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 27 of 33.
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I want to say a few words because the problem of the aged sick is a very serious problem that is going to confront Singapore in the future. The Member for Ulu Pandan is right. It is not just a question of the aged. It is not even a question of aged sick from poor homes, but aged sick from families that can afford but cannot keep the aged sick with them for various reasons. This is going to be an increasing problem in Singapore. People are going to live longer and there are going to be many, many families who can afford but because they live in 3-room or 2-room Housing Board flats, or the couple concerned are working and not able to take care of their aged sick parents. Even with all the goodwill in the world, they cannot keep the aged sick in their homes. This is the reason why, in the Committee of the Problems of the Aged, it was recommended that we should only address the problems of the destitute, aged destitute, and the aged sick. And the aged sick will be the increasing problem, not the aged destitute because they (people who came from China and India alone, and have no family connections) are a disappearing group. But we are going to have an increasing group comprising old people, sick, who have children but who cannot take care of them, not able to give them the kind of attention that they require. Where should the aged sick be housed? How should we finance the care of such people? How should they be taken care of? These are very serious problems that we have to face.”
“Let me give you some history on this. In 1981, or even before that, when the Government was trying to promote the use of child care centres to look after children, we made a study and determined that the cost of running child care centres was $165 per child. Over the years, between 1981 and now, cost must increase because we know that wages have at least increased from 1981 to 1985, not to say other kinds of costs. So cost has increased. And recently when a study was done, it was found that the cost of operating a child care centre is $250 per child. That is why we have the new rate of $250, and that is about 50% increase over $165. And if you compare that with the rate of increase of wages, it is about the same. It has not gone up tremendously. The idea of using combined income to assess whether you pay $150 or $200 or $250, is not a new idea. For a child care centre set up by the NTUC before 1981, it was a fixed rate based on the mother's income. For child care centres set up after 1981, it was not based on the mother's income, it was based on the combined income. So it is not a new idea. Even the child care centres run by the People's Association are also run on this basis, that is, their fees are charged according to combined income of the parents. It may be fair to some, it may not be fair to others. Under the old fee structure, for example, you will probably find that a woman who earns, say, $600 -”
“So we have done quite a bit but, I am sure, there is always room for improvement, and my Minister and I will look at the situation again to see what we need to do in order to further improve the facilities and the services provided by these welfare organizations. But let me paraphrase this by making a general statement. Government is only a custodian of the people's wealth. If the Government decides to increase its contribution or grants to welfare organizations, then it has to take the money from somewhere, and eventually it will be from the taxpayers. We can increase the rates of tax as in some countries, and then re-distribute that, or we leave the cash in the people's hand so that they can decide what best to do with the money and the time. The Member for Changkat said that Social Services is only provided for with $20 million. As I said, $20 million may or may not be enough depending on the needs of the people, and there will be an opportunity, between the Ministry staff, the Minister and 1, to look at the situation again. But we should not just look at the amount of cash given to organizations to determine whether the Government has done enough. That is the point. I appreciate and I share with the Member's view that the family is the building block. It is the family that must provide the support and the care, the concern for the individual when he needs help, not just the Government. It is the community as a whole, people like you and 1. Either way, take the money from the people and give it to them, or we leave it to give to keep the money away. The Member for Changkat also talked about child care services. She asks whether the new fee will discriminate against the low income women, or will it not discourage women from coming out to work.”
“Secondly, for a number of organizations, the land and the building are either provided for by the Government, or Government gives assistance in erecting the building, or Government gives assistance in acquiring the land. Let us just take the example of the 22 voluntary welfare organizations now standing on about 380,000 sq metres of Government land. On a conservative estimate, that works out to be $59 million, according to the Government Chief Valuer. The voluntary welfare organizations only paid a one-time payment of about $650,000, and about $3,500 annually for TOL. If you capitalize the land, ie, if you either sell it or sell it and invest the money, the interest alone is quite a few million dollars. So that is another form of assistance the Government has given. For many organizations, particularly those that look after disabled children or less fortunate children, about 71 teaching staff were seconded to these organizations to teach the children. And they are all seconded from the Ministry of Education, given special training by the Government. The salaries alone worked out to be at least $2 million a year. Other services that the Government provide to these organizations are helping them to get people, helping them to set up the homes, helping them to get work permits. Another form of assistance that the Government has spearheaded is the popularization of contributions to the Community Chest. Right now, I am told, about 55% of the people who contribute to the Community Chest are civil servants, and the effort of getting these people in the Civil Service to contribute to the Community Chest definitely is an initiative of the Government.”
“The Member for Bo Wen highlighted a point which did not go unnoticed in the Committee for Problems of the Aged, ie, as our population gets older and as we have more and more concentrations of Housing Board areas then, of course, there is a need for community care service in the housing estates. It is not that the Government has not done anything for the community organizations or the voluntary organizations. In fact, there are other kinds of support that we give other than cash grant. I know that the amounts of cash grants may not be significant but there are a number of other things that the Government has done that are more than adequate to provide for the needs of the voluntary organizations. Under the existing scheme, we have per capita grant which means we give a $1.50 or 50cts per resident or per case admitted to a residential institution. And we give a block grant depending on the kind of organization; like the Singapore Council of Social Services, we give them $143,000, or an average of $140,000 over the last two years. But this is just a cash grant. It may or may not be enough to contribute to the running of the organization. But there are other forms of indirect assistance given by the Government. The first is the granting of "an Institution of Public Character" to these deserving welfare organizations. If they are Institutions of Public Character, donations to the institutions will be tax-free. In effect, it means that any individual who contributes, depending on the tax rate that he pays, from 4% to 40%, the Government is forgoing the revenue. That is a form of assistance. Let us recognize that.”
“But what is important really is the role and functions that are being carried out by the Ministry rather than the name itself. Although we do not have a Culture Ministry the number of activities under the Cultural Affairs Division has not been reduced. In fact, it has increased. Last year, there were about 314 activities organized by the Culture Ministry, be they drama, dances, operas, exhibitions, shows, festival of arts and so on. This year, we have 241 activities. Last year's number of 314 included 116 activities of the festival of arts programme. This year, we do not have a festival of arts. So if you net the figure, that means we had 198 activities. So this year we have 241 activities. The number of activities has not actually been reduced. We will continue to pursue our position as the catalyst, as the leader for promoting arts and culture in the country. 3.00 pm We have a five-year plan which has recently been endorsed, not approved by the Ministry of Finance. Every year we will submit our proposals to the Ministry of Finance for funds. Under the five-year plan, there will be an average expenditure of about $10 million for the Cultural Affairs Division, and this compares very favourably with the previous expenditure of about $5 million. Even for this year, it is just $52 million. So although we do not have a Cultural Ministry, the Cultural Affairs Division will continue to be active in promoting arts and culture. And with the grassroots organizations and the community centres now being part of the machinery, the hardware, we can bring the software, the arts and the culture and the shows, to the people, I think it will achieve better synergy for the Government and the people benefit from it eventually.”
“On top of that, we have, what we call, part-time branches which means that they only open a few days a week, and part-time branches are currently found in Whampoa, Jurong and Bedok. Currently, there are enough library service points for the members who want to use the library. But as our population and student population gets bigger, of course, we will then do a review to see whether the supply is adequate to serve the needs of the people. Back to the Member for Leng Kee. I also share with him his view that we want to have a culturally vibrant society. We have had 25 years of Culture Ministry. Why do we now abolish the Culture Ministry? We have not really abolished the Ministry. What we did was to integrate part of the functions of the former Culture Ministry into a new Ministry called the Community Development Ministry which incorporates part of the old Social Affairs Ministry. Is it important to have the word "Culture" in the name of a Ministry? Just look at the Thais, for example. In Thailand they are very rich in culture, very strong in religion, yet they do not have a Ministry of Culture or a Ministry of Religion. What they have is a Ministry of Education that looks after both culture and religion. We have had 25 years of HDB building. We know that housing is very important. 80% of our people live in HDB flats. Yet we do not have a Minister for Housing. We have a Ministry of National Development. More than 50% of our population are under 35 years old, very young people. Yet we do not have a ministry of youth. But it does not mean that youth is not important. As my Minister said, we will look at his suggestion and see whether we should have the word "Culture" added to Community Development.”
“The two Boards have very different roles really. The Hindu Advisory Board was set up to advise the Government on Hindu affairs, Hindu religion and customs, and the Hindu Endowments Board was set up to oversee the temples and the properties managed by the temple officials. This proposal to amalgamate the two Boards was made about 10 years ago and at that time it was decided that since the roles of the two Boards were quite different the decision was to keep the two Boards separate as they were. But since the Member brought this up again, I will ask my Ministry officials to look at this proposal and see whether we should integrate the two Boards. The Member for Potong Pasir talked about library services, and he said that in UK, if you want to,borrow a book from a branch library or a sub-branch, and the book is not available, arrangements would be made for the borrower to get the book from the central library. The situation in UK is slightly different. The branches and the central library are quite far apart, whereas in the case of Singapore, we are just 16 by 24 miles and it is not difficult to go from one branch to another to borrow a book. But I agree with him that we should have as many libraries as possible so that our children would have enough opportunities to go to the library and read or borrow books to read at home. For his information, perhaps he may not be aware, we currently have a central library. We also have a number of branch libraries. One in Queenstown, one in Toa Payoh, one in Marine Parade and one in Bukit Merah. There are plans to build an Ang Mo Kio Branch and a Bedok Branch. But in addition to these branches and the central library, we also have 10 mobile library service points. These mobile library vans do go out to loan books to the residents.”
“It is in this context that I personally think that it makes much more sense to put Culture within Community Development because the Ministry of Community Development also oversees grassroots organizations and it is easier to bring culture to the masses through the grassroots organizations. Some of the activities that we should promote, such as folk-dancing and singing, handicraft, guitar groups or small Chinese and Malay musical groups, or even pop bands, may not be considered by some to be worthy of the name Art with a capital 'A'. But it is something that is enjoyed by the masses. It is something that we should promote. It is altogether proper that cultural promotion which intends to bring culture to the masses should be in the Ministry of Community Development which is in charge of grassroots organizations. I do have some sympathy with the Member for Leng Kee when he suggested that perhaps we should change the name to the Ministry of Culture and Community Development. But I can assure him that this change will not in anyway change the functions. It will only be a change of name. But perhaps a change of name will be more indicative of what we are performing, although I must say that even the Ministry of Community Development itself is quite a mouthful, and to add Culture to that will make it even longer. But it is something that we can consider. But, as I said, it will make absolutely no difference to the actual functions, ie, to the promotion of the arts and to bring culture to the masses. I will ask my Minister of State to answer the other questions. Mr Wong Kan Seng: Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, let me first take the easiest one. The Member for Chong Boon asked whether there is a plan to consider amalgamating the Hindu Advisory Board with the Hindu Endowments Board.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, before any more Members speak, it would be appropriate for us to try and answer the points raised so far. I shall just deal with the point raised by the Member for Leng Kee and my Minister of State will deal with the other points. A number of Members have expressed grave reservations and unhappiness at the abolition of the Ministry of Culture. As the former Minister for Culture and the present Minister for Community Development, I want to give an assurance to all Members that culture is not being ignored. The entire Cultural Affairs Division of the former Ministry of Culture has been transferred to the Ministry of Community Development and all the various efforts to promote cultural activities and arts of various forms will continue. In fact, a five-year plan for cultural promotion has been submitted to the Treasury and this would involve almost a doubling of the expenditure on cultural affairs and, under this plan, the Ministry of Community Develop- ment would continue to act as a catalyst for cultural development, management and development of cultural facilities and strengthening of private organizations which are now very active in cultural promotion. But when we talk of culture, we tend quite often to think of culture in, what I shall call, a high-brow sense. Cultural promotion cannot be confined to high-brow culture for the select few. It is important to popularize arts. It is important to encourage participation by as wide a cross-section of the people as possible.”
“Sir, I believe that this modest step in Congress will have much impact, not only within the United States but internationally, on the efforts to help the Cambodian people resist foreign occupation and to find a political solution in Cambodia. We want a peaceful political solution in Cambodia. But we cannot expect Vietnam to concede at the conference table what they think they have won by force. So their occupation of Cambodia must be made very expensive and there must be resistance from the ground. The call by the ASEAN Foreign Ministers at their last meeting in Bangkok, an open call for military support to the resistance, was a very significant breakthrough in ASEAN's emphasis that the military struggle on the ground must be on par with the political and diplomatic efforts. Sir, the Cambodian problem is not going to be resolved in a year or two. It may take five years, it may take 10 years. But there is one thing that we must demonstrate to the Vietnamese and to the Soviet Union that we have the patience to continue as long as it is necessary to bring about a solution that will not be inimical to our interests.”
“Sir, if the Cambodians, or ASEAN, were pitted only against Vietnam, I think there would be no problem. Vietnam is in no position to maintain its army in Cambodia. It is in no position to impose its will on Cambodia or even on Laos, if Vietnam were to depend only upon its own resources. Vietnam, of course, is able to pursue its present policy because it is backed fully by the Soviet Union, which is supplying massive military aid to enable Vietnam to pursue its policy. And this must have some impact on the Soviet Union's relations with the countries of ASEAN. It is for this reason, because Vietnam is backed by the Soviet Union, that we think that it is very essential that other powers come to the assistance of the Cambodian resistance groups. We have been trying to persuade the United States for some time to take a more active role in helping the non-Communist resistance groups. I am glad that, over the last few days, we are seeing some signs that not only has public opinion in the United States begun to change but that this change has begun to have its impact on the US Congress. Just three days ago, the US House Foreign Relations Sub-Committee on Asia and the Pacific, under the chairmanship of Congressman Steven Solarz, voted to authorize US$5 million to assist the two non-Communist Cambodian groups resisting Vietnamese occupation. The Sub-Committee in its report said: 'Such a step would materially and psychologically increase the pressure on Vietnam for a political settlement and would demonstrate to the KPNLF and the ANS (which is the Sihanouk group) that the American people who share their values are prepared to support their fight for freedom.' And that is what we are engaged in - supporting the fight for freedom by the Cambodians.”
“Our policy has been to deny Vietnam consolidation of its occupation in Cambodia and to make Vietnam pay a high price for its invasion of Cambodia. And I think our efforts have been successful. We have made Vietnam p&y a very big diplomatic and political price. They are diplomatically isolated in all international fora. Far from being the heroes of revolution, they now slink along the corridors, hoping that people will not notice them. We have been able to isolate Vietnam from any form of economic assistance from Japan and the West. I think the cost to Vietnam in the loss of world esteem and the lack of economic assistance is considerable and must weigh heavily on Vietnam's decision on how long they can persist in the current course. And we will continue to ensure that the cost to Vietnam remains high. At the same time we must also be flexible and be open to negotiations with Vietnam over the problem in Cambodia. We have not dictated pre-conditions for discussions in talks with Vietnam, but we insist that two basic principles must form the centre-piece of any negotiations or discussions with Vietnam - the first principle being that Vietnam must withdraw from Cambodia, the second principle being that the Cambodian people must be allowed to determine for themselves the kind of government that they want. 12.45 pm We support all moves by various Cambodian groups to come together in a process of national reconciliation in order to determine for themselves, free from foreign interference, their future and their future well-being. In spite of our efforts so far, Vietnam has not conceded in any way and I think Members would be aware that, while talking peace, they have also attacked and occupied the border camps of the various resistance groups.”
“And only in a system like the United States, can there be generated pressures on the Administration to react favourably towards calls by countries in this part of the world for the US to withdraw. The other superpower, Soviet Union, is not bothered by public opinion, is not subject to media pressure. They are motivated only by one consideration, and that is, to improve and build on their presence in this part of the world, to position themselves in order to take advantage of any untoward developments in any country in this part of the world. Sir, we also have to be realistic in that we ourselves cannot balance the power of the Soviet Union. The only power that can balance the military presence of the Soviet Union in this part of the world is the United States. And that is why, in spite of our commitment to the Zone of Peace, Freedom and Neutrality, we have called on the United States to maintain a credible presence in Southeast Asia. And, as I said, Sir, we are glad that the US is committed to such a presence. Of course, we in ASEAN also must do our bit to improve the security situation in Southeast Asia. The best way that we can improve or contribute towards increasing the security of the member states of ASEAN is to encourage rapid and sustained economic development. We have, together with friendly countries as well as with countries whom we term the ASEAN-Dialogue partners, implemented policies to stimulate rapid economic development. And this has certainly contributed very much to greater stability and security in the region. The dark cloud, of course, in this region is the situation in Indo-China. Singapore, together with ASEAN, has been very successful in its Cambodian policy.”
“It is true that, since 1975, there has been a very marked increase in the presence of the Soviet Union's military forces in this part of the world. The effectiveness of the Soviet military presence in Southeast Asia has been increased very much by their access to base facilities in Vietnam, both Cam Ranh Bay and Da Nang. After the fall of South Vietnam, there was a real danger that the United States was going through a phase of withdrawal from its interest in this part of the world. This, of course, was very alarming, especially in the light of the fact that the Soviet Union at the same time was increasing its military presence. Sir, with political changes within the US, with change in the leadership, and with persuasion of the countries in this part of the world, I am glad to state that, far from reducing its interest and presence, the United States has increased its presence and commitment in Southeast Asia. It has taken on a more positive and realistic approach towards its responsibilities as a global power, especially towards its responsibilities in this part of the world, and it is maintaining a credible presence. I think we must all be quite realistic. Sir, we would like to be left alone. That is why Singapore, together with the other Members of ASEAN, subscribes to the concept of a Zone of Peace, Freedom and Neutrality. We would like all contending superpowers and regional powers to leave us alone. But at the same time we must be realistic. Repeated and public calls for superpowers to withdraw from this part of the world can have effect only on one superpower, and that is, the United States, because the US is subject to public pressure, public opinion, and pressure of the media.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, may I take the queries raised by the Member for Chong Boon first, because they are sim- pler and I do not want to miss giving him the details because, on the second point, I have quite a lot to say. First of all, plans for new missions: the Ministry has no immediate plans to establish new missions. However, we are examining a couple of countries where it may be advantageous for us to have a resident mission. But we cannot, of course, announce it at this time as we have not entered into consultation with the countries concerned. So we have made a provision in the estimates but there are no specific concrete plans at the present moment. As far as properties purchased by the Ministry are concerned, in the fiscal year 1984 we purchased properties in Geneva, Washington, New York and Bangkok. We also made progress payments towards the construction of a Chancery in Canberra and New Delhi. Altogether the Ministry spent just over $13 million, or 94% of the allocation in the current fiscal year. The Member may be interested to know that the total value of all overseas properties owned by the Ministry at original prices is $110 million. For the coming fiscal year 1985, we have asked for a provision of $19 million. We are looking at residential properties in London, Paris, Brussels and Hongkong, with a view to purchasing these properties. We have also made provision for construction of staff accommodation in Jakarta and in Riyadh in Saudi Arabia. On the points raised by the Member for Serangoon Gardens, he has quite rightly pointed out the changes in the security situation in Southeast Asia, though I would not entirely agree with him that the situation today is worse than it was a year ago.”
“Why don't you disclose it in this House?”
“- and the use, as he says, of the community centre, then I say, Mr Speaker, Sir, we are truly a blessed nation with a clean system that has worked and all he can think of are little things which are intended to prevent candidates from not following the rules. 12.00 pm Sir, as I have said, I have read reports and anybody who is interested in representative government can read them. If the Member for Anson reads these reports of elections conducted elsewhere under systems with independent commissions and organizations counter-checking on the independent commissions, the kind of malpractices that are indulged in it will make the Member for Anson's hair stand. So it is not the type of institutions, as my colleague has pointed out. It is who runs the system. That is what determines how honest the system is. And I am very cheered by the Member for Anson's remarks here this morning, that we have an honest, effective, competent system.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, in my capacity as the Minister for Foreign Affairs, from time to time, I receive reports from our Ambassadors and Counsellors on elections held in various parts of the world. Having listened to the Member for Anson, I must say that he has paid a great tribute to our system in Singapore, unintended, but a great tribute. If, after having participated in so many elections, all that he can quote is the fixing of the stamp on the poster and the need for a speakers' list to be submitted in advance as unfair features of our election system -”
“Sir, I beg to report that the Committee of Supply has made further progress on the Main and Development Estimates for the financial year 1st April, 1985 to 31st March, 1986 and ask leave to sit again tomorrow.”
“Yes, we would like them to participate. If not, we can adjourn. But if they want to, we can continue.”
“If the two Opposition Members, Sir, do not want to participate - An hon. Member: Wait for them.”
“- charitable and I accept the Member for Anson's interpretation or objection to the two laws that he referred to, the Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Act and the Misuse of Drugs Act, the fact still remains, Sir, that he said that people are being put away behind bars and forgotten, which means that there is no proper system of review of such prisoners' detention. If that is so, the Member should state so, because it is not the truth and it has been explained to him what the procedures are, I think he should withdraw his remarks.”
“I thank my colleague for the legal elucidation but still, Sir, even if I am -”
“Yes, I said "due process of law or some other procedure."”
“Point of Order, because he is misquoting me.”
“- which allows a proper procedure of review. I know, Sir, the Member for Anson has got his pet subject about the Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Act and the Misuse of Drugs Act. I am aware of it. I knew what he was referring to. But is he implying that these are laws that are being exercised arbitrarily in that people are being put behind bars and forgotten? Because he has made a passing reference as though it is a statement of fact, I think he owes this House and Singapore an apology if he does not mean what he said.”
“You said that "pensioners are like prisoners put behind bars and are a forgotten lot." That is a serious allegation. That implies something about our system of justice, and I did say that everybody who is put in prison is either by due process of law or by some other procedure of review.”
“Sir, the Member for Anson tried to slip out of what he has said. When he repeated what he was supposed to have said, he did not say what he subsequently said, when I challenged him.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, can you please give me a few minutes, because the Member for Anson, in passing, made a reference which, I think, was not just a term or phrase or a metaphor. He said that pensioners are like prisoners, put in prison and forgotten. This is an extremely serious allegation. He is implying that we in Singapore are some sort of medieval society or perhaps, like one of the Communist societies, running a gulag, which people are not aware of, that people are sent to prison without any due process of law or procedure of review, and that they are just forgotten. I do not know which society he is talking of. This is a serious allegation. It shows a turn of mind, an approach to seeing things in Singapore, which is completely distorted. Unless he can substantiate, I do not think a Member should make such passing references as though it is a statement of fact. If he cannot substantiate, I think he should withdraw that remark.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I beg to report that the Committee of Supply has made further progress on the Main and Development Estimates for the financial year lst April, 1985 to 3lst March, 1986 and ask leave to sit again tomorrow.”
“I just want to make one small point. We all assume that every Member in this House acts responsibly. So if a Member makes an allegation or insinuation, he must have some reason for making them. Of course, a Member can ask any questions, but they must be based on facts. And this assumes that all Members will act responsibly. It is not written in the Constitution that each Member must act responsibly. But I assume that everybody accepts this including the Member for Anson.”
“Point of order, Sir. If the Member wants to make a clarification, he can just repeat what he said. He cannot introduce new arguments.”
“Resolved, That, notwithstanding the Standing Orders, - (a) two days, namely, Saturday, 23rd March and Friday, 29th March, 1985 be added to the days allotted for discussion of the Main and Development Estimates for the financial year 1985 in the Committee of Supply; and (b) Parliament do sit on Saturday, 23rd March, 1985. BUDGET STATEMENT DEBATE (Additional Day)”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move the motion* standing in my name on the subject of Committee of Supply. *The motion reads as follows:-- That, notwithstanding the Standing Orders, -- (a) two days, namely, Saturday, 23rd March and Friday, 29th March, 1985 be added to the days allotted for discussion of the Main and Development Estimates for the financial year 1985 in the Committee of Supply; and (b) Parliament do sit on Saturday, 23rd March, 1985. Mr Speaker, Sir, the new sitting time of Parliament allows only four hours of sitting a day which is one hour less than the old sitting time. Many Members have filed their amendments for debate in the Committee of Supply and the seven days allotted under the present Standing Orders will not be sufficient to deal with all the amendments. I am therefore moving that Parliament sit for two extra days, one of these days being Saturday, 23rd March, to deal with the amendments submitted for debate in the Committee of Supply. I would also like to take the opportunity, Mr Speaker, Sir, to inform Members that the afternoon on Friday, 22nd March, has been set aside for debate on amendment to Head U, that is, the Prime Minister's Office. The debate will be on the subject of the salaries of Ministers, political appointees, and the allowances of Members of Parliament. This is a subject that has aroused considerable interest. It was a subject of much controversy during the elections. It has also been touched upon in this House. The Prime Minister feels that it is only right and proper that all the arguments and opinions on the subject be aired in this House. So two hours have been set aside on Friday, 22nd March, for this subject. Sir, I beg to move. Question put, and agreed to.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, That the proceedings on the item of business under discussion be exempted at this day's sitting from the provisions of Standing Order No. 1. This is to enable the Finance Minister to go beyond 4.30 pm, the Moment of Interruption. Question put, and agreed to. Resolved, That the proceedings on the item of business under discussion be exempted at this day's sitting from the provisions of Standing Order No. 1. ANNUAL BUDGET STATEMENT Resumption of Motion.”
“The points they made, at least in the case of the Member for Anson (he has had an opportunity to make them when the amendment was debated) were made and the Bill has been passed. It is now law, and we intend to implement that law. Question put, and agreed to. Resolved, That this Parliament, pursuant to section 51 B of the Parliamentary Elections Act (Chapter 50) - (a) declares that the seat of Mr M.P.D. Nair, who was elected a non-constituency Member of Parliament under Section 51A of the Act, has become vacant by reason of his having failed to take and subscribe before Parliament the Oath of Allegiance under Article 61 of the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore at the first and second sittings of the first session of the present Parliament held on 25th February 1985 and 1st March 1985 respectively; and (b) resolves that that seat be filled by Mr Tan Chee Kien of the Singapore United Front, the next succeeding candidate at the last general election in the order of priority as determined in accordance with Section 51A(2) of the Act.”
“I am talking of the practical outcome: can the vote of the two Members change anything in this House? The Government will continue to govern, in spite of all the sound and fury of the Opposition Members. So there is no practical difference. As I said, Mr Speaker, Sir, I would have assumed that politicians are practical people. Are the two Opposition Members afraid that some other party member will share what they think is the limelight that they are now enjoying? If they have no arguments against Mr Tan being deemed to be elected a Non-Constituency Member under the law, they should say so. The Member for Potong Pasir says, "Mr Tan will represent no one. Who does he represent? He represents no one." Well, if I accept his argument, can I therefore ask both of them to state quite clearly whether, in the case of the Member for Potong Pasir, he represents only the 10,000-odd voters who voted him in Potong Pasir, and, in the case of the Member for Anson, that he only represents the 9,900-odd voters who voted for him in Anson? In other words, if they claim that the 46.6% of the people in Kaki Bukit who voted for Mr Tan are not to be represented, then they themselves should not claim to represent any one other than those who voted for them in their own constituencies. And I do not think they will claim that. So if the two Members have no reason to adduce as to why Mr Tan should not be declared as a Non-Constituency Member, they should hold their peace. I think we have been quite liberal in allowing them to say what they have said because, strictly speaking, Sir, these are not matters relevant to the motion. The motion is just to implement the law.”
“It is because, in election after election, no Opposition Member was returned to this House in the normal process of first-past-the-post system, that we amended the Parliamentary Elections Act to provide for up to three Non-Constituency Members. Well, in spite of all the sound and fury of the Opposition, they managed to get only two directly into this Parliament. So we can still provide for one more. The Member for Potong Pasir, as well as the Member for Anson, has made the point that the Non-Constituency MP is a second-class MP, that he cannot do what an MP is expected to do. I thought, Mr Speaker, Sir, that politicians are practical people. They look at the practical exercise of influence and power. In what way can the two Opposition Members here do more than the Non-Constituency Member, in practical terms? Can they block a Constitutional amendment, or a Money Bill, or carry a Motion of No-Confidence? The Non-Constituency Member can move a motion on any Money Bill. He can move a motion on any Constitutional Bill; he can support a motion; he can debate a motion; and if he is unwise he can continue to say what the Member for Anson has been saying in this House. He can do everything.”
“The next thing, Mr Speaker, Sir, he will say is that he needs more Members in this House before there is parliamentary democracy. If he has more Members, he will say that he has to be in power before there is parliamentary democracy. Sir, this is like the Communists. They have their own dictionary. Words that we use, they have their own meanings. They talk of people. When we talk of people, we mean the people at large. But when they talk of people, they mean people who support them. They talk of independence; we know what independence is. But when they talk of independence, it means that only countries which are under Communist government or Communist rule are independent. They have their own dictionary. I think the Member for Anson is now in the process of compiling his own dictionary of political terms. By his definition, we are still not a parliamentary democracy. Parliamentary democracy means rule of the majority. I think this is the first point that he should note, rule of the majority. Secondly, it means periodic exercise of the people to elect the government of their choice. Do the two Members of the Opposition think, or claim, that the people of Singapore have not exercised their choice freely? Do they claim that the elections were not clean? If so, they should say so. The people have over many elections exercised their choice, and their choice has been that there should be no directly elected Opposition Members of Parliament. That is their choice. And so it should be. It is parliamentary democracy in practice. The Member for Anson cannot claim that because the people did not elect Opposition Members, therefore, there is no parliamentary democracy.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the points made by the two Opposition Members are not new. The Member for Anson was here when the Bill to amend the Parliamentary Elections Act was debated. He made the same points during the Second Reading; he tried to make the same points at the Committee Stage. The Bill was passed. It has been assented to by the President and is now law. Parliament is being now asked to exercise the power under the law. The Opposition Member is a champion of the power of Parliament. He claims to be a respecter of laws passed by Parliament and he should respect all laws, not just the laws that he likes. He claims to be a believer in democratic principles and the main principle in democracy is not what he has been claiming which, he says, is that there should be Opposition in Parliament. I do not know where he got his definition of "democracy", but it certainly does not mean that there is democracy only when there is opposition in Parliament. But even if we accept that argument that there is parliamentary democracy only when there is opposition in Parliament, will he now go and make a public statement to all the foreign correspondents, to others as well as in this House, that there is now parliamentary democracy in Singapore, because he and the Member from the other Opposition party are now in Parliament? Does he agree that there is parliamentary democracy now in Singapore? Mr Jeyaretnam: We are going to build it.”
“The motion will therefore declare that the vacant seat be filled by Mr Tan and that he be deemed to be elected a non-constituency Member of Parliament.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, That this Parliament, pursuant to section 51 B of the Parliamentary Elections Act (Chapter 50) - (a) declares that the seat of Mr M.P.D. Nair, who was elected a non-constituency Member of Parliament under section 51A of the Act, has become vacant by reason of his having failed to take and subscribe before Parliament the Oath of Allegiance under Article 61 of the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore at the first and second sittings of the first session of the present Parliament held on 25th February 1985 and 1st March 1985 respectively; and (b) resolves that that seat be filled by Mr Tan Chee Kien of the Singapore United Front, the next succeeding candidate at the last general election in the order of priority as determined in accordance with section 51A(2) of the Act. Mr Speaker, Sir, as is clear in the motion, it is to provide for the filling of the vacant seat as a result of Mr M.P.D. Nair not subscribing to the Oath. Under section 51(A) and (B) of the Parliamentary Elections Act, up to three non-constituency Members can be declared elected from Parties not forming the Government. Two Opposition Members have been elected under section 49(7) of the Act, that is, under the first-past-the-post system. Therefore, one non-constituency MP was declared by the Returning Officer as elected under section 51 (A) of the Act, and he was Mr M.P.D. Nair of the Workers' Party. As we know, he has not taken the Oath of Allegiance and the motion today is to declare his seat vacant and to fill it with the next succeeding candidate who is Mr Tan Chee Kien of the Singapore United Front who polled 46.66% in Kaki Bukit.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, on a point of order. I think there must come a limit. He has no alternative but to sit down. The Member is not allowad to make a speech. He wants a clarification. The Member should ask for clarification in brief and specific terms. If he wants a clarification, he should state so.”
“Do the points and remarks made by the Opposition show that they want to create such a society? I am not convinced. If the Member for Potong Pasir, who has pledged his interests to Singapore, is aware of Singapore's interests, why then in this House did he raise such issues like increased hospital charges, or threw wild allegations that the Government cannot afford to pay back CPF contributions because the funds are tied up (although during the last election campaign he stated that we had no funds whatsoever to do so, but now modified his statement to say that the money is tied up and therefore cannot afford to pay). If he raises the question of rearing chickens in flats, that we are producing an alienated society through our education streaming system, is he playing the role of a constructive Opposition in this House? I think not. I dare say that the stand of the Member for Potong Pasir is not different from a woodpecker who is perched on a strong branch - the branch symbolizes Singapore - but announcing to the world that the branch is fragile, full of holes, rotten, yet his feet are glued to the branch, and he pecks the hole in order to destroy whatever we have built. This then is the stand and stance demonstrated by the Member for Potong Pasir. So, are the two Opposition Members aware that we need to find a common ground on the issue of "Ideals, Interests and Responsibilities" as Members of this House? On that note, Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to support the motion by the Member for Ayer Rajah. Thank you. 12.29 pm”
“If we add this 225,000 or 180,000 to about 150,000 new voters who voted for the first time in December last, the total will be between 330,000 and 375,000 new voters, Do we want to listen to the proposal by the Opposition that we give the ideal to the new generation, a generation which does not know the meaning of war, the meaning of communal strife, what it means to live under the shackles of colonialism? Do we want to adopt an affitude of not hurting or offending the sensitivities of this new generation by giving them, by introducing soft and pleasant policies so that they will be happy? Give them whatever they want. Do we let them grow into adulthood as people who are by and large selfish? Or do we just allow the law of nature itself determine the limitations of their follies? Mr Speaker, Sir, I feel that it is in our own interests to ensure that Singapore possesses young citizens who are conscious of our economic limitations, our social limitations, who are matured on the significance of life in a small country like Singapore, surrounded by large countries. We need a younger generation of citizens who have the capacity to safeguard what we have built and acquired. To me, Mr Speaker, Sir, this responsibility is important, and it is our duty to produce a new generation who is capable to take over Singapore's leadership, in the fields of politics, economics, trade, social, cultural, and so on from the present leadership. The question of whether the future leadership comes from the PAP, Workers' Party or Singapore Democractic Party is not an important issue. We want to produce a new generation of Singaporeans who are capable of preserving what we have already achieved, That is our responsibility.”
“Why do I adopt such an attitude or stand which should properly be taken by Members who occupy the other side of the Bench but not on this side of the House? Mr Speaker, Sir, the reason is that after having debated the President's Speech for a considerable length of time, we need to put the debate in the House in its proper perspective. And it is also necessary for the Opposition Members to see this proper perspective. If we start raising such issues, we will be telling the future generation of Singapore the danger confronting Singapore is the CPF danger, the danger of streaming, the danger of all issues raised. Lest this House think that the danger faced by the Government comes from the presence in this House and by the election of two Opposition Members in the December last elections, the real danger that we face does not come from within this House. It exists outside the House. The danger is related to the economic conditions, the economic growth of other countries and from the political developments in the region and internationally. It is a combination of these factors that constitute the real threat for Singapore, not the two Opposition Members. The threat from outside this House surfaces because every year we find new youth groups becoming voters. On the average, there are 45,000 new voters yearly. In four years' time there will be 180,000 new voters and if the next general elections are held five years hence, the number of young voters will be 225,000.”
“But, Mr Speaker, Sir, is it not in our own interests to ensure that we can not only guarantee the survival of Singapore but also ascertain that our people need to sacrifice for the sake of the long term, which will ultimately guarantee the well-being of us all? As has been pointed out by the Member for Teck Ghee, it is in the interests of Singapore that we ensure a more rapid and stronger economic growth. Is it not in the interest of Singapore that inflation is checked to its minimum, as only then can we maintain our competitiveness in the international market? So, continued high economic growth, keeping inflation in check and maintaining the competitiveness of Singapore's products are in the interests of Singapore. And we must defend those interests. This then should be our responsibility. I discuss the question of our interests because going by the signals given by the voters during the general elections last December, they want this, that and the other, and if our leaders lack the courage to be firm, we will endanger ourselves because we will be prompted to indulge ourselves in the politics of appeasement, which is polities of succumbing to the whims of the people. And as a consequence to this politics of appeasement, we will be prone to introduce popular measures. When this happens, we will be faced with the problem of becoming a government, like a boneless piece of meat, unable to act, unable to discharge our duties. Mr Speaker, Sir, these responsibilities have been outlined in the President's speech which states that we must safeguard what we have achieved, improve upon our achievements and build a better society. If we lack the courage to act to convince the future generation that such measures are necessary, we will become a soft government.”
“Added to this, we have a group of young first-time voters who do not know what is hard times. We have received the signal of dissatisfaction. Mr Speaker, Sir, certainly it is wise in governing the country to be sensitive to the problems of the Deople and attempt to show sympathy to the aggrieved sector. But let me give a warning here that to respond overly to their demands and requests will later put us in an even more difficult situation. Of course, it is customary for people to put in a little effort and expect substantial rewards in return. Who is not in favour of reduced working days from six to five, and then to four days? At the same time, the salary is raised from $700 to $900 and upward to $1,200. This is a natural tendency with people. Who does not want to see every worker at the end of the month bringing home a bigger take-home pay without the CPF deductions, the income tax cuts, without deduction of debts which they must settle each month? Who does not want to be free from the worry of post-retirement age? Who does not wish that all his children go into an Express Class without streaming, without being monolingual? Who does not want all this? And who does not want to see that deterrent taxes are abolished? Who does not wish to buy as many cars as he can afford? Everyone desires this. It is natural with human beings. That is the ideal, Mr Speaker. Man wants to own everything and anything, if possible, without let and hindrance or, in the words of the Member for Bukit Merah, without trade-offs. That represents the ideal, the ambitions, wishes, dreams of man.”
“I fail to see the Member for Anson offering better alternatives when he persisted in wanting that our industrial relations be managed as in Britain. In Britain, the coal miners are members of the National Union of Miners. They joined the union only to become unemployed for a year whilst others lost their jobs. However, Singapore workers need not become union members in order to enjoy annual pay increases and improved working conditions. Hence, Mr Speaker, Sir, I had heard the Secretary-General, NTUC, who is also a Member of this House, on a previous occasion venting his anger, That is the type of labour environment that obtains in Singapore. Mr Speaker, Sir, when the Member for Anson shouts from the rooftop that workers be given the freedom of action, he was unmindful of the interests of Singapore. He is willing, in order that his ideal be implemented, to destroy Singapore by creating tense situations, and I hope the Member for Potong Pasir will be more rational in his arguments because he has declared that his interests are synonymous with the interests of Singapore. Therefore, his duty is to ensure that Singapore is in a sound state of health. Mr Speaker, Sir, allow me now to move to my third point. A series of ma"ers have developed into a burning issue, and the Opposition claims that they are the fighters of these issues, resulting in their entry into Parliament, In fact, burning issues such as CPF, streaming, graduate mothers, increased taxes, rising selling prices of flats, Medisave, and other measures introduced by Government, are issues which have caused disquiet among the people. Many unpopular issues were introduced and the short interval between the implementation of these policies has brought about unhappiness to the people.”