S. Dhanabalan
Singapore
“Mr Speaker, Sir, on a point of clarification. I said in my intervention on Tuesday that the general election is the right forum to determine the electorate's support because it puts the issue in a total and correct context.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, with hindsight, of course, we can be very wise. But since one of the three islands was excluded, it was a substantial reduction in the scope of works. The assessment then, which I agreed with, was that if you called for a re-tender, you would get a substantially reduced tender.”
“To the extent that we can, we should work with countries that have a common interest, to come together and form economic groupings targeted at trade liberalisation. We have started this process within ASEAN under the AFTA Scheme. Economic linkages in groupings like APEC are also growing in significance.”
“Mr Speaker, all these questions make a lot of sense when the events are finished, and you look back. But the officer looking at the case at that time had to deal with the facts as they were at that time.”
“ASEAN countries agreed to publish all the Inclusions and Exclusions lists, as well as the full list of actual tariff reductions. The ASEAN Secretariat had since followed up and released, as scheduled, on 1st November 1993, the publications showing these lists.”
“Kallang Theatre was closed for five months in 1992 for cyclical maintenance and upgrading costing $3 million. This included a major upgrading of the toilets, recarpeting the auditorium, rewiring and repainting.”
The complete record
Every one of 1,635 lines we hold for S. Dhanabalan, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 25 of 33.
“Such support, to be quite candid, is not with the intention that the Cambodians can, with force, throw out the Vietnamese. They do not have the numbers nor the capacity but the military efforts of the Cambodians can increase the cost to the Vietnamese and help tip the balance against them. Because of the efforts of ASEAN, the US Congress, for example, came out openly in support of the non-communist resistance groups and voted a sum for their support. ASEAN also sent delegations to various countries to mobilize support for the Cambodians both in the United Nations as well as general support for the Cambodians in terms of continuing to deny Vietnam economic assistance. I think the price paid by Vietnam is much more than they had ever anticipated when they invaded Cambodia in December 1978. What we need to do now, Singapore and ASEAN, is to maintain the pressure and show Vietnam and the supporters of Vietnam that the non-communist countries have the staying power and the patience to outlast the Communists. We have been able to demonstrate that so far, and we hope to continue to demonstrate that in the coming years. The Member for Serangoon Gardens also asked, what is the interest and commitment of younger leaders to ASEAN, and what efforts are being made to establish further contacts? This can be seen at two levels. At the bilateral level, Singapore with the individual ASEAN countries as well as with ASEAN as a group. I think it will not be true from the few reports that the Member has read, and so have I, to conclude that the younger political and military leaders, whether in Indonesia or in any other country in ASEAN, are not as committed to ASEAN as the older leaders.”
“I am glad to report, and it is important to note, that with the efforts of ASEAN as well as the efforts made by the Cambodian themselves, we are confident that support from the international community for the aspirations of Cambodians will be maintained. This support, of course, has to be garnered not only in the United Nations but also in our bilateral efforts with our friends in Africa, Latin America, Asia and Europe. As far as the support in the United Nations is concerned, I think we have just about reached the maximum. 114 countries voted with ASEAN on the Cambodian problem, and I think it will be very difficult to increase this support any further. If for some reason support slips by a few, we should not be unduly alarmed. The voting in the United Nations is not only dependent upon the support of the governments but it is also sometimes dependent upon whether the member or the representative of the country concerned happens to be in his chair to press the button. So an increase or a decrease of a few in the number of members supporting the ASEAN resolutions on the subject should not, I think be read too much as an increase or decrease in the number of support for ASEAN. As to what efforts are being made to solve the Cambodian problems, basically the approach remains the same, ie, to deny Vietnam consolidation of its occupation of Cambodia and to continue to make Vietnam pay a very high price in political, economic and military terms. Let there be no mistake. The effort to deny consolidation cannot be confined only to diplomatic and economic fields. Every support must be given to the Cambodians who are waging a military struggle against Vietnamese occupation.”
“The arrangement in ASEAN is not to have regular and periodic meetings among the Heads of Governments but only to meet as and when required, which I think is a very good system. With the kind of economic problems that all our neighbours are facing, we think it is important for the ASEAN countries to get together to ensure that, in the midst of economic difficulties, we do not begin to concentrate on differences and problems with each other, and thus adversely affect the very harmonious relations that we have maintained so far. There have been proposals already made by other ASEAN members to have a summit, as was mentioned by the Member for Chong Boon. Thailand has made a proposal which has been generally supported by all the ASEAN countries. What we need to do now is to work out in some detail the specific subjects that the Heads of Governments can discuss and which lend themselves to progress. As to where the summit will be held, there is an informal understanding that summits will be rotated in alphabetical order. We have had a summit in Indonesia and Malaysia, and the next in line will be the Philippines. But it is still too early to say exactly where it will be held and when it will be held. But Singapore is keen, as are the other members, to have an early summit. As I said, we are now working on the detailed agenda for the summit. The next political problem that, I think, is worth saying a few words about is the Cambodian problem. The Member for Serangoon Gardens has asked whether the strong support for the coalition government of Democratic Kampuchea will continue, and what are the prospects for more support.”
“All these countries will be the focus of attention of the Ministry. An issue that will also concern us increasingly in the coming years is the issue of graduation. This has been a subject that has engaged our attention for some time in the past, and it will become an increasingly urgent and important problem to deal with. There are countries that feel that because of our high per capita GNP we ought to be graduated out of the class of developing countries. We have to persuade these countries that per capita GNP is not the only measure, that in fact it is not a fair measure of the state of our development. Members are already aware, I am sure, of the problems that we had with New Zealand. But I am glad to report that other countries have taken a more enlightened view on this subject and it will be the function of the Ministry to continue to, as I said, monitor and work to inform policy makers in the countries of interest to us of our problems and persuade them to have consultation with us before they take any decision. In the ASEAN context too, we will have to explore new areas for economic cooperation. Also, and this is a very important point, we need to work closely with them to maintain and strengthen confidence in the region. We all, I am sure, realize that the attractiveness of Singapore as a place for investment depends not only on sound and wise policies within Singapore but also in maintaining regional stability and harmony. It is in this context that I would like to say a few words about the subject of an ASEAN summit. It has been some time since the ASEAN Heads of Governments have met together, and the reason why they have not met earlier is that there seemed to be no pressing and urgent business for them to discuss.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I thank the two Members for speaking and raising points on this head because some of these subjects are subjects that the Members of this House ought to think about now and then and not just be concerned only with parochial issues. The first point that was raised by the Member for Chong Boon is whether there is a new thrust or new emphasis in the work of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Sir, the Ministry has always tried to balance political and diplomatic activity with supporting the efforts of the various specialized agencies in economic matters. Obviously, Sir, with the present state of the economy and with the problems we will face in the coming years, all Ministries, including the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, will have to lay greater emphasis on economic matters. Therefore, the Ministry will shift its focus, its emphasis, and give priority to working with the other specialized agencies and Ministries in protecting Singapore's economic interest overseas. We have to protect the markets that we already have. We have to protect not only access to markets but also to protect the flow of foreign investments into Singapore. Therefore, we need to very closely monitor developments in those countries which are very important to us both in terms of markets and investment. We will also have to concentrate on monitoring and working together with the other Ministries to counter the protectionist trends that are so prevalent in the developed countries today. We will have to identify and explore new trade and economic opportunities and look towards markets which have not been our traditional markets. There are opportunities that are beginning to emerge in the People's Republic of China, in India, in Latin America and in Eastern Europe.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, yesterday, when we were discussing in the Committee of Supply matters relating to Head U, we took a much longer time than was provided for in the Guillotine. In order to compensate for the extra time that we took, may I seek your consent, Sir, and the general assent of Members present, to extend the hours of sitting for today and tomorrow to 6.30 pm.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, point of order. Sir, can you please rule? I cannot find anywhere in the Standing Orders to allow a Member to just stand up and raise a complaint. It is a complaint all right, but it is not related to the Standing Orders. Is he leading to referring this to the Committee of Privileges? What is the point that he is making? Unless he is able to quote the specific Standing Order under which he is raising his item, Mr Speaker, Sir, may I very respectfully suggest that we carry on with the rest of the business.”
“The point of order is that I would like to know under which section of the Standing Orders is the Member raising his item.”
“I am moving that the complaint be referred to the Privileges Committee, Mr Speaker.”
“On a point of order, Sir. I think it is quite clear in the Standing Orders that this matter shall stand referred, without any question, to the Privileges Committee.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I wish to move under the Standing Order No. 95 (7)(b) that this matter of the Member for Anson's reference to our Judiciary, which he has refused to apologize for, be referred to the Privileges Committee for immediate consideration.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I have just been looking into the Standing Orders. Standing Order No. 95 (7)(b) states: '... any Member may rise at any time to make a complaint alleging a breach of privilege suddenly arising, and if the Speaker is satisfied that the matter complained of ... affects the privileges of Parliament and that it has been raised at the earliest opportunity, the same shall stand referred, without any question, to the Committee and no further proceedings shall be taken in the matter until the Committee has reported thereon.' I move under this Standing Order, Sir, that this matter be referred to the Privileges Committee.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, a very serious allegation has been made about a key institution in Singapore and the Member for Anson has refused, after evidence has been produced, to apologize. I move that this matter be sent to the Privileges Committee.”
“We can re-order the time, Sir, for the other heads.”
“May I seek your consent and also of Members of the House that we lift the time set for this head to enable us to continue this debate until its completion?”
“The HDB will take care of itself. Mr Chiam See Tong: I do not like to repeat, but this is what he has said. If you do not believe, you can check it out in the Budget. It must noted that out of that sum, about $5.89 billion, $6 billion will be repaid to the Government, being the price of land sold by the Government to the HDB. So the bulk of the loan is used by the HDB to purchase land from the Government.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I thought I made it clear. We sent a letter and that was the end of the matter. There was no reply and no reply is expected.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, on this point, I think Singaporeans can make their own judgment. It is not necessary for me to comment.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, there have been many reports in the news- papers. It is not my function to reply to newspaper reports or to address the contents of newspaper reports. As far as the Government is concerned, we received a Third Party Note, and the Third Party Note received by the Singapore Government from Malaysia the Government as well as our reply are communications between two governments. We have not made them public, although the newspapers have been reporting on some of the contents of this Third Party Note. Whether the reply from the Singapore Government is acceptable or not is entirely for the person who originated the communication to decide and not for anybody else. It is not the practice, when a note is sent from one government to another and a reply made, that the reply should also be responded to. If replies are to be responded to, then the first recipient has to again respond, and there will be no end to the matter. As far as the two governments involved in this issue are concerned, ie, the Malaysian Government and the Singapore Government, the matter has been put to rest. I do not therefore understand why there are still people, like the Member for Anson, who want to continue to stir the pot and create problems for our people.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the Government is always conscious of maintaining close relations with Malaysia, both at the official and personal levels. We therefore explained the context of the First Deputy Prime Minister's remarks and stressed that there was no intention to cause offence. An explanation, not an apology, was the proper response to the Malaysian Third Party Note. The Malaysian Government has accepted the Singapore Government's reply and the matter is closed.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I am sure that, as we meet here this morning, the subject that is foremost in Members' minds is the tragedy of the collapse of Hotel New World. The Minister for Home Affairs wants to make a statement and I propose that he be allowed to make the statement first, and that whatever time is spent on the Statement and questions be compensated by extending Question Time beyond 12 o'clock so as to give one full hour to Questions for Oral Answer. Sir, I therefore beg to move, That under Standing Order 10(2) a Ministerial Statement be made by the Minister for Home Affairs now. Question put, and agreed to. Resolved, That under Standing Order 10(2) a Ministerial Statement be made by the Minister for Home Affairs now. TRAGEDY OF THE COLLAPSE OF HOTEL NEW WORLD (Statement by the Minister for Home Affairs) 11.02 am”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs learned of the Pulau Langkawi tragedy at about 5 pm on 10th February 1986, which was a public holiday in Singapore. The Singapore High Commission in Kuala Lumpur was immediately alerted and the Ministry took action to inform the families of the deceased. The Ministry made arrangements, through the High Commission, to have the bodies flown back on 11th February for burial in Singapore. As there were no scheduled flights available from Pulau Langkawi to Singapore, the High Commission chartered an aircraft on behalf of the families to fly the bodies to Singapore. The bodies arrived at 5.50 pm on 11th February and they were buried on the same day under special arrangements made by the Police and the Ministry of the Environment. HOTEL IN-HOUSE VIDEO PROGRAMMES (Advertisements) 5. Mr Chng Hee Kok asked the Minister for Communications and Information whether advertisements are allowed in in-house video programmes provided in hotels. The Minister of State for Communications and Informatiom (Mr Wong Kan Seng) (for the Minister for Communications and Information): Mr Speaker, Sir, I am replying on behalf of my Minister. We have allowed hotels to provide in-house video service for the entertainment of their guests. But, like all other video operators, they are not permitted to insert advertisements in the video programmes.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, before I move the Motion for Adjournment, may I have your permission to just say a few words? We have come to the end of almost five days of debate on the President's Address. This is not just another debate on Government policy. What we have debated is a very significant and important subject. It is a significant signpost, a turning point, in our history of economic and social policy. When we look back, 10 or 15 years from now, on the President's Speech, the Report of the Economic Committee and the debate in this House, all of this will be on record as either a signpost that we noted and followed to higher ground, or a signpost that we ignored and went down into the swamps to become a mere footnote in history. As I have said, Mr Speaker, Sir, we come to the end of a very significant debate. I want to thank you, Sir, for your forbearance for sitting through this long debate. You have been the very personification of patience. I also want to thank all the Members here for speaking so freely, so frankly, for revealing their thoughts and their approach to national problems. Not all the comments, opinions and suggestions have been positive. But I am sure that my colleagues, my fellow office holders, will be grateful to note the strengths and weaknesses of those who have been friendly, those who have not been so friendly, and those who have been decidedly unfriendly. With that, Sir, may I seek your consent and the general assent of Members present to move, 'That, at its rising today, Parliament do stand adjourned till 2.30 pm on Friday, 7th March, 1986.' Mr Speaker, Sir, the change in time is to enable the Finance Minister to deliver his Budget Statement later in the afternoon.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, on a point of order. I think the word "clarification" has been abused in this House. Standing Orders are very clear. If the Member wants to clarify what he has said, he can clarify. He cannot ask me to clarify.”
“Sir, the Member for Anson, together with his colleague, cannot demand that they get equal representation in this Parliament. As I said, two does not equal 77. I was not aware, Mr Speaker, Sir, that the two of them were appointed by the PAP in order to give democracy a good name in Singapore. I want to very quickly tell the people of Singapore that we are not responsible for their appointment here. Mr Speaker, Sir, I move that this House reject the amendment and we get on with the main motion.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the proposed members of the Committee of Selection and the other Members of this House are fully aware of the responsibilities, privileges and duties of Parliament. I think we are all getting a little tired of the long and tedious speeches that we have to listen to on what we are supposed to do. The Committee of Selection after its appointment will take various considerations into account in appointing the various Committees. One consideration which it cannot avoid taking note of is that two does not equal 77. That must be a consideration in the appointment of the various Committees.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move the Motion* standing in my name, and appearing as item 2 on the Order Paper. *The Motion reads as follows:-- That this Parliament, in accordance with paragraph (1) of Standing Order 95, appoints the following as members of the Committee of Selection:-- Mr Chua Sian Chin Mr S. Dhanabalan Mr Lee Yiok Seng Mr Lim Boon Heng Encik Sidek bin Saniff Dr Tony Tan Keng Yam Dr Tay Eng Soon. Sir, this Motion is self-explanatory. The Members of the Committee of Selection will be the same as in the last Session. Nothing has happened since the last Session to warrant any change. Question proposed.”
“Sir I beg to move, That Parliament do now adjourn. Question proposed. 8.37 pm RECENT CRISIS IN THE STOCK EXCHANGE OF SINGAPORE”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the Member would have us believe that the Public Petitions Committee is no more than a purely secretarial body. And my advice is that it is not so. It has got the right to consider a petition and pronounce on it.”
“- that the particular clause establishing the Public Petitions Committee of this Parliament is not exactly the same as that in the United Kingdom. Secondly, the question of whether parliamentary privilege in this particular case has been in some way infringed is precisely the point that is before the court. And I say, "Let the court decide."”
“I think I ought to make two points clear, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir. First of all, whether this matter should be considered by the Public Petitions Committee or the Privileges Committee. I have been advised -”
“This is exactly for the House to decide.”
“We know we are going by good advice that in this particular case it does not require the House to pre-empt an interpretation by the court. Of course, the two Members would not agree with me. I do not expect them to agree with this. But I expect them to abide by the decision of this House as to whether the House should make a pronouncement immediately or leave it to the court to decide. And in this particular case I say we reject the motion, and leave it to the court to come out with its interpretation.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the point I am making is that I have also seen a memorandum running to about 50 pages. It is quite clear that this matter is not as simple as the two Members would like to make it out to be. So it is up to this House to decide whether the particulars of the case require the House to decide immediately what the interpretation should be. And I am saying we should reject the motion and the House should decide that this matter should be left to the courts to decide.”
“Yes, and this House will decide when it decides on your motion. And as to whether I, as the Leader of the House, should have submitted a report to this House, that depends precisely upon whether the matter was considered by the Committee of Privileges or the Public Petitions Committee. The Member is entitled to his opinion. As I have said, both the Attorney-General and the Solicitor-General and the Members of the Petitions Committee, did not come to a decision just in a flash. They also referred to Erskine May. They also referred to cases going back to, I do not know how many centuries.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I may not be a lawyer but I know where to go if I want legal opinion. I know whose opinion I should accept with confidence. It is up to this House certainly to decide whether they want to exercise their powers and decide on this matter of interpreting the law.”
“And interpretation of law is not as simple as the two Members would like to make them out to be, and this is precisely the issue which is now before the courts. The Public Petitions Committee sought the views of the Attorney-General whose view is that the interpretation of the section should be left to the court. The court will consider the arguments presented before it and after deliberations come to a decision on the matter. Parliament can, of course, exercise its powers and make its own interpretation where the case warrants it, for example, where it involves the privileges of a Member of this House. But the Public Petitions Committee has, in my view, quite rightly concluded that the circumstances of this particular case do not warrant pre-emptive action by Parliament and therefore accepted the opinion of the Attorney-General that the court should decide on the matter. If Mr Sivadas feels that his rights have been violated, he can, I am sure, make a cogent case in the court with the help, if necessary, of the Member for Anson and the Member for Potong Pasir in their capacity as lawyers. In the meantime, Members should accept the Report of the Public Petitions Committee and reject the motion by the Member for Anson.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I would just like to say a few words before you put the motion to the House. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the Member for Anson as well as the Member for Potong Pasir have spoken at some length on the supremacy of Parliament, especially in relation to the question of privilege, and they have made a general principle on how we ought to jealously safeguard our supremacy in these matters and protect those who appear before Parliament. A general principle is good up to a point but it must be tested against the particulars of the case. So we cannot get away from the particulars of the case before us. The Member for Anson has, in his usual fashion, made a case on the basis that the legal aspects of this are absolutely clear and that it is an open-and-shut case. This is to be expected, as I think any of us who have had dealings with lawyers would know that lawyers who appear in court are absolutely convinced and speak with great conviction of their case even though they may be defending a client who is guilty. Both the Members are quite entitled to their opinion. But I beg to differ. I would consider it wiser to put my confidence in the views of the Attorney-General and the Solicitor-General and the deliberations of the Committee on Public Petitions. The subject matter of the petition by Mr Sivadas is clearly set out in the Report of the Committee. The crux of the issue is whether Mr Sivadas is protected by parliamentary privilege under either section 4 or section 17 of the Parliament (Privileges, Immunities and Powers) Act. Mr Sivadas may well be protected. I am not denying that. On the other hand, he may not be. This depends on how the relevant sections in the law I referred to are interpreted.”
“Supplementary Information The list of events and activities to be held in the indoor stadium is as follows: Sports Basketball Volleyball Netball Sepak Takraw Tennis Badminton Table Tennis Squash (with provision to erect special court for exhibition or championship matches) Gymnastics Judo Kungfu Karate Weight Lifting Fencing Boxing Wrestling Shows Circus Ice Skating Dance Performances Parades Concerts Rallies Variety Shows Closed circuit t.v. shows Exhibitions Exhibitions Trade Fairs & Shows Horticultural Shows Aquatic Shows Conventions DEPOSITS IN CLOSED PUB ACCOUNTS 14. Mr J.B. Jeyaretnam asked the Minister for Trade and Industry if he will state the total amount held by the Public Utilities Board for deposit on accounts which have been closed and where the depositors have not been returned their deposits for some reason or other and what the PUB policy is as regards these deposits which are not claimed by depositors for some period of time.”
“(a) The new international indoor stadium will be for multi-purpose use. It will provide facilities for sports, rallies, cultural events, musical shows, exhibitions and concerts. It will be airconditioned and incorporate the latest technological advances. (b) The estimated time for completion of the stadium is three years. The estimated cost is $68 million. (c) The multi-purpose nature of the stadium makes design work rather complicated and poses a real challenge. It is prudent to selecta reliable team of consultants who have experience in designing such structures and facilities. The Singapore Sports Council (SSC) therefore decided to appoint a team of local and international consultants on an equal partnership basis. The appointment of a team involving more than one consultant firm is not a simple matter. Apart from technical competence, there must be assurance that the consultants can establish good working relationship with each other and work as one team. SSC decided to appoint a joint team of Raglan Squire & Partners and Kenzo Tange. Kenzo Tange Associates (KTA) was chosen as the foreign consultant as Prof Kenzo Tange has considerable experience working on projects in Singapore and is familiar with local conditions. He had also in 1972 drawn up a Master Plan for a "National Sports Complex" at Kallang which included an indoor stadium. As Prof Tange has done some preliminary work on the proposed indoor stadium, it is logical to appoint Kenzo Tange Associates as joint consultants to complete the project. He has also designed and supervised the construction of six multi-purpose indoor stadiums.”
“A total of 26 countries participated at the recent Asian Track and Field Championships held in Jakarta. 10 countries, including Singapore, did not win any medal. Our population and our talent pool in sports are small. Our athletes are amateurs. Those who have the talent have to set their own individual priorities between sports and studies or working careers. The Member probably thinks that the Government should act to produce champions. Sports and other recreational interests must be left to the individual to pursue privately. These are not areas into which the Government should intrude too much. The Government through the Singapore Sports Council's "Sports for All" policy provides the facilities to encourage healthy sports recreation for all citizens. The policy benefits everyone. It is up to those who are interested to take advantage of the facilities and train and discipline themselves to gain international recognition for their achievements. Some have done so, eg in swimming, squash and bowling. INTERNATIONAL INDOOR STADIUM 13. Mr Ng Kah Ting asked the Minister for Community Development (a) what facilities will be provided in the new international indoor stadium; (b) when the stadium will be completed and at what cost; and (c) why is it necessary to invite foreign architects to share in the design of the stadium.”
“--- the Cabinet cannot do much. The laws pertaining to the qualification required for candidates for Parliament, the laws relating to the powers and privileges of Parliamentary Members, these only set minimum standards. There is a very wide gap between these minimum standards and the very high standards we set for ourselves in the PAP. We can only look to the good sense of everybody who participates in Singapore political life that we do not narrow these satndards. And apart from setting the example and making the appeal, I am afraid I have to tell the Member fgor Siglap that there is really nothing much we can do. But I think it behoves the Singapore electorate to consider what we have achieved and to always bear in mind that this is one aspect of our life which we have achieved with great cost and which is something that we should not give up easily. Question put, and agreed to. Resolved, That Parliament do now adjourn. Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-two minutes past Six o'clock pm to a date to be fixed. WRITTEN ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS PRIME MINISTER'S VISIT TO CHINA 1. Mr Chiam See Tong asked the Prime Minister (a) whether the Singapore Government paid for the travelling and boarding expenses of the Singapore Delegation's recent trip to China, and, if so, what sum of money was expended; and (b) what are the prospects of substantial trade increases, in the short term and in the long term between Singapore and China.”
“These are key institutions of our society. No Singaporean who has the welfare of the citizens and the future of Singapore at heart would do anything to undermine any of these key institutions. Sir, as long as this House is made up of Members of the PAP, of course, we could set and maintain and impose high standards. And as far as the PAP is concerned, we will continue to maintain these high standards, and we will continue to demand these high standards. I think every PAP member of this House knows the standards demanded of him, and that if he falls short of these standards, he will find himself dropped. Every one of us knows this. HBut for those who are not within the control of the party, I am afraid ---”
“I think it was the former First Deputy Prime Minister and the Member for Kreta Ayer who said that when PAP MPs enter politics they are taking up holy orders because the standards expected of them, not only in their political life but in their personal life too, are very high indeed. We have also set ourselves very high standards in some of the key institutions that are pillars of our society - our courts, our Parliament, our Cabinet.”
“And there are many, many examples which I can quote of how the whole of society can go to the dogs when the political leaders do not set a high standard for themselves.”
“Because what we do, not only determines the political process and the political life but also sets the whole tone of our society.”
“If there is no objection, I think it is allowed. Mr Speaker, Sir, may I on the behalf of the Government respond to the points raised by the Member for Siglap. I agree entirely with the Member that the conduct of Members of Parliament both in the House and, perhaps more so, outside the House sets the tone and character of the whole of our political life and process. Sir, there are many things that we in Singapore can be proud of. We can be proud of our achievements in providing jobs for our people, homes for our people, education for our people. But I think one aspect that we can be most proud of is our political life and political process. We can be proud without any apology, when there was no Opposition in the House, for the tone and quality that we demanded and set for ourselves as political leaders.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I was prepared to give him a few more minutes. Mr Deputy Speaker: Standing Order does not allow that.”
“Sir, could the Member for Anson quote the point of order from the Standing Orders?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, That Parliament do now adjourn. Question proposed. DIGNITY AND DECORUM OF MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT 5.55 pm”