservative estimates. We definitely cannot complain about this. And we know that the money is being put aside for rainy day. Nevertheless, I believe that a reasonable portion of this surplus could be used creatively for the betterment of all Singaporeans, particularly for investment in education. I know that much is allocated to education, but much more could be done, for example, upgrading facilities in existing schools, building more junior colleges and accelerated implementation of single-sessions in all schools, especially primary schools. We should also think of how we can share some of our prosperity with our citizens who earn much less, for example, more flexible home- ownership schemes, and more generous bursaries for all levels of education. Finally, Sir, a word about the consumption tax. The world-wide trend is towards consumption tax, and so it is inevitable that it will reach our shores. But many are thankful that it is not implemented extensively this year. My plea is that as the Government deliberates on further measures, spare a thought, Sir, for the lower income groups and consider the impact of consumption tax on their everyday life. To them, Singapore may become less and less affordable. Sir, I support the financial policy of the Government.”
“Sir, some factors are beyond our control but we should prepare for the worst by further diversifying our economy and be less dependent on particular industries, for example, the electronics industry. We must also watch out for developments in neighbouring countries, as these developments would have, I believe, an impact on our economy. The health of Dr Mahathir is of immense interest to observers of the Malaysian scene, and there is endless speculation on the power equation and the issue of succession. And who should succeed President Suharto in Indonesia? Or what about the baffling behaviour of the Thais over the Cambo- dian issue? The Thais seem to bend like the bamboo, sometimes even before the wind is blowing. In short, we should ever be mindful that the economic cream could go sour any time. Sir, for a small nation, in effect a city-state, we have no choice but be tied up into the global economy. Indeed, with our high saving rate, local surpluses and the internal labour constraints, we should think even more of exporting our capital and services to the world. SIA and the "Singapore Girl" are our best success story in this field. But more tax and other incentives could be employed to encourage Singaporeans and Singapore-based companies to venture overseas. The tax system should also make it worthwhile for them to bring their profits or income back to Singapore. We have talked about the Swiss standard of living. But we should emulate the Swiss who work overseas and export their services in sectors like hotel management. Sir, have we identified the areas for export of services? What steps, I wonder, are being taken to encourage highly-skilled Singaporeans to work and live abroad?”
“Sir, I rise to support the motion and wish to congratulate the Government for having delivered, with the support of the people, one more good year for our country. And if I may add, may the PAP Government continue to deliver more good years for Singapore. Sir, 1988 is indeed a good year; a vintage year as the wine merchants would put it. The economy grew by 11%, the highest growth rate in this decade. Many received unprecedented or substantial bonuses. The hotels are almost full. Orchard Road is crowded with shoppers. Talks of wage increases are in the air, and Hon. Ministers and senior civil servants are expecting or can expect a pay rise. My purpose, Sir, is not to dampen this happy mood, but just wish to add a note of caution. In the midst of this prosperity, we must not be lulled into a sense of complacency nor forget so quickly the lessons of the 1985/86 recession. Sir, we are a small, open and indeed vulnerable economy, very much dependent on external trade and demand. The Minister for Finance has himself told us that the strong external demand was the main impetus of growth in 1988, contributing 90% of the growth in total demand. We are very much dependent on the world economy, particularly the economic health of the OECD countries. If the United States of America have a chill, we might catch a pneumonia. We must therefore, Sir, monitor the economies of the OECD countries, watch out for protectionism, follow closely the multi-lateral negotiations, for example GATT, and the economic summits of the G7 nations. Things can go wrong. Protectionism could raise its ugly head or there could be a banking crisis or wild fluctuations in the stock exchanges of the world.”
“I do not intend to cast any aspersion on these five learned Law Lords in the Privy Council. But I meant it as a matter of saying that they would not be much affected by the consequences of it. If I had inferred in any way their reputation, I withdraw those remarks.”
“As they sing in their song, "There'll always be an England and England will be free." Can we be sure that there will always be a Singapore and Singapore will be free? To put it in an English way, it is not cricket for five English Lords to sit in judgment over matters of security which are vital to us Singaporeans. If there is a misjudgment, they could say in far-away England that it is just too bad, but we here will have to face the music if Singapore were lost. Abolishing appeals on security matters to the Privy Council is not, Sir, a setback but setting it right, for it is an anachronism, a relic of our colonial past, as many other countries like Malaysia has long cut this link. There is, if I may say so, Sir, precedent in rejecting jurisdiction of a foreign or international court. The British government has declared that it will not consider the rulings of the European Court of Human Rights to be binding in security matters relating to Northern Island. Thus, we have every right, and indeed duty, to decide on our own national security issues. Sir, some may characterize this approach as being very typically Singaporean, as having the kia su syndrome. I say it is better to be kia su and safe, than care-free and perish. Sir, I support the amendment Bill.”
“There are good reasons for allowing the Executive to exercise such authority. Sensitive information and confidential sources relating to explosive issues and foreign governments cannot be paraded in court or in public. It could expose our sources and lead to rupture in relations with foreign governments, riots, panic or loss of confidence in Singapore as a centre for investment. Moreover, Sir, the Executive, honed by its years of experience, and, supported by a professional civil service, is well equipped to decide and take action on security matters. It has also the mandate of the people to act in the best interests of this nation. Sir, the ultimate safeguard against abuse of the internal security laws lies with the people. No government can go on detaining persons without rhyme or reason and yet get away with it. If I may quote President Abraham Lincoln, "You can fool all the people some of the time, and some of the people all the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time." An unrighteous government will be turned out at the next election in our democratic system. Sir, a related issue is appeal to the Privy Council for security cases. If we decide that Executive or Ministerial discretion is not subject to judicial review, then it makes no sense to retain the Privy Council as a court of final appeal. There are also other compelling reasons. Sir, we want to be ourselves, to decide our own fate as a sovereign nation in our Singaporean context, especially on matters of national security. Singapore is not England. England is big, secure and has a long history of traditions and identity. Singapore is small, vulnerable and is still, as you all know, searching for an identity or national ideology.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to support the amendment Bill. Sir, in my mind, the issue is clear. Are there security threats to our Republic? The answer simply is yes. There are any number of foreign powers, foreign agents, communists, communalists, fanatics and the misguided who are manipulated by others who do not wish us well, who aim to do us in, destabilize the country and subjugate us. We therefore need the internal security laws to curb them, contain their actions and prevent them from doing us harm or undermining our national security and national interests. It is painful, sad and unpleasant to detain persons without trial. No one likes to do this job. But some responsible body in this country has to exercise such authority. The question before us is who should constitute such an authority. Should it be the Government, the Executive arm elected by the people, or the judiciary? The original intention of the security laws, implemented in 1948 during the Malayan Emergency and applied in Singapore by the British, was that the Executive should be the authority for such detention and the courts should not review Ministerial or Executive decision in such security issues. This was the settled position and was confirmed by the landmark Lee Mau Seng case of 1971. But the 1988 Court of Appeal judgment clouded the issue and put a question mark over the exercise of Executive responsibility or Ministerial discretion. It is, therefore, the task of Parliament, as the supreme law-making body of this land and the elected representatives of the people, to make it amply clear and entirely unambiguous that authority and discretion in internal security rests with the Executive. If I may, Sir, paraphrase President Truman, the buck stops at the desk of the Executive.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to ask Mr Chiam whether he could confirm that he would support the proposal to expand NCMPs from 3 to 6. He is trying to wriggle out his way by giving so many comments but no firm commitment, one way or the other. Does he or does he not support the immediate expansion of NCMPs so that more Opposition voices or alternative views can be offered to this House?”
“Sir, I am expressing my views and I cannot pretend to speak for the Government leaders when I refer to the issue of the election results. I believe definitely it is a victory by all counts. But the trend is disturbing, from my own point of view. As regards representation, I think the NCMP scheme is a great step forward. We are the first to do it and I think other countries might think that we have found the key to stability in the Asian context. As Dr Lee Siew-Choh will say, he represents, in his view, part of the people of Singapore. I think we must concede to him because he won quite a number of votes. We cannot take that away from him. So I am sure Mr Chiam would agree with me that Dr Lee represents, to some extent, the voters who put in the votes for him. I would rather ask whether Mr Chiam would accept and endorse my proposal that the NCMP scheme be immediately expanded so that three other opposition candidates can come in here as NCMPs. Is he fearing some competition?”
“Sir, we are all Singaporeans, whatever our differences in approach. Or, if I may add, whatever our race, language or religion. At the end of the day, we all share a common destiny. This is our home; this is our country. Let us then be united in purpose; be part of "Singapore United" as a united football team if you wish and go for it, "to create a better life for all Singaporeans". Sir, I support the motion.”
“The proposal, Sir, floated by the Minister for Trade and Industry, for non-partisan MPs drawn from the universities and the trade unions is a step in the right direction. But this would take a number of years to work out. I have a suggestion, Sir, which I hope the Government will endorse and the Opposition MPs will support: Expand immediately the NCMP scheme from 3 to 6. Under the current scheme, we have three seats reserved for the Opposition. Mr Chiam was elected, Dr Lee came in as an NCMP and Mr Francis Seow was disqualified. Let us expand this number immediately by amending the legislation and backdate it, and allow the next three highest opposition candidates, Mr Mohamed Khalit Baboo, Mr David Chew and Mr Ling How Doong to come in here as NCMPs. Admit them into this House. The more, the merrier. We will have more spice, more variety, more input. Let them play a role in our democratic setup. This will disabuse the cynics and refute the charge that the Government tends to control the thoughts. Sir, to those who criticize the Government or take a different stand, I also have this to say. Do not just jump on the bandwagon and criticize the Government blindly, though it may be fashionable to do so. Give credit where credit is due. Indeed, I think we should also be thankful that the PAP Government has brought us 30 years of unprecedented growth, peace and prosperity. We should count our blessings. Criticize constructively, but do not be cynical or destructive. Otherwise, this country of ours will become ungovernable. If you can, offer alternative solutions to the problems of the day. If you must, argue, but never forget, as the President stated in the first sentence of his Address to this House, our "goal is to create a better life for all Singaporeans".”
“Sir, besides the poor, there are other groups of Singaporeans who feel alienated from the Government. They are young, articulate, and disenchanted with some aspects of policies or the style of government. A new generation has grown up since the 1960s and 1970s. They want dialogue. They want to be heard. They want to be consulted. They may be misguided and may not necessarily be right, but the Government should never adopt the "cleverer than thou" attitude or the "Father knows best" syndrome. Yes, the Government has the undeniable courage to implement unpopular policies for the ultimate good of this nation, but we should not trumpet this endlessly nor wear this as a badge of honour. It is, in my opinion, a rather heavy badge that drags us down. I must say in all fairness that in the last four years, the Government has adopted a more open and more consultative approach. This is good. But somehow the perception of high-handedness persists. The Government should, therefore, be righteous and fair, without being overbearing. It can be firm, without being nasty. We must have the ability to laugh at ourselves. We must swing, move and be in tune with the people. Instead of a frowning face, Government needs to show a smile, now and then. A smiling, caring and approachable Government. I know that the Government is trying its best to bridge this gap. There is room for improvement. But it is trying. I believe that this Government is committed to a democratic way of life. How else could you explain the presence of a Non-Constituency Member of Parliament like Dr Lee Siew-Choh? His presence is proof that democracy is at work here.”
“What do we do to bridge this gap between the Government and those who are disenchanted? I am sure historians in the distant future will give their considered views. Here, in the meantime, I will offer some thoughts on this subject. Sir, we must first of all give more attention to the poor and less privileged of all races. Their voices must be heard. In the midst of prosperity and arguments here about car ownership, of buying a car before the expected car increase, we tend, I think, to forget that there are amongst us who are struggling to make ends meet. Some have double jobs and many work long hours. On my house-to-house visits in Bukit Batok, some of the residents pleaded with me to convey this to the Government: Please, when you next consider increasing any fees, remember there are many at the bottom who just can't pay. To them, it is all pay and pay. They are trying to keep their heads above the water. I discovered while working on my thesis as an undergraduate that in the early years, the PAP was the champion of the poor, the down and the out. It was this that attracted me in the first instance to join the People's Action Party many years ago. But have we, Sir, lost this zeal and mission for the less privileged? More, Sir, should be done for the have-nots. I am not asking for more hand-outs or a welfare state, but more thoughts on the effects of policies and imaginative schemes to help them in key areas, for example, more liberal remission of school fees, more bursaries, and more flexibile terms for home ownership. These will help them to help themselves and contribute to this nation. Sir, at this stage of our national development, we can afford to be more caring and compassionate. We can be caring, without being soft.”
“Sir, I rise to speak in support of the motion moved by the Member for Siglap. Except for Mr Ng Pock Too, who has lost his voice and I believe will not speak this week, I am the last of the new MPs to make a maiden speech. As I contemplated last night of this prospect, I began to wonder about the origin of this term and its significance. Mr Speaker, Sir, does it mean that at the end of the day we will all lose our innocence and our virtues, whether Eastern or Western? I hope not. Mr Speaker, Sir, the 1988 General Election was a watershed in the history of our nation. We witnessed the retirement of almost all the veterans of the Long March, the first generation leaders of our independent state. More than we realize, it was the passing of an era. I wish, Sir, to pay tribute to these leaders who preceded us. They gave their best, and held nothing back in the service of this nation, to lay a firm foundation for us to build upon. The Government won all except one seat in the last Election. In most countries, this would be hailed as a landslide victory. But the votes went down by over 1%, despite the booming economy and the absence, I think, of major controversies. In my view, this is disappointing and disquieting in the context of Singapore. There were, as you know, even close-shaves in many constituencies. And some of us here today are very glad that we made it to this House. I believe, Sir, that the overwhelming majority of Singaporeans would like the PAP government to continue the good work, to have "More Good Years", but a significant number wish to send a signal to this Government to register their protest and their frustration. Sir, we can never win them all, but we must try to win most of them.”