Ong Teng Cheong
Singapore
“Mr Speaker, Sir, as of now, the position is this. We have signed an in-principle agreement with the Suzhou Municipality to help plan, develop and manage a township. There are two parts to this development. So far, we have put up a rough outline plan for the development of the township.”
“The consortium would include members or companies from both the Government as well as the private sector. Whether SLF will hold a significant share it has yet to be decided. I believe SLF will hold a very small share or no share at all, because, as I have said, our role is that of a facilitator.”
“Like all other projects undertaken by SLF, such as the Pasir Ris Resort, the Sentosa Beach Resort and the Orchid Country Club, the ultimate objective of SLF's investments is to help raise the social and economic status of our workers, and ensure that our workers will continue to enjoy a fair share of Singapore's progress.”
“Sir, I think Mr Chiam has got all this confused. PAP and NTUC run BEST classes jointly. NTUC does not run BEST classes by itself. George Sita, he is referring to, is a member of the SDP who stood against the PAP in the last election. He was employed jointly by NTUC and PAP.”
“NTUC Comfort is a co-operative. The taxi-drivers are members of the co-operative, and there were more than two members who had been removed from membership of the co-operative because of misbehaviour or misconduct, or arrears of their instalment payments, or whatever it is. There were many reasons why they were removed.”
“But when members of the co-operative are actively involved with opposition political parties against the PAP or NTUC, then they are acting against the resolution of the National Trade Union Congress, and it was a compliance of that resolution that action had to be taken against them.”
The complete record
Every one of 720 lines we hold for Ong Teng Cheong, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 1 of 15.
“The consortium would include members or companies from both the Government as well as the private sector. Whether SLF will hold a significant share it has yet to be decided. I believe SLF will hold a very small share or no share at all, because, as I have said, our role is that of a facilitator. It is not the objective of SLF to go into business. We will exercise prudence in our investment. Details would be released later, as we go along. So I would urge Members to be a bit more patient. SIMEI ESTATE (Facilities and services) 11. Mr Teo Chong Tee asked the Minister for National Development whether the Housing and Development Board will incorporate facilities like fast food restaurants, food courts, cinemas, banking and postal services, children's playgrounds, etc. in its additional housing and shopping development in Simei Estate.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, as of now, the position is this. We have signed an in-principle agreement with the Suzhou Municipality to help plan, develop and manage a township. There are two parts to this development. So far, we have put up a rough outline plan for the development of the township. We will form a consortium to help develop this township, that is, we will be opening the door, making the preparation for the hardware transfer, and the investment will go to Suzhou. But as far as the software transfer is concerned, ie, to administer and manage this township, we have not yet made a decision, as reported in the press. I will be going to Shandong in about a month's time to look at the situation in Shandong. This was recommended by the Prime Minister, because I have not been to Yantai and Weihai. After the trip to Shandong, we will then decide whether the software transfer will take place at Shandong or Suzhou. But the hardware transfer to Suzhou will continue. This will be carried on by the private sector, ie, the consortium.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I am not able, at this stage, to give a figure of the return on the investments. As I said, it is very preliminary at this stage and we do not even know the figures of investments in these projects in China and overseas. On the question of how this will benefit workers, as Members know, this is not a zero sum game. The Minister for Trade and Industry had explained in his closing address at the Regionalisation Forum that regionalisation will be a major thrust in the next phase of our economic development to enable Singapore to overcome its resource limitations. When our businessmen invest overseas, it does not mean that they are shutting down their operations in Singapore and relocating their businesses wholesale to another country. Their overseas investments can complement their investments at home, and it will enable them to upgrade their Singapore operations, thereby creating higher value-added jobs and also better paid jobs for our workers. This is what the Japanese and the Swiss have done. The Japanese and the Swiss MNCs invest in almost every part of the world. By expanding their businesses overseas, they ensure that their mature economies continue to grow, and their standard of living remains among the highest in the world. How do workers in Singapore benefit directly from these investments? As I have explained earlier, the ultimate objective of SLF investments is no different from its investments in Singapore, that is, to strengthen its financial resources so that it can do even more for workers in Singapore.”
“Like all other projects undertaken by SLF, such as the Pasir Ris Resort, the Sentosa Beach Resort and the Orchid Country Club, the ultimate objective of SLF's investments is to help raise the social and economic status of our workers, and ensure that our workers will continue to enjoy a fair share of Singapore's progress.”
“If successful, it will create a familiar industrial and business environment for Singapore companies which are keen on venturing into China. This way, it will help encourage the development of an external economy for Singapore. It will not only open up a new niche for Singapore, but also a window into the huge China market for our local businesses. For reasons of expediency, I have used the Singapore Labour Foundation as a vehicle to spearhead the project. The Foundation's role is therefore that of a facilitator, that is, to help open the door. As you have read in the press, we have reached an in-principle agreement with the Suzhou Government to proceed with the township development project. The Foundation will now invite the private sector to form a consortium to carry on with the project. Apart from the Suzhou project, the SLF is also exploring other economic ventures not only in China, but also in Malaysia and elsewhere. But as all these discussions are still preliminary, I am not in a position, at this point of time, to say how much money the Foundation will commit to its investments in China over the next five years. The Foundation has always exercised prudence in its investments. To fund its overseas ventures, it will use only funds derived from its investment income. The bulk of the Foundation's accumulated surplus comes from its domestic investments. These include investments in property and investment income derived from its subsidiary companies. Since 1990, the NTUC-related cooperatives also contribute part of their surpluses to the Foundation.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, since I have been personally involved in this project from the very outset, I therefore undertake to answer the question raised by the hon. Member. The Suzhou township project was widely reported in the press during my official visit to China some two weeks ago. It has generated some public interest, and I would like to take this opportunity to explain briefly the background and the role of the Singapore Labour Foundation in as far as this project is concerned. In October last year, when I was accompanying the Senior Minister on his visit to China, a Xinhua news agency reporter suggested that Singapore could help build a Singapore-style township in China. I thought it was an interesting idea, and I asked him where the location for this township should be. He said he did not know. Then, when we travelled from Wuxi to Shanghai, we stopped over at Suzhou. I noticed that Suzhou was strategically located at the heart of the Yangtze River Delta. It was close to Shanghai, about 90 km away. Hongqiao International Airport was also not too far away. That was when the idea of the Suzhou township project was mooted. In December last year, the Mayor of Suzhou visited me in Singapore. He was keen to tap the Singapore's experience and expertise. So we discussed the idea - he was excited - and he invited me to pick a site in Suzhou to build a Singapore-style industrial township. Basically, the concept is for Singapore to help plan, develop and manage the township, adopting the Singapore software, but adapted to fit into the Chinese environment. A Singapore consortium will be set up to participate in the development of the township. The project offers a unique opportunity for Singapore to export its expertise in township planning, development and management.”
“Somehow Mr Chiam refused to accept the fact that such employees are acting against the interests of the organization.”
“But when members of the co-operative are actively involved with opposition political parties against the PAP or NTUC, then they are acting against the resolution of the National Trade Union Congress, and it was a compliance of that resolution that action had to be taken against them.”
“Mr Chairman, just a point of clarification. There are many members in the Union or members in the NTUC Taxi Comfort who belong to other societies or associations or political parties. There is nothing against their involvement.”
“NTUC Comfort is a co-operative. The taxi-drivers are members of the co-operative, and there were more than two members who had been removed from membership of the co-operative because of misbehaviour or misconduct, or arrears of their instalment payments, or whatever it is. There were many reasons why they were removed. But I do not think it was because of their affiliation to any political party.”
“The NTUC-PAP BEST classes is an open programme for all members of the public. Everybody knows that it is the PAP-NTUC BEST classes. With regard to the two taxi-drivers, I do not know which two taxi-drivers he was referring to because we have ---”
“Sir, I think Mr Chiam has got all this confused. PAP and NTUC run BEST classes jointly. NTUC does not run BEST classes by itself. George Sita, he is referring to, is a member of the SDP who stood against the PAP in the last election. He was employed jointly by NTUC and PAP. So he was an employee of PAP who stood against PAP in the last election. On that ground, PAP has all the right to remove him.”
“Sir, NTUC has not sacked any of its employee who belongs to any political party and if Mr Chiam thinks so, I would like him to name one.”
“I did not say that. People will be asking whether it is embarrassing.”
“Withdraw first and then bring it up later, if he can confirm it.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, what I am saying is that there is no such thing. The union members were not paid a single cent to attend the rally. The Member for Potong Pasir said he was told by a union member that they were paid to attend the rally. Then he had better verify that; confirm it. Name the person or withdraw that statement. Will he agree?”
“Or withdraw. An hon. Member: How much did he pay you to say that?”
“I am not saying "no such person". I am asking the Member for Potong Pasir, because he has made an allegation, to name the person who made such an allegation. An hon. Member: Or withdraw.”
“Withdraw the statement until you prove it so.”
“That is hearsay. An hon. Member: Withdraw the statement.”
“When? At the next sitting of Parliament?”
“If it is so, then I will have to take the unions to task.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I will ask the Member for Potong Pasir to name the person.”
“Then name the person. Let us have the name.”
“No, this is a serious allegation that union members are paid to attend rallies. An hon. Member: Repeat it outside.”
“The account of all the Celebration activities held in 1984 to mark "25 Years of Nation Building" is not yet finalized. The information sought for will be given when it is available. WAIVER OF DEVELOPMENT CHARGES 2. Mr S. Vasoo asked the Minister for National Development if he will consider waiving development charges on the building of institutional facilities by voluntary welfare organizations as the properties developed are for public and social purposes.”
“I have already made that assurance. 3.05 pm”
“I have already mentioned earlier that we will have to let the scheme come into operation first. I expect, as I mentioned in my statement, that there will be a drop in demand in the first one or two months of the operation, and if it fails to achieve the objective, then I will urge. I have already said so. That is in my statement.”
“The Member's question is, whether I can assure him that I will urge the Cabinet to review the measures introduced. Is that your question?”
“You collect it first, then we will see. All right?”
“I would like the Member for Potong Pasir to quote the Prime Minister's statement. Will you please quote it? What did he say?”
“Obviously the Member for Potong Pasir is wrong. Now, how many acres of land do we have in Marina South? It is very simple. It is a question of whether you want to sell it now, or you sell it later on at an appropriate time. As I said, without MRT going to Marina South, Marina South will not be able to develop to its full potential, to a maximum density that we envisage. And without being able to develop to its maximum density, the land value will be very low, for it fetched $20 per sq foot or $200 a sq metre. With MRT going to Marina South and if you are able to develop to a high density, or plot ratio of five or six, or whatever it is, then your land value will go up, maybe to $2,000 per sq metre or more. So that is one way of justifying the construction of the MRT and extending it to Marina South. If we do not build the MRT, then Marina South will never be able to develop. It is incapable of full development as it is. That is the question. I am saying -”
“And, when we said Marina South Land would be sold to pay for the MRT construction cost, it was only a notional suggestion. We do not have to sell now to raise the money to build the MRT. We have reserves. We use the reserves. We will sell the land when the price is right, when there is a demand, so that when the buildings are completed they would be occupied and not left as empty, concrete spaces. We have got to be realistic. Those who have been talking about Marina South have not understood this. If we were to sell the land now, where are the buyers? Right? So we do not have to sell the land now. With the MRT going to Marina South, we can turn Marina South into a new City of Tomorrow, as has been explained and visualized by the First Deputy Prime Minister a few months ago.”
“The Minister for Communications is more confident than I am that the taxi drivers' income will not be adversely affected. There is a slight difference of view. So I thought that is all I have to say. But later on when the Member for Anson talked about the MRT saying that we cannot sell the Marina South land to pay for the MRT system, I thought it is necessary for me just to clarify this point because I was involved at that time as the Communications Minister. It was very clear from the very outset that the Marina South land which is a very valuable piece of asset adjoining the Central Area will not be able to develop to its full potential without proper access. As you know, if you look at Marina South, Sir, it is surrounded by water on three sides. The only access to Marina South is through Telok Ayer Basin, where there is only one road going to Marina South. This being the only access to Marina South, we cannot develop that piece of land except to leave it as an open space or perhaps some recreational development, and some residential development and perhaps some low-density commercial development. But with the MRT system providing access into Marina South, we will then open up the land for development, and hence developing the Marina South to its full potential. We all know, Sir, that Singapore is a very small island, 600 sq km, and we must not forget to keep reminding ourselves that it is a very small place. The purpose of reclaiming land is to give ourselves as much land in reserve as possible for our future generation. We do not have to develop the whole of Singapore in our generation. We must look after the future. With MRT, we will open up Marina South.”
“Give me a few minutes. The Member talks about rights of individuals, freedom of speech, and I think I should be accorded the same courtesy. I think it is fair that we give the scheme a try. I would like to take this opportunity to urge the taxi drivers to cooperate and be a bit more patient. It is not the intention of the policy or the intention of the Government to penalize them in any way. Whatever it is, it must be tried out. No one can at this stage predict what the taxi drivers income will be, how they will be affected. No one can say that.”
“No, I am putting the record straight. I have said so, and I am putting the record straight because the Member for Anson was trying to put words in my mouth.”
“I think that would be too simplistic. We are all working together for the [Interruption) - You are saying that because I am a Minister? Mr Jeyaretnam: That is right. Your colleagues are not Ministers. Are you asking for clarification or are you making a speech?”
“No, no, I would not suggest that. An hon. Member: We don't want him!”
“--- do we ask them to resign? And we heard earlier the Member for Anson agreeing with some of the economic policies of the Minister for Finance. Do we suggest that he resign from this House as Opposition Member? An hon. Member: Get him to join the PAP!”
“Just as we have Members in this House, even PAP Backbenchers, who disagree with policies of the PAP ---”
“Sir, earlier we heard the Member for Anson trying to put words in my mouth, and when I challenged him, he said, "Never mind". But this House is not a place where you can just put words in the mouth of other Members. Therefore, I thought it is important that I should put the record straight. What I did say to the reporters of The Singaporean was that the taxi fare hike seems to be a bit too high, and that it could have been more gradual. But it is very difficult at this stage to predict what the outcome will be when the scheme comes into operation. It is fair that the taxi drivers should be patient and give the scheme a try. We all know that the taxi fare in Singapore is one of the cheapest in the world, or at least the cheapest in the major cities. And taxi drivers have been urging the Government to allow a taxi fare increase for some time. I do not disagree with the policy of helping taxi drivers to help them to increase their income. And I think the intention of the Minister for Communications, with the measures that he has introduced, is to help the taxi drivers. What I said was that if the measures introduced failed to achieve that intention, then I would like to urge the Ministry of Communications, with all its expertise and resources, to review these measures. That was what I said. The Member for Anson obviously has a simplistic view of what democracy is. He asked me to resign because I expressed a view which, to him, is different from the Cabinet's. I agree that Government carries a collective view. Whatever is agreed upon, it is a collective agreement and it is a policy that we all accept. But it would be naive to expect that there is 100% consensus on all the views of the Government.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, May I be permitted to say a few words just to put the record straight?”
“Our success in nation building is based on multi-racial harmony, meritocracy, social conscience, fair sharing, efficient Government and willingness to stand up for ourselves. Singapore will continue to progress and succeed and will achieve greater heights if more Singaporeans are willing to spend time to look after not only their personal and family interests but also national and community affairs. The 25 Years of Nation Building Celebrations is much more than just a series of festivities. It is a call to all Singaporeans to come forward and serve the nation. It is a time to celebrate. It is also a time to stand up for Singapore. Question put, and agreed to. Resolved, That Parliament do now adjourn, Adjourned accordingly at Half-past Six o'clock pm to Monday, 2nd July, 1984.”
“We will defend Singapore. This is our responsibility. No one else is responsible for our security. We will not be cowed by bullies. Sir, during the last Budget debate, the Member for Anson asked; 'If the Russian navy came in full steam ahead, saying across its bow, "Singapore, here we come", what could we do?' He said that one has to be realistic. It is not difficult to guess what he means. Surrender. Kowtow. He also advised that if there is someone in front of you who is very strong, who is a giant, we should keep off his path and try to be friendly. It is all in the Hansard. If this is the way Singaporeans respond to challenges, then we will not be celebrating Singapore's nation building or National Day in the future. Is this what the Member for Anson is hoping to achieve? Sir, despite our small size, we have made life in Singapore pleasant and attractive. We have converted Singapore from a scruffy town into a litter-free Garden City. Our cultural diversity enables us to enjoy a wide range of cuisine, a variety not found in many countries. We have also enjoyed an essentially crime-free environment where our women-folk can go out or return home late at night without fear. We have excellent port facilities. We have a beautiful airport. We are constructing the MRT. We have an efficient and honest Government and a hard-working people. Besides land transport, our coastline gives excellent opportunities for water sports and recreation, and so on. These achievements and attributes are what make Singaporeans happy and proud to be Singaporeans. Therefore, Singapore is worth defending. We want to keep our heritage and our way of life, not to surrender and kow tow.”
“' From a Mrs Kartar Kaur, she said: '25 years is a short time for a country to achieve so much. At least sitting at the padang and celebrating with the thousands make us feel more a part of this show.' And from a Mr William Ng, he said: 'Every cent that has been spent on this show is worth it. What we have achieved is our nation's pride. Just look around you, and you will see the progress we have made. It certainly calls for celebration.' Sir, these are just samples of what the people of Singapore have to say about the 25 Years of Nation Building Celebrations. Singapore lacks many natural attributes connected with nationhood: one race, more or less; one language, one culture, one religion, like the Japanese, British, German, French and so on. Their people have shared the past. They are sharing the present and they are expected to share the future. They have, what historians call, the "social glue" which makes many a people a nation, a people who share that sense of common destiny. Singaporeans have no shared past. We have only a brief shared presence, a quarter of a century of nation building. We are building one people out of a heterogeneous race brought about by the accident of our colonial past. Despite adverse circumstances and lack of natural attributes, we have succeeded. Our shared success has arisen because of our shared commitment in Singapore. Our future success depends on our continuing to share this commitment. We love Singapore. Singapore is our homeland. This is where we belong.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I think the Member for Anson has just wasted 20 minutes of our time. I thought the Member was going to talk about 25 Years of Nation Building Celebrations. Except for the first one or two minutes of his speech, he has strayed away to other topics of his choice. He is confused. That is his choice. I have only 10 minutes. I shall stick to the subject of 25 Years of Nation Building Celebrations. Singapore, under the rule of the PAP, has made much progress in many fields in the last 25 years. The people of Singapore, the workers of Singapore, have every reason to look to the past with pride because they have contributed to Singapore's success. Every Singaporean knows that all these are the achievements of the people of Singapore under the leadership of the PAP since 1959. It is, therefore, fitting that Singaporeans celebrate 25 years of nation building. Singaporeans are proud of the achievements. We are proud to be Singaporeans. Obviously, the Member for Anson is not proud of what Singaporeans have achieved. He is not proud of Singaporeans. He sees no cause for celebration. Of course, he is entitled to his view and he need not have to take part in the celebrations if he does not feel inclined to do so. The 25 Years of Nation Building Celebrations began with an SBC show at the City Hall on 2nd June, 1984. It was a night of the people. More than 40,000 assembled on the Padang to join in the Celebration. Some members of the crowd were interviewed after the show, and this is what they have to say, as reported in the Sunday Times on 3rd June, 1984. From a Mr Perumal Nagesan. I quote: 'Singapore is such a small country but we have achieved so much. We are proud to be citizens and be able to contribute and be part of this nation building.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I believe all Singaporeans have the right, as anybody else, to celebrate their National Day, or nation building. If the Member for Anson does not wish to celebrate nation building and if he does not feel that he has contributed anything to nation building for the last 25 years, by all means, he does not have to take part. There is no need for him to behave like a sour grape.”
“Sir, I do not wish to repeat what has been said. What V!e have achieved over the past 25 years is something that Singaporeans can be proud of and Singaporeans will be celebrating 25 years of nation building this year.”
“The National Exhibition will be the largest ever held in Singapore. It will occupy three exhibition halls and an open exhibition area totalling 34,000 sq metres. It will feature the physical transformation of Singapore with emphasis on the tangible developments of the last 25 years and of the things to come.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the question submitted by the Member is about National Day Celebration this year. Anyway, I will explain why we are celebrating 25 years of nation building this year, not what is printed in the Order Paper here. Singapore achieved internal self-government on 3rd June, 1959 when the Singapore (Constitution) Order-in-Council came into operation. The process of nation building has continued unabated since, and much progress has been made in the economic, social and defence spheres. Singaporeans have every reason to look back to the past with pride as they contributed to these achievements. It is therefore fining that Singaporeans celebrate 25 years of nation building. The celebrations will begin with an SBC show at the City Hall on 2nd or 3rd of June and end with a month-long National Exhibition in November/December this year. National Day is one of the Celebration events. The other events, including sporting items, exhibitions, variety shows and parades, are all aimed to allow for mass participation. Singaporeans can be proud of what they have achieved over the past 25 years, and they have every right to rejoice and to participate in the celebration. Most of the events are annual affairs to be adapted and tailored to fit in with the National Celebration. Private organizations are encouraged to plan and finance their own programmes or sponsor some of the national events. The Government is expected to spend a net amount of $11 million on account of the National Celebrations. The bulk of this sum, about $8 million, will go towards meeting the cost of a month-long National Exhibition to be held at the World Trade Centre. The balance is for organizing shows, sporting events, parades, publications, publicity and the printing of promotional materials.”