S. Chandra Das
Singapore
“There is certainly a limit as to what volunteers can do. These organisations can do with additional funding from the Government. With additional funding, I believe the self-help groups can do much more. Sir, I would like to ask the Minister about the various support and assistance given to the self-help groups in Singapore.”
“Sir, ASEAN has come a long way since its founding. No one can deny that ASEAN as a regional grouping has been a great success. Not only is ASEAN strong in terms of regional grouping, it is also expanding. Vietnam has joined ASEAN in 1995. Cambodia, Laos, Myanmar are expected to join ASEAN before the end of the century.”
“The public will be able to know the actual expenditure incurred. The operators on their part must charge realistic fares, and any increase should be reasonable and commensurate with the level of service provided. In this way, the public will be satisfied and will not feel short-changed.”
“Sir, I would like to ask the Parliamentary Secretary what other measures are being considered by his Ministry. Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee: Sir, other possible measures would include confiscating the handphone, increasing the number of demerit points or, if necessary, making phone driving a specific offence.”
“Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head V of the Main Estimates be reduced by $10 in respect of Code VD 1500. Sir, there are many reasons for the success of Singapore as it stands today. The contribution of the Singapore civil service is an area which should not be underestimated.”
“Sir, I hope the media does not dub RAdm Teo as also "Mr No" from tomorrow. On that note, I withdraw my amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. The sum of $518,536,590 for Head N ordered to stand part of the Main Estimates. The sum of $769,080,900 for Head N ordered to stand part of the Development Estimates. Head L -”
The complete record
Every one of 554 lines we hold for S. Chandra Das, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 6 of 12.
“The offer for Town Councils to manage car parks, hawker centres, must be made in a meaningful way. Why, Sir, should Town Councils take on existing activity if there are no prospects of getting into even a breakeven situation? The present offer by HDB to manage car parks, hawker centres is definitely unacceptable as it would mean that Town Councils would have to raise parking charges if they are to take over the management of car parks. Sir, it is important from the point of view of Town Councils for the Minister to categorically state that any service or function taken over by Town Councils should in no way be less favourable than the present terms given to HDB estates. Sir, we have another problem in Town Councils. This refers to arrears of conservancy and service charges. I am sure this is a problem not only in Town Council estates but also in other HDB estates. As for Ang Mo Kio East Town Council, the arrears stood at $378,881. This problem has to be solved and the responsibility for collection must be clearly defined. Sir, my Town Councillors and I are also worried about inherent building defects, for example, water seepage through external walls and also the question of spalling concrete. I would like to ask the Minister whether HDB would continue to undertake such major repairs at its cost. It would be extremely difficult for Town Councils to meet cost of repairs which are inherent in the building and taken over by Town Councils. Sir, I have also addressed some other problems, on grey areas in the report. But I shall not go into detail. Sir, I am pleased to say that reaction from residents, industrial tenants, market stallholders and shopkeepers, as far as the pilot project in Ang Mo Kio East is concerned, has been an extremely positive one.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I rise to support the Town Councils Bill that is before this House. Sir, I have had the privilege to participate in a pilot Town Council project as Chairman of the Ang Mo Kio East Town Council. I am taking this opportunity to present to this House a report entitled "Overview of Ang Mo Kio East Town Council (1 September 1986 to 25 June 1988)." With your permission, Sir, may I ask the Clerk to distribute the report. [Copies of report distributed to hon. Members.] In presenting this report, I am of the opinion that this report would be of assistance to hon. Members of this House to understand what really happened in the 22-month pilot project. Sir, this report basically covers the operations and reviews achievements, grey areas and problems encountered. The report also touches on reactions from residents, industrial tenants, market stallholders and shopkeepers. It also looks into the impact it has had on grassroots leaders in Ang Mo Kio East Town Council. Finally, Sir, it also looks at some of the shortcomings, difficulties and concerns as well as the future outlook of Town Councils in Singapore. What I want to do now is really to highlight some of these items contained in the report and respectfully hope that the Minister will clarify some of the concerns. Sir, I am concerned about the role of Town Council vis-a-vis community relations and other developments. My question to the Minister is: should community relations not be part of Town Council responsibility rather than remain a responsibility of the Ministry of Community Development? Another concern which I would like to pose to the Minister is in relation to agency work undertaken by Town Councils.”
“To them, may I suggest they have a bigger cause in Australia to look after than the detainees in Singapore. Sir, human rights, I believe, is a right to have a job, a right to decent housing, a right to education and a right not to be mugged while walking in the streets. To all these busybody vigilantes, I ask: what rights are there in their own countries? There are enough problems in their own countries. So I suggest to them: please go and keep your house in order before you try to bring ours down. Mr Speaker, Sir, in conclusion, I might add that this whole episode may be a blessing in disguise. Maybe a few lessons could be learnt. Firstly, Sir, the world and the new generation of Singaporeans know how the second generation leadership thinks and acts. It has been a useful, though unwelcome, test. Foreigners may now know how to conduct their affairs with Singapore leadership based on mutual trust, mutual respect and confidence. This basic lesson cannot be over-emphasized. It will serve us and our friends well, maybe for the next 20-30 years. Secondly, Sir, younger Singaporeans should know that our prosperity and security is not a luxury. It has been earned and therefore must be guarded stoutly and defended politically at all costs and unashamedly too. The cynics among us should realize this too instead of opting for the easier and more popular approach of pandering to foreigners and kow-towing to their ideals. Sir, these two lessons are worth remembering by all Singaporeans. I support the motion.”
“Second, this lecture on political ethics was delivered publicly before the Australian government had the opportunity to seek clarification from our High Commissioner in Canberra. Sir, the Australian track record on human rights is well known and that Australians have violated human rights obligations, discriminated against the aborigines and the aborigines are not provided sufficient protection of rights in social, medical health, housing, education and cultural matters, is very well known. The plight and the position of the 250,000 aborigines is an open secret and the Singapore Government has not found it necessary to express its regret to anyone, let alone the Australian High Commissioner in Singapore or even to an Australian tourist. But the Australian government finds it necessary to comment on our internal affairs. Sir, I am confident the Minister for Foreign Affairs would have suitably responded. Here I just want to quote what the Malaysian Prime Minister had to say regarding Australia. This was publicized in the Straits Times, 20th May, "Hands-off, Mahathir warns Australia." I quote, Sir, from the Malaysian Prime Minister: 'Australians give themselves too much airs and think they should advise all the governments in Southeast Asia on how to run their countries. When Australia was at the stage of Malaysia's present development, you solved your aborigines problem by simply shooting them ...'. Sir, I do not blame the Malaysian Prime Minister for his outburst. I turn to the Committee of 100 for the Freedom of Singapore in Australia. Again, this group of self-appointed vigilantes has been condemning the Singapore Government, taking advertisements against Singapore, all because they feel that human rights have been violated.”
“Secondly, Sir, there is no suggestion that the Government should talk these matters over privately as between friends. Thirdly, the concern is not over Singapore Government but over presumed wrongdoing of the Government. Fourthly, there is a request to make available the results of the investigation into these charges. Sir, one must assume the results must be made available to the public, not secretly to the United States Government. Sir, all this was before Patrick Seong made a statutory declaration which gave the Government the lead into the Hendrickson and Francis Seow affair. Sir, then another odd thing happened on the 30th April when the Straits Times reported that our Australian friends also decided to tweak the Singapore Government's nose publicly. Mind you, Sir, Australia is also a good friend. It reported Senator Gareth Evans, speaking on behalf of the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade, as saying that his government was concerned over allegations that the public confession of the detainees "were false and the result of coercion and mistreatment while under detention". The Senator then went on to state publicly his "government's concern about the use of arbitrary detention powers under the Internal Security Act." Sir, there are two things to note about the Senator's public lecture on how the Singapore Government should conduct its affairs. One cannot recollect a similar lecture from the Australian government about the unacceptability of the ISA when Australian troops and their families were stationed in Singapore or was it convenient to have the ISA when Australian lives were involved.”
“Firstly, Sir, we have the Catholic Church organizing special masses, not for Catholics this time but for political detainees, implying the detainees were victims of Government persecution. These masses were held regularly. Sir, last week the Prime Minister in this House revealed about the understanding reached between the Vatican and the Singapore Government regarding relations between Church and State. Last Sunday, Sir, there were orders of the Archbishop, Gregory Yong that these services be stopped, which suggests that these things can be switched on and switched off with considerable ease. Who is orchestrating this, and why? That is the question Singaporeans must ask. Secondly, Sir, the Singapore Government in no way publicly implicated the United States or any other Government with the activity of the detainees. Despite this, the Straits Times on 23rd April carried a public statement from a spokesman of the United States Embassy in Singapore on the arrest - the first time an American Embassy spokesman had made public comments on ISA detentions. I quote: 'We are concerned, [he said] at their arrest following their public statement of those allegations. We are also concerned about the reported detention of the attorney who participated in the defence. It is our hope that the Government of Singapore will move quickly to clarify the circumstances of their detention and make available results of the investigation into their charges.' Sir, this is the first time the United States Government had departed from its past consistent practice of not making public its views on ISA arrests. Why did the United States do it, Sir? Is this not implicit interference? Are the Americans pressurising the Singapore Government to do basic explaining to our people?”
“The Government's message and Singaporean's anger have a broader dimension. We have an obligation to inform our people to be vigilant at all times. Mr Speaker, Sir, the mass media, human rights groups and other busybody interest groups have been very critical of us and of our actions largely because we do not behave as meek and mild as natives should. The lashings at Singapore are not only well orchestrated and identical, but sometimes even couched in the same language. The barrage comes principally from the western world. Sir, the communist world is silent, hopefully to catch the Singapore fruit should it drop from the western tree. The Third World has not joined in the stoning of Singapore and the less friendly among the Third World countries must take this to mean as a punishment for Singapore for being naively and stupidly pro-American. Even in the western world, Sir, the anti-Singapore rhetoric comes from specific disgruntled quarters who basically have an axe to grind. Sir, the anti-Singapore brigade, the pro-communists, human rights groups and self-appointed vigilantes, we should not bother too much about them. The Government and the people can deal with this handful of nobodies who fancy themselves as somebodies. Sir, in all our encounters with nuisance makers, friendly governments have adopted a correct neutrality, whatever their private views over our Government's actions. This conduct is consistent with the United Nations Charter apart from fundamental norms of decent international relations. But these arrests brought something special this time. I am referring to the confluence of pressures against Singapore. These are not merely coincidental.”
“Maybe the Minister for Trade and Industry should now lead more trade delegations to our non-traditional trading partners, like the Soviet Union, Eastern bloc, as I indicated during the debate on the budget. Mr Speaker, Sir, the United Nations Charter spells out in no uncertain terms that each member is free to determine its own system of Government, whatever its ideological persuasion. Mr Brezhnev's doctrine of extended sovereignty saw Soviet tanks rolling into Czechoslovakia. Vietnam's "socialist responsibility" saw the setting up of the puppet Heng Samrin regime in Cambodia. Sir, how we govern Singapore is entirely for Singaporeans alone to decide. Whether we govern Singapore with ISA or not is again a matter for Singaporeans only to decide. Sir, it is not the job of self-appointed vigilantes, whether be they in Washington, Beijing, Moscow, and least of all, in Canberra, Sir, to tell us what we should do. We cannot be bought or sold. Today, it may be just be an innocent invitation for dinner, tea, and one is asked to stand for election and form a credible Opposition to the ruling Government. Tomorrow, it may be a case of paying $1,000 for each vote. And in no time, Sir, as a result of vote buying and influence by foreigners, we may have in this Chamber various sections - one section may be a KGB-lobby, another may be a group of CIA-funded MPs. We must not forget MI6. Finally, we may have another group voicing the views of the PRC. Is this what we want? Sir, this is not an imaginary illustration. This is a fact of life in some countries and if we do not take stern care and corrective action, this can become a reality in this House. Sir, this is what this whole debate is about. It is not an exercise in American bashing, as many people tend to think.”
“Sir, I would like to refer to an article which appeared in the Straits Times on Wednesday, 25th May, entitled "US think-tank accuses State Department of bullying". Mr Roger A. Brooks, Director of the Asian Studies Centre of the Heritage Foundation, in an article headlined "State Department Reflex: Beating up on America's friends" published in the bulletin accused the United States Government of being, "the neighbourhood bully in East Asia." And he even goes on to say, "that the State Department treats Singapore as an enemy rather than as a close friend that it is." Sir, liberalization at the urging of the US Government has taken place and is taking place both in South Korea and Taiwan. What we read in the papers now is frequent strikes and riots in South Korea, and one can imagine what the situation would be after the Seoul Olympic Games and riots are even reported recently in Taiwan. Sir, Taiwan, Korea, Singapore, are close friends of the United States. One may begin to ask why is the United States, particularly the United States Human Rights Group, trying to destabilize three of its close friends. Are there any other motives apart from the lofty motives of human rights, liberalization, democratization, etc. Like the Member for Whampoa, I also would like to ask, is there an economic motive to destabilize the successful economies of Singapore, Taiwan and Korea? It is not necessary to destabilize Hong Kong as 1997 is approaching very fast. I hope, Sir, our Ministers will look at the interference from this angle too! In this respect, it may be useful to widen and be more liberal with our trading contacts.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, thank you for permitting me to participate in this debate. Sir, in this current debate all Singaporeans must answer two questions. Firstly, it is to ask are we in charge or are we not in charge of running our own country? Secondly, do we want to become another Lebanon, Afghanistan, Nicaragua or Panama? Sir, the answer to the first question must be a resounding yes, and to the second question, a definite no. So far, the reaction from the majority of Singaporeans, notwithstanding the Member for Potong Pasir, has been one of anger, specially so because a friendly country wants to meddle in our internal affairs. Mr Speaker, Sir, interference, whether it is as a result of an errant diplomat, or Government policy cannot and should not be tolerated. Sir, I suppose it becomes the work of an errant diplomat only when it is exposed, otherwise, Sir, it would be simply unknown "policy". The assurance given by the State Department, notwithstanding, I am not convinced that the Hendrickson affair is the work of an errant or rogue or over-zealous diplomat. From all facts available, it is the work of a trained intelligence officer. Sir, I am even prepared to accept the assurance of the State Department, but knowing the unwieldy Government apparatus in the United States, where more often than not, the left hand does not know what the right hand is doing, and the intense rivalry and jealousy between Government agencies - State Department, CIA, Pentagon, National Security Council, etc, things however can happen. It has happened before. One agency tries to do or outdo the other. Sir, the American track record for direct and indirect political interference the world over is also very difficult to ignore.”
“Why not have a big talk, country-to-country television broadcast? As you know and I know, these poor chaps have their hands tied. They have got a statutory declaration and they cannot deviate from the evidence they have given under oath. You know that.”
“This whole episode has been built up by just one or two statutory declarations of Mr Patrick Seong. That is all. And evidence obtained almost by non-accepted norms. A person is detained, a person is under great duress, under psychological pressure, and he makes a statutory declaration, and you grab it and come out with all kinds of accusations. Similarly with Mr Francis Seow. Psychological pressure can be very effective. Patrick Seong, as we know, is newly married. He has got a 15-month old baby. I think if he were single, he can take incarceration. But he is married. He has got a wife and a child. He cares for them. "You won't have a chance to see your child for the next, probably, 15 years." Is this not a kind of a threat, great psychological pressure? We have seen on television how the advertisers play on the weakness of human beings. You say, "Don't smoke." He still continues smoking. But "Don't smoke for the sake of your child", he will stop smoking. Similarly, it is the same. Francis Seow has got three families to take care. That is what was mentioned. So his jailors will say, "Look. You are in here for one year, two years. How about your families? Where are they going to get maintenance? How are they going to live?" Now this kind of a psychological pressure, you do not attack the person. I think if the man is in isolation, on his own he can take it. But he has got relations, wives, loved ones, to take care of. And he is afraid that other people who are hurt, he will come forward. So when you break the poor person down, not only he will spill the beans, as it was said, but in fact he is a willing, very co-operative person - what do you want to hear? I will let you know. So this is the sort of evidence you have. Why not sue him?”
“They told you so? Mr Chiam See Tong: If you say it is not the Americans, then it is some Americans. They want Opposition in Parliament. So you are saying that Opposition will drive our investors away and yet the very investors they want Opposition in Parliament. How do you reconcile them? So there is no truth at all in whatever you say. Sir, this whole thing is just political. We know it. It is just to direct attention away from the problems the PAP is having today. The PAP knows that the ground is very shaky for them and they want to draw people's attention away from what is really the situation in Singapore by bringing in this whole Hendrickson affair. It is really not a serious thing to Singapore, and we all know it. It is not going to jeopardize Singapore's security. It is not going to jeopardize Singapore's economy. In fact, it is not going to hurt Singapore in any way. In fact, I think the Minister for Trade and Industry has said that this man, Hendrickson, was in the Philippines and he helped the Cory Aquino government to come to power, or something to that effect. So what is wrong with that? Our Government now is helping the Cory Aquino government which Hendrickson has helped to install. Singapore supports the mini-Marshall plan to the Philippines. So in this way, Singapore Government's policy is the same as Mr Hendrickson's when he tried to install the Cory Aquino government there. And now he is trying to install probably more democracy in Singapore. You object to that? An hon. Member has said that we should reject some of the objectives of the Americans, and others are good. Now, as for democracy of America, is it good for Singapore? What is wrong with having a few more Opposition in Singapore? I think that is what the people want.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, since the Member for Potong Pasir is not here, I ask Question No. 4.”
“The Sunday Times article states, and I quote: 'But several of its provisions do seem to come so uncomfortably close to being in conflict with some basic tenets that a full debate is necessary in order that the public mind can be set at ease.' Sir, the article further complains that "retroactive legislation makes nonsense of the definition of an offence. Something is either an offence today or it is not", and also the question of an absconder is presumed to be guilty for the purposes of this Bill. Sir, again, Asiaweek continues to say that this Bill has caused a stir among local lawyers, largely because the provisions violate a fundamental principle of natural justice, and other comments are laced with quotations from Mr Francis Seow and Mr J.B. Jeyaretnam. For some reason or other, no learned quotation from the Member for Potong Pasir is included in this article. Maybe the Asiaweek does not consider his views relevant. Sir, the tone of both the articles is similar, and I begin to wonder who influenced who. Nevertheless, there would be opportunity for more people and organizations, other than the articles that have appeared so far, to appear before the Select Committee, that is, if they are still concerned with the principles and not for some cheap publicity or opportunity to take a gibe at the Government. Sir, since so many lawyers appear to be unhappy, according to this Asiaweek article, I would urge the Law Society to seriously make representations to the Select Committee. I would also urge individual lawyers to take the Government seriously and offer their views and suggestions. For the moment, maybe the Minister can put to rest some of the misgivings stated in both these articles.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I rise to support the Corruption (Confiscation of Benefits) Bill. Sir, the Singapore Government's record on the way that it deals with corruption and bribery is a well-established one. This is a record which is the envy of many countries and it is important that we not only maintain this record but also do everything posssible to enhance it. Sir, Singapore thrives because it is efficient and corruption-free in most cases and everyone can calculate the cost of doing business or working in Singapore. Uncertainty and difficulties are eliminated. This is the only way in which Singapore can grow and prosper further. The Bill before us is to further stamp out corruption and bribery and, hence, has my full support. Sir, I am also gratified by the Minister's statement when he said that he would refer this Bill to a Select Committee of Parliament. This is indeed good and wise as it will enable responsible organizations and individuals to offer their views and suggestions to the Government. Sir, originally I had not intended to speak on this Bill, but after reading the two articles which appeared, one in the Sunday Times, 27th March, and another one in Asiaweek, I thought it is best to raise this subject in this House withthe Minister. The Sunday Times article entitled "Corruption Bill conflicts with basic tenets of justice" and another entitled "Taking Aim at Corruption" in Asiaweek. Have one thing in common, that is, both are extremely critical of this piece of legislation. In fact, Sir, Asiaweek says that some Singapore lawyers have labelled it as the Teh Cheang Wan Bill. It even goes to suggest that the proposed Bill could dramatically alter certain principles of jurisprudence in Singapore.”
“Sir, I think this has turned out to be an interesting debate among Backbenchers rather than a debate with the Frontbenchers. I would like to congratulate the Chairman of the GPC on Education, his Members and his Resource Panel for an interesting and persuasive proposal. However, I am not persuaded. I tend to agree more with the views expressed by the GPC Chairman on Labour, the Member for Kebun Baru, in that we will be opening up the Pandora's box if we accept this proposal. There will be other requests. Sir, I do not want to go into the arguments except to say that if we accept this proposal, only a few will benefit. The figures have already been given by the Minister for Education. The last time we introduced a proposal to benefit a few, the graduate mother policy, you know what we had to do. We had to withdraw the policy. Do we want to do the same? I think the main problem has been identified - the problem of fewer places in the universities. The main problem is not basically financial. The Minister for Education has assured this House that he is looking at the possibility of expanding NTI to take in more students. And I think we should await the outcome of measures taken by the Ministry of Education before we seriously look at the GPC proposal.”
“Including the Opposition! Mr Yeo Choo Kok (Delta)( In Mandarin):Sir, since 1979, how much has been spent on courtesy campaigns? Secondly, for this year's campaign, what is the theme which will be directed at the Singapore people? Will it include how to take buffets in a more courteous manner? Mr Ho Kah Leong( In Mandarin):Sir, since 1979 until this year, our Ministry has spent $3.8 million in the promotion of courtesy campaigns. As regards the second question of the Member for Delta on whether in this year's campaign Singaporeans will be taught how to behave well at buffets, I would stress that the campaign covers a wider scope than that. We would like to drive home the message to the Singaporeans that we should at all times bear courtesy in mind. And Singaporeans should also be conscious of the social norm of behaviour at buffets or occasions like that. This kind of consciousness in courtesy and social etiquette should be spread by all civic organizations and all the schools so as to reach all social life more effectively. NEW DRIVING LICENCE 4. Mr Yeo Choo Kok asked the Minister for Home Affairs whether the size of the driving licence will be reduced to that of a credit card; (b) whether it is necessary to have the photograph of the licensee shown on the driving licence; and (c) whether the driving licence's validity period will be extended from 3 years to 5 years.”
“Sir, I thank the Senior Parliamentary Secretary for his reply, particularly his offer if town councils want to pursue this policy, he will consider. But before I speak for the town council, I really could not follow his earlier answer where he said that there would be congestion and therefore you cannot sublet. The problem today is that far too many people are requesting for hawker licences. So where is the question of congestion? On markets, some of them are empty in the afternoon and some may be empty in the morning. It is the slack period. So you could use this slack period and make some other people on the waiting list happy. But as far as the town council is concerned, I will take the Senior Parliamentary Secretary quite seriously and discuss it with my town council. Maybe before the week is cut, he will get a proposal from us.”
“In this case, we can tackle two problems. One, we can have less people on the waiting list and yet at the same time I think the hawker centres could be better utilized.”
“Sir, I would like to raise an issue on the hawker licensing policy. Currently, hawker licenses are being issued by the Ministry of the Environment, and the HDB, on the strength of these licences, allocates stalls to the various licence holders. I would like to confine my remarks purely to the hawker centres with particular reference to cooked food stalls. These stalls once allocated to the licence holders are not transferable. They are only given to the holder and in some cases the holder of the licence is allowed or permitted by the HDB to employ helpers. This is the present situation. Sir, there are many hawker centres in Singapore and I am a little concerned about the utilization of these hawker centres. In fact, the hawker centre in my constituency is grossly under-utilized in the sense that by 1.30 or 2 o'clock in the afternoon, all the hawkers close their shops and the place is totally empty. To my mind, the resources of the centre itself are totally under-utilized and it is a waste of resources. On the other hand, we have many people on the waiting list wanting hawker stalls. I think all MPs here will agree that the request for cooked food stalls is an unending one in our regular Meet-the-People sessions. Sir, I am wondering whether the Ministry of the Environment might consider allowing the current holders of hawker licences, particularly cooked food stalls, to sublet their stalls for the time or period of the day they are not operating their stalls. Controls could be imposed. I think at the moment they are not allowed to sublet or transfer. All I am suggesting is that maybe, for the period they are not utilizing the stalls, they could sublet, maybe on a private basis, to people on the waiting list or based on other approved criteria.”
“Sir, I do not agree with the answers given by the Minister, but I have no choice but to withdraw my amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Thereupon Mr Deputy Speaker left the Chair of the Committee and took the Chair of the House.”
“Sir, I would like to raise a question with the Minister regarding SBC programmes, particularly the Tamil News which is now on Channel 8 at 6.25 pm each day. The Malay News is at 7.30 pm, Chinese News at 8.00 pm, English News at 9.00 pm. Viewers of Tamil News find that this programme at 6.25 pm is rather inconvenient. Working adults and school children in the afternoon schools are unable to take advantage of this programme because they return home well after 6.30 pm from their work place or from their schools. Sir, I am sure the Minister will agree with me that the programme telecast should serve the viewership it is meant for. Representations on this subject have been made to the SBC. Maybe the Minister can use his good offices and persuade the authorities in SBC to shift the Tamil News slot on Channel 8 to at least 7.00 pm in the evening.”
“Sir, the Minister has identified the HDB estates as a litter-prone area. Would the Minister for the Environment be prepared to give town councils when they are established a more effective role in litter control?”
“Sir, for the benefit of Singaporeans and Members of this House, can the Minister explain what this new device is all about?”
“Sir, I would like to highlight one problem regarding the use of void decks. Sir, the parking of vehicles, particularly motor cycles in void decks, is becoming a serious problem, especially to us in Ang Mo Kio East Town Council. I am sure this is a problem for other housing estates too. Parking of motorcycles in void decks is fairly rampant and I am told now that current legislation which is available is unable to take care of this problem. I would like to ask the Minister whether he is aware of this problem. If so, does the Ministry have any plans to introduce necessary legislation to take care of this problem?”
“Sir, I thank you for allowing me to speak. Sir, I am speaking in my capacity as Chairman of the Ang Mo Kio East Town Council. Since the establishment of the three pilot projects, there is greater awareness and acceptance of town councils. We have conducted a survey in Ang Mo Kio East Town Council and have found that there is a very high level of awareness, in fact, well over 95% are well aware of the functions of the Town Council and the activities of the Town Council. I am also pleased to report that there has been a general improvement in the level of service since the formation of town councils. Sir, in speaking on this amendment, I would like to get confirmation from the Minister that after the setting up of town councils, HDB will continue to provide improvements and changes to town council constituencies if such improvements are made for non-town council constituencies. I am asking for this so that town council constituencies would not be disadvantaged vis-a-vis non-town council constituencies. A categorical statement by the Minister will help allay any such fears among the town councils.”
“I withdraw my amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.”
“Sir, the Government Parliamentary Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence at its meeting also raised the question of a Foreign Service Commission for recruit- ment of Foreign Service officers in the same meeting held on 3rd December 1987. In making this proposal we felt that the needs of the Foreign Service are rather special and that the general recruitment currently practised under the auspices of the Public Service Commission is not the most appropriate for the Foreign Service. Sir, an independent Foreign Service Commission would operate like, I believe, the Legal Service Commission and the Public Service Commission can have its representative so as to ensure that proper rules and procedures are followed and leaving the Foreign Service people to really recruit the right type of people required in the Service. Further, if a separate Foreign Service Commission can be established, we also believe that there will be only one Service in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. This will eliminate the need to have a service within the Service, as I am told presently is the case. The present system has also caused unhappiness among existing Foreign Service officers. Sir, I would like the Minister to let us know whether any progress has been made towards the establishment of an independent Foreign Service Commission.”
“In moving this amendment, the GPC Members and its resource persons are calling for further strengthening of ties, both economically and diplomatically, with non-traditional partners. The countries we have in mind are the Soviet Union, Eastern Europe, Pacific Islands and some selected countries in Africa. Sir, although we have diplomatic relations currently with some or many of them, we believe more can be done in this area. This is all the more pressing because of recent events, particularly the proposed withdrawal of GSP which has cast some doubts on the wisdom if not the validity of our over emphasis on the so-called free enterprise economies. Our present diplomatic representation overseas so far has served us well. But on closer examination we seem to think that it is rather lop-sided. As a result, we believe we are unnecessarily reducing our foreign policy options and economic opportunities. Sir, in this context, our policy stance with respect to Kampuchea raises some question. One recurring question is, have we locked ourselves in a position where we are in a no-win situation? Have we reduced our room for manoeuving or limited our degree of freedom? Sir, although fundamental political issues like territorial integrity, sovereignty, are important to us to uphold, there is very little Singapore can do politically to influence major events. Maybe as a small country with a limited role, we should take a strategic view of things. A military strategist once said, "There are no permanent allies but only permanent interests." I would like to hear from the Minister his views regarding opening up relations with our non-traditional partners.”
“Sir, I beg to move, That the total sum to be allocated for Head O of the Main Estimates be reduced by $100. Sir, Singapore being a small country, I think it is understandable that we are unable to have diplomatic representation in most countries. Sir, I believe our problem is not really money but getting suitable people to man our diplomatic mission. I can fully understand the plight of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in getting suitable people to man our existing diplomatic posts, let alone open new missions. The post of Head of Mission in London is a case in point. Sir, notwithstanding the above, the Government Parliamentary Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence and its resource panel members raised the question of appointment of Roving Ambassadors with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs at its meeting held on 3rd December 1987. We suggested the appointment of more roving ambassadors to be considered so as to widen the pool of potential ambassadors. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs has some experience with this arrangement, as in the case of our representation in Papua New Guinea and in Latin America. Sir, the GPC strongly urges the Minister for Foreign Affairs to appoint more roving ambassadors as this will certainly widen our worldwide coverage and at the same time get more suitable people involved in foreign service. In this context, Sir, I am pleased to inform the Minister that the GPC is prepared to help the Minister identify suitable people, if requested. Sir, I would like to ask the Minister for Foreign Affairs whether further thought has been given to this proposal and whether there are any immediate plans to appoint more roving ambassadors. Sir, I move on to another area which is the strengthening of ties and relations with non-traditional countries.”
“I withdraw my amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.”
“Sir, I would like to thank the Minister for the clarification although I would not accept all his answers, particularly on the encroachment in the private sector. I was also not recommending that the SAF becomes ---”
“But to sell table-top personal computers and build primary and secondary schools in the name of defence interests is a little hard to accept. Maybe the Minister has some answers for this. Sir, my third topic really relates to bilateral and multilateral defence cooperation. I would like to ask the Minister for Defence on the importance of the Five Power Defence Arrangement and the Integrated Air Defence System with regard to our security and defence. Both these defence arrangements were established in 1971 together with Australia, New Zealand, Malaysia and United Kingdom. Is this arrangement still relevant in today's context or do we see changes in the role of the Five Power Defence Arrangement and the Integrated Air Defence System? My second comment relates to Asean. Sir, although Asean is not a military alliance, I believe we have on-going bilateral and multilateral military relations with our friends. I think it is extremely important to promote bilateral as well as multilateral military cooperation among our Asean friends. This will help to foster better understanding among the Armed Forces in Asean and promote Asean political identity. Cooperation in this field will have both short-term as well as long-term benefits. In this respect, I would call for greater - what one might describe as - military diplomacy within Asean. Currently, contacts between political leaders in Asean is an on-going process and this can be easily extended to the military leadership as well. Contacts both at political as well as military level will go a long way to ensure peace, prosperity and stability in Asean.”
“And for an island State like ours, its role should be no less. The Minister himself has mentioned about the important role of the Navy in looking after seaward defence and the maintenance of sea lanes of communication. Maybe the Minister can correct our perception that maybe they were wrong perceptions about the Navy. Sir, now I would like to turn on to the question of defence industries in Singapore. I raise this question on defence industries for two main reasons. Firstly, we always talk about Total Defence and in this connection, I would like to ask the Minister as to the capability of our defence industries, more importantly, do we have the technological capability? In the case of defence industries, Sir, are we trying to achieve self-sufficiency? Are the defence industries geared for domestic requirements or do they have an export capability as well? If they have an export capability, have we been successful in exporting to other countries? Maybe the Minister can inform this House of the state of our defence industries. Sir, my second point refers to the question of defence industries' companies offering their services and wares in the general market place. To put it more strongly, encroachment of defence-related companies in the private sector. I have heard of complaints from private businessmen about one defence-related company selling personal computers in competition with other local companies. And another defence-related company vying for jobs in the construction sector, I believe building primary and secondary schools. Sir, I believe there would be no objections or complaints if our defence-related companies handle sophisticated big frame computers for defence industries or build military installations or barracks.”
“Unfortunately, Sir, participation at these passing-out parades is confined to a selected few - parents, invited guests and VIPs. I have been privileged to witness a few of these passing-out parades and I must say I was greatly impressed on each occasion. One felt a sense of pride and admiration for the young officers in the Armed Forces. Sir, my question to the Minister is: why confine such activities to only a privileged few? In fact, I would strongly urge the Minister to make at least one major passing-out parade a national event, possibly at the Padang. Televise the programme, if necessary, so that all Singaporeans can participate and take pride in such an event. It will also act as an additional boost to our young officers. This, in fact, could be institutionalized as an event in our national calendar. I hope the Minister will give some consideration to this recommendation from the GPC on Defence and Foreign Affairs. Sir, again on the profile of the Armed Forces, I would like to refer to the role of the Navy. When the Government Parliamentary Committee on Defence, its members and resource persons paid a visit to the Navy earlier this year, we commented about the low profile of the Navy in connection with the other two wings of the Forces, ie, the Army and the Air Force. I have observed, Sir, the Army has a few Generals and I believe the Air Force has also acquired a General recently but the poor Navy, unfortunately, has no General and not even a Rear-Admiral. Maybe he is left in the rear. But I am not very sure. But I am not for a moment suggesting that you give quick promotion in the Navy. But from our point of view, the Navy seems to be treated like a poor third cousin. Sir, in most countries the Navy is a premier service.”
“Sir, I beg to move, That the total sum to be allocated for Head K of the Main Estimates be reduced by $100. Sir, I am glad to note that the Defence budget is still within 6% of our gross domestic product. However, I would like to point out that we are getting very close to the 6% and it is incumbent on the Ministry to make sure that every dollar of expenditure counts. However, I am equally confident that the Ministry of Defence will achieve what the Minister once stated in this House, and I quote: 'We are talking about the competence of the SAF as one fighting force, making sure that we spend the money in the right areas, making sure that we buy the correct equipment, and having bought the equipment, to maintain it, to see that it is in running order, to have the training to use it properly, to define the doctrines to employ them to the greatest effect, and to have the intelligence to apply the devastating blow in war which will make our present investments pay off.' Sir, with these preliminary remarks, I would like to confine my comments on the profile of the Armed Forces. Sir, national service and the activities of the Armed Forces are becoming an integral part in the lives of every Singaporean. I am convinced, Sir, that much more can be done to make it become a rallying point for a multi-racial effort, in fact, in total nation building. I would urge the Ministry of Defence to have more frequent open houses, visits to installations and bases, demonstrations of weaponry, jungle survival, etc, so that more Singaporeans, not only grassroots leaders, can become more informed about the activities of the Singapore Armed Forces. Here, Sir, I would like to draw the attention of the Minister to the various passing-out parades held by the Ministry of Defence.”
“Insofar as external factors are concerned, Sir, we have very little control and we should not fret ourselves unnecessarily. However, as far as domestic factors are concerned, I believe it is incumbent on the Government to send out the right signals and minimize the uncertainties over rising cost of doing business in Singapore. The Minister made a fairly categorical statement regarding the deferment of consumption tax. I believe it would be useful if the Government can be more forthright over the other issues.”
“However, Sir, non-priority industries will also have an opportunity to bid for foreign labour if they are prepared to pay the additional premium. The two-tier levy system will be flexible particularly in meeting the needs of many of our small and medium-sized companies and this, I believe, would enable them to play a meaningful and significant role in our national economic development. Sir, in a single-tier system many small local companies are denied foreign workers because they are not considered as priority industries. Therefore, there is indeed unhappiness and largely because of denial of foreign workers. Sir, our economic goal is to develop Singapore into a Total Business Centre where I believe there is room for both MNCs, foreign and local, as well as a vibrant and profitable SME sector. I would urge the Finance Minister and his colleague, the Labour Minister, to give some thought to this question of a two-tier levy system for foreign workers. I sincerely believe this two-tier foreign workers'levy system would help to continually achieve our stated economic goal. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, my other comment relates to the general mood in the business community as a result of this Budget Statement. The Minister has made it clear that the various cost-cutting measures and fiscal measures are not intended to be permanent features and will be withdrawn as soon as the economic situation warrants it. As a result, domestically, there is caution over imminent rising operating costs such as CPF rates, SDF levy, withdrawal of JTC concessions, etc, etc. Internationally, there is caution over protectionism and exchange rate uncertainties. All these can give rise to undesirable and sometimes self-fulfilling prophecies of doom and gloom.”
“However, instead of introducing a flat rate of $170 per month for "Other Foreign Workers" with effect from 1st April 1988, I would respectfully suggest to both the Finance Minister and his colleague, the Labour Minister, that perhaps they might consider the feasibility of having a two-tier levy system for foreign workers. The question to ask is: why a two-tier levy system for foreign workers? Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the conventional dichotomy of classifying industries into either Sunrise or Sunset is a good simplifying tool but I doubt it is a useful policy guide. Increasingly, the key to profitability of any business enterprise lies in the effective integration of business strategies, human resources and introduction of higher technology. Sunset indus- tries can be given, in my opinion, a new lease of life with sunrise technologies and management methods. The experience of companies in Japan has shown that companies in sunset industries have successfully upgraded and diversified into profitable operations. It can be concluded, up to a point, that there are no sunset or sunrise industries. In fact, there are only sunrise and sunset management techniques or technologies. In other words, Sir, I believe the two-tier levy for foreign workers would be an effective way for Government to encourage many Singapore SMEs, in particular, to shift into sunrise production methods and management to provide quality and competitively-priced goods and services. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, implementing such a system would mean that we will send the right signals to investors and businessmen alike. In the recruitment of foreign labour, preference will be given to priority industries.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, this Budget Statement presented by the Minister for Finance on 4th March is best described as a holding Budget. It is a Budget of caution designed to anticipate and react to the uncertainties of the global economy. In my opinion, it is extremely realistic in the sense that it is aimed at keeping Singapore's economic recovery on course. Apart from the increase in the levy on foreign workers, there are no drastic tax increases nor withdrawal of concessions given to firms two years ago to help them cut operating expenses and improve international competitiveness. Sir, in fact, the key element in managing our economy is flexibility which, in turn, will allow Government to respond quickly and appropriately to changing circumstances, both internationally and domestically. This comes out clearly in this Budget Statement. With your permission, Sir, I would like to touch on some measures which affect the domestic economy. As the Finance Minister pointed out in his Statement, the demand for foreign workers has been increasing steadily and rapidly, and manufacturing companies have been recruiting about 2,500 foreign workers each month. This is no doubt a worrisome trend and, if no possible step is taken by the Government, then the social and economic costs of increasingly depending on foreign workers would be uncomfortably high to Singapore in general. Under the circumstances, the foreign workers' levy is the second best mechanism to regulate the demand for foreign labour.”
“One then must ask the US Administration how this action against Singapore will help reduce trade deficit. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I am raising this subject in this House because I feel that we have been unjustly treated by the US Administration. What I cannot understand is that if there is an agreement or understanding between the US and Singapore about the linkage between a favourable GSP package and for the enactment of the Copyright Act, then surely it is not asking too much that such understanding be honoured. I hope, Sir, that the Singapore Government will make public whatever documents there are to tell our public and the world at large of the US breach of faith. It is important that this be made public in order to set the record straight. Sir, I also call upon the Government at the same time to take all appropriate measures to put our case strongly to the US Administration. The mood in the US for the time being may not be right because of the impending US election. Nevertheless, Sir, we should not take this action lying down.”
“But if you murder one and shoot three other persons at the same time, then the saying is either you have gone berserk or amok. Sir, the US Administration has chosen to lump us together with the other far more dominant NIC's. Not only were we ignored but apparently we were trampled as well. Sir, I am not saying that Singapore should never be graduated. We all know sometime we must be graduated and we must assume our responsibilities. We have many things in common with the Americans. We both share certain com- mon political and economic values. We both believe in democracy and free enterprise economic system. Both countries believe in free and open trade policies. Singapore has always looked upon the US as the leader of the free world and a dependable partner for free and equal trade. Of course, there are some among us who pontificate that if we are slapped on the right cheek we should offer the left. They advise us that we should not act rashly or hastily and descend at the same time to the same level of the Americans. They even suggested that the American word may not be good. But that does not mean that Singapore should do the same. Sir, to these pundits, I say they should be preaching this to the US and not to us. We are really the aggrieved party. Sir, the removal of GSP status does not mean we are doomed. It means that, from 1st January 1989, US importers will have to pay a tariff of S$70 million or thereabouts for the same level of imports from Singapore. The bulk of these exports to the US under the GSP are parts and components, largely manufactured by US companies in Singapore. This will mean higher costs to US manufacturers and, I believe, will thus further reduce US export competitiveness.”
“Sir, much has been said and written about the withdrawal of GSP status for Singapore by the US Administration over the last few weeks. I think it is important to establish certain basic points in this House. At the outset, I must state that I am well aware that the GSP status is a privilege given and not a right. In fact, Sir, we should be thankful for this privilege. Sir, the question that bothers me is: Why the sudden withdrawal? We were told in this House that there was a linkage between the introduction of the Copyright Act and the granting of a new GSP package by the United States Government. This House, Sir, accordingly enacted one of the stiffest Copyright regulations in the world and undoubtedly one of the main beneficiaries was the United States. In return, Sir, a new and favourable GSP package was given to Singapore in 1987. I am told this package, in fact, amounted to a 12% increase in monetary terms, compared to a 3% increase for Hong Kong. The improved package by the US Administration was because Singapore in good faith incorporated all the major US requests. Sir, I am also told that this package can normally be varied only on two grounds: (1) If there is a possible product graduation for sensitive items, and, (2) If Singapore surpasses the per capita income ceiling of US$8,500. Sir, Singapore has not surpassed the US$8,500 per capita income ceiling and neither has there been selective product graduation. Suddenly now the GSP status will be withdrawn with effect from 1st January 1989 for the four NICs to help invariably to reduce US trade deficit. Sir, if the target was really Taiwan and South Korea, then the US Administration should have just removed them. As someone said the other evening, if you just kill one person, then you have committed murder.”
“For the whole industry to say it is too expensive is logically impossible, because if that is the price, somebody has been willing to pay and if one company is willing to pay when a second company is not, it is most likely because the first company is better run, more profitable, better able to make use of the quotas, and therefore deserves it. It is the same principle on which we tenderout shophouses, flatted factories. It is a principle which should also be applied here. SITE FOR ST ANDREW'S ORTHOPAEDIC HOSPITAL 12. Mr Abdullah Tarmugi asked the Acting Minister for Health what are his Ministry's plans for the site and buildings of the former St Andrew's Orthopaedic Hospital at Tay Lian Teck Road. The Acting Minister for Health (Mr Yeo Cheow Tong): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the land and buildings of the former St Andrew's Hospital at Tay Lian Teck Road belong to the St Andrew's Mission. With the closure of St Andrew's Hospital, the land and buildings have been returned to the Mission. Mr Abdullah Tarmugi (Siglap): Sir, may I ask the Minister whether St. Andrew's Mission would have to get the Ministry's permission if the land and buildings were to be developed into another medical facility?”
“Sir, can I know from the Minister for Trade and Industry how much money was collected from auctioning the textile quotas and, secondly, to ask him what he proposes to do with the funds collected if this is not a revenue-generating exercise. BG Lee Hsien Loong: Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I do not have the figures but about $30 million was collected from the tender. The amount is substantial. It accrues to the Trade Development Board. It will be used for trade defence, for promoting our exports, for looking after our interests in America and Japan where it is necessary to obby for support for open trade, for free trade and for Singapore exports, in particular. Mr Goh Chee Wee: Sir, would the new system increase the cost to manufacturers and therefore affect their competitiveness? BG Lee Hsien Loong: Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, under the new system, the manufacturers will have to pay for quotas which they used to receive for free. In that sense, it will cost them more. But in two senses, it is the right thing to do. Firstly, these quotas are a scarce national resource. They belong to the State. As custodians of these quotas, it would be irresponsible of us to give them away for free. Nobody suggests that we should give manufacturers utilities for free, give them electricity at zero price, or water free, or land rent free. Quotas are just the same. They are scarce, they are valuable, they must be paid for. Secondly, it does not make sense for textile companies to say that quotas are too expensive and are putting them out of business. The quotas are only worth as much as the textile companies can afford and are able to pay.”
“His feeble attempts had failed and, in fact, failed miserably. His incoherence has not produced any new evidence but, in fact, has exposed him merely as being very shallow. The Inquiry was held at great public expense and I really would like to ask the Minister for Home Affairs how much did the Commission of Inquiry cost the Government. On 21st August, the Member for Potong Pasir admitted he had no additional evidence, either direct or hearsay. I hope the Member for Potong Pasir hopefully has learnt a lesson, ie, the next time when he asks for a Commission of Inquiry he better think twice.”
“According to the Report: 'to produce evidence that there was more to what he Government had disclosed.' Did he do this at the Inquiry? I think the people of Singapore know what he did. In the words of the Commissioners, Sir: 'Mr Chiam failed to give the Commissioners any sense of direction and purpose in his search for evidence.' The Commissioners refused to allow him to go on a fishing expedition because he did not know what he was fishing for. The Commissioners went on to say: 'He was merely groping in the dark hoping to find some wrongdoing but with no idea what the nature of the wrongdoing would be.' Sir, he also threw away an opportunity to cross-examine the Director of CPIB and other witnesses. He would have had whatever information he wanted. I am sure he is a clever lawyer. He would know how to cross-examine people and get the information which he wanted. And I think he threw away a golden opportunity to cross-examine Mr Evan Yeo and all the other CPIB witnesses. Maybe the Commissioners were right in concluding: 'Maybe he did not know what to question the witnesses about or he did not have any reason to disbelieve the testimony of each of the witnesses.' Sir, I believe the findings of the Commissioners is a serious indictment on the Member for Potong Pasir. The Commissioners expected the Member to be serious about this Inquiry since it was he who asked for it. The Commissioners were, in fact, too polite when they concluded that his conduct was extraordinary. Sir, in fact, his conduct was most deplorable. The Member must know as a lawyer that coffeeshop gossip is no basis to ask for a Commission of Inquiry. Sir, his feeble attempts had failed to cast aspersions on the integrity of our Government and our public institutions like the CPIB.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I rise to support the motion standing in the name of the Minister for Home Affairs and Second Minister for Law. Sir, the fact that the Government was prepared to set up a Commission of Inquiry is in itself indicative of the fact that, firstly, we have an open Government, that this Government has nothing to hide. And, more importantly, nobody is above the law, even if he is a Cabinet Minister. There are not many countries in the world where the government in power willingly sets up a commission of inquiry to probe into the wrongdoings of one of its ministers. This in itself is ample evidence of the strength, confidence and integrity of this Government. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, only a government which is run on the principles of higher standards of public morality and code of conduct will have the confidence and gumption to open up its books, so to speak, to the scrutiny of a public commission of inquiry. The work of the CPIB came under very close public scrutiny. And it is indeed very gratifying to note that the Commissioners in their observation, notwithstanding what the Member for Potong Pasir said, concluded: 'We are of the opinion that the CPIB has done as much as they could have usefully done in uncovering all acts of corruption and wrongdoing.' Sir, I am satisfied and I think the public generally is satisfied that the CPIB did everything that was necessary. They were thorough and there was no cover-up. It is an added testimony to the strength of the Government, in that we have a good system and it works and nobody, let alone the Member for Potong Pasir, should go round making wild allegations. What did the Member for Potong Pasir do? He called for this Inquiry in this House.”
“Sir, it is the Government's long-term strategic approach to an imminent problem. In short, the GRC and Team MPs is an additional ballast to the political and social stability in an increasingly turbulent geopolitical environment. Sir, I support the decision to refer this Bill to a Select Committee so that whatever reservations and queries some may have, there is still an opportunity for them to air their views. Sir, I support the Bill. EXEMPTED BUSINESS (Motion)”