S. Rajaratnam
Singapore
“There are two already there! BG Lee Hsien Loong: Well, we see the future before us. The proposal to have a 4% interest rate on HDB loans without a corresponding drop in CPF interest paid on the deposits is the first step to raiding the reserves.”
“This concern for the 15-20% was taken up in the President's Address by the new Cabinet. Many of the new and older MPs who preceded the Member for Queenstown have spoken eloquently and constructively on this subject. Quite a few had come forward with suggestions on how this goal could be achieved and it is constructive criticism.”
“Just two minutes. So the Member for Queenstown ended his vision of the future in what I thought was an apocalyptic note, and I would like to quote, I hope he does not deny this: 'Water [he said] can carry a boat but it can also sink a boat. Respect the people and attend to their needs at all times and the people will carry you far.”
“You will have time. You will be here for four years, five years. Do not worry. If you are serious about alleviating the lot of the less fortunate, then the politics of envy and hypocrisy is the surest way of ensuring that this goal is not reached.”
“It is incredible. He wants us to set the example that he wants to follow, to prove that he is a man who is prepared to render service. He can put us to shame (i do not think he will) by just voluntarily, one-sidedly, unilaterally, as a man of principle, sacrificing $3,000. That is nothing. it's peanuts to him.”
“May I finish my speech? - and which has the distinction of being the first political party in this country or in any other country which has been brought to a state of bankruptcy by a politician.”
The complete record
Every one of 375 lines we hold for S. Rajaratnam, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 1 of 8.
“On a point of information, he was not suspended for fraud.”
“We are waiting for your reply, yes or no.”
“The Member says that people have said that Government had given instructions not to go to Jeyaretnam. Could he please give evidence?”
“Have you been saying things behind my back?”
“There are two already there! BG Lee Hsien Loong: Well, we see the future before us. The proposal to have a 4% interest rate on HDB loans without a corresponding drop in CPF interest paid on the deposits is the first step to raiding the reserves. As was very clearly pointed out by the Member for Telok Blangah, either you pay it out of your receipts or you pay it out of your surpluses, out of your reserves. The Government has no other magic source, magic well, out of which money can appear.”
“Why not be honest and say you do not know.”
“Just two minutes. So the Member for Queenstown ended his vision of the future in what I thought was an apocalyptic note, and I would like to quote, I hope he does not deny this: 'Water [he said] can carry a boat but it can also sink a boat. Respect the people and attend to their needs at all times and the people will carry you far. Otherwise you all will be sunk by them.' I suppose he gave this warning because he believes that we have so neglected the needs of the people that there is a danger of being sunk by the people. Since we are talking about a boat and water, I would like to put for consideration by the Member for Queenstown a cartoon which appeared recently in the New York Times. It shows Noah sitting on the top of an ark and anxiously watching a few clouds drifting by as the animals enter the ark, two by two. Noah is even more worried. He turns to his son and says, "Son, I am going to look like a damn fool if all we get is a passing shower." Thank you. [Applause]”
“You will have time. You will be here for four years, five years. Do not worry. If you are serious about alleviating the lot of the less fortunate, then the politics of envy and hypocrisy is the surest way of ensuring that this goal is not reached. Where politics of envy and hypocrisy have prevailed and are rampant, they have been the ruin of many Third World countries. This is the kind of politics which has enabled politicians in developed and developing countries to boast that they live on small pay. But they have fleets of cars, palaces, harems, wives, and vast fortunes locked away in foreign banks. We can have that kind of politics of hypocrisy. I could come in rags, probably no shoes. I could do that.”
“It is incredible. He wants us to set the example that he wants to follow, to prove that he is a man who is prepared to render service. He can put us to shame (i do not think he will) by just voluntarily, one-sidedly, unilaterally, as a man of principle, sacrificing $3,000. That is nothing. it's peanuts to him. You earn about $1/4 million a year. If you give up your $1/4 million, I will give up my Minister's pay. [Applause] Mr Chiam See Tong rose ---”
“I hope you will be giving up your MP's salary.”
“In fact, as a matter of principle, has the Member for Queenstown then been denying himself of these increases? Because if so, there must be a small fortune lying unclaimed in the Ministry of Finance, to the profit of the Treasury and to the glory of the Member for Queenstown, But if he has been quietly pocketing the fruits of injustice and disregard for the sufferings of the poor, then we are entering the dark realms of yet another kind of politics, the politics of hypocrisy. In my view (at some future time I will elaborate on this) the reason why both in developed and developing countries politics and economics are in a mess is because in these countries politics of envy and politics of hypocrisy have been allowed to run riot. We are not ashamed for having increased the salaries of MPs and Ministers. We make no secret about it. In fact, if Ministers who are in charge of billions of dollars - he says he rests his case on $17,000 - are paid $17,000 when they are responsible for ensuring that millions of billions of dollars worth of prosperity is created in Singapore, is that wrong? I think the Member for Queenstown knows that there are Ministers here who earn far more before they came in here.”
“I can understand the Member for Potong Pasir indulging as he did in politics of envy in the recent elections. He too made the point about Ministers wallowing in luxury - together presumably with lawyers because I do not think that lawyers are poor people - while the masses wallowed in poverty. I can understand the Member for Potong Pasir doing it because he had to get into this Chamber. He needed the politics of envy to help him win his election and I like to think that Ministers' pay helped him to get into this Parliament. But what need was there for the Member for Queenstown who rode into this Chamber on the PAP horse to play the same game? What need was there? This is inferior politics. Now, it may be fun to shoot your faithful horse. But I think it is not a nice thing to do either to the horse or to the cause. The Member for Queenstown mentioned that an MP's salary started with $500 which was the proper pay in his view for an MP. So obviously the Member thinks that the increase in the pay of MPs and of Ministers is an improper thing so long as we have poor people around. So it occurs to me whether all these years he has possibly not availed himself of the increases in the pay of MPs and Ministers. If so, on principle, (I do not know) he may have been denying himself these increases? I am not asking this because I want to be personal but he has said this about pay in this Chamber with a view to discrediting his Ministerial colleagues. Why bring it up? The intention was there. I have no objection to the Member for Potong Pasir doing it because I know the reason. He, the Member for Queenstown, obviously thought that this was not a nice thing. It had to be mentioned in this Parliament.”
“Six years ago it was increased. Please do not try to prevent me speaking. Let me finish this thing first.”
“This is very interesting. Yesterday, he simulated he did not know how much he was getting. He turned around and asked, "How much is an MP's pay?" You are an MP. You were a Minister.”
“This concern for the 15-20% was taken up in the President's Address by the new Cabinet. Many of the new and older MPs who preceded the Member for Queenstown have spoken eloquently and constructively on this subject. Quite a few had come forward with suggestions on how this goal could be achieved and it is constructive criticism. For a moment, I had high hopes that the Member for Queenstown was going to come forward with some helpful suggestions on how we could overcome this extremely difficult and by no means inevitable objective of raising the living standards of the 15-20%. 1 hoped that he would throw a revealing light, a dazzling light if possible. But something fused somewhere, and soon he was groping his way around the labyrinth of, what I call, the politics of envy. After mentioning the sorry plight of the poor, quite correctly, he went on to contrast this with the six-fold increase in the pay of MPs and what he incorrectly claimed was a 10-fold increase in the pay of Ministers. In fact, it is only 6.7% but it does not matter. What is a few per cent?”
“And on the basis of what he said yesterday about Pay-and-Pay, money was extorted from those who visited Queenstown fairs. So what was the fuss all about? Because on this basis he built up his predictions - I will quote him afterwards - of impending doom for Singapore. There were one or two other flagrant instances of what I call Archbishop fallacy. Why he inflicted them on us, I do not know. It may have been with a view to getting a few laughs and God knows, Mr Deputy Speaker, we could do with a bit more fun in this Chamber too. But I did not find funny his genuine or simulated belief that Singapore had gone to the dogs the moment he left it, however briefly six years ago. In fact, the Straits Times commentator today was also politely puzzled by this. This is what he wrote in this morning's Straits Times: 'Mr Jek, remembered as a sober speaker when he was in Cabinet, seemed to have acquired a new, refreshing style as a backbencher.' Mr Deputy Speaker, I never realized until now that one's basic beliefs about the conduct of one's Party is determined by the location of the Bench one occupies in this Chamber at a given moment. I think this is what the Straits Times commentator was politely trying to say. His other error was his flirtation with what I call the politics of envy. I am not referring to his pleas that we should pay more attention to improving the lot of the 15-20% in the lower income group. I agree with it because I also believe that for a Government and the country to flourish, politics of hope is preferable to politics of despair. I believe in the politics of hope. That is why we are here. If I and my colleagues in the dark days had believed in the politics of despair, we would not be here.”
“Any way he gave the impression (I am sorry I have not got the speech here) that he felt that things have gone from bad to worse. And I will quote the instance where he said so, that he felt like a man clinging to the wreckage of Singapore. He told us, I hope he is not going to deny this, how he took a nostalgic stroll in Chinatown, though for the life of me why he should take the air in Chinatown beats me. But he said that what shattered him and convinced him that Singapore was really down the chute was that he had to pay, to quote him, "50 cents to set foot in Chinatown." "Can you believe it?", he asked. Now, being the author of the Archbishop fallacy, I did not believe him, and accordingly made investigations on this matter. My colleague told the truth in so far as he was in Chinatown. It is also possible that he paid 50 cents unless, of course, he effected an illegal entry. But what he did not tell us, the whole truth, was that the 50 cents which he may or may not have paid was charged for entry into the fair organized by the CCC of Kreta Ayer in an empty URA lot between Sago Street and Bandar Street. Fair enough? The fair was organized to sell Chinese New Year goods. Now, unless the hon. Member is in the habit of wandering about in empty URA lots, I would have thought that he could have more usefully and enjoyably spent his time walking in the rest of Chinatown, seeing the beautiful lights and decorations, all for free. So I cannot understand his indignation that he could not get in for free into Chinatown. Yes, there was a fair. He could complain, "I couldn't get a free entry into the trade fair." Fair enough. So I investigated further. He forgot to tell us that similar fairs had been organized in Queenstown.”
“I am glad he said it because I shall quote it -”
“Perhaps if the Minister will listen to me and he can deny that these are the things that he said.”
“I am just repeating what I thought I heard. But he can -”
“" Now, note carefully the wording of the oath, not just the truth, you are required to tell the whole truth. So I believe there are two kinds of truth. There are sound reasons for this. The British courts, based on hundreds of years of experience, and experiences with thousands of crooked witnesses, know that it is possible to tell a lie truthfully. Let me illustrate this in the case of the story about the Archbishop. Now, it was true that he was an Archbishop. It was also true that he had a woman in the hotel. It was also true that the woman was found in bed with him. It was also true that it was not altogether a better class of hotel. But where the Archbishop fallacy occurred was in the reporter failing to tell the whole truth which was that the woman in question was his lawful wife, and that he had chosen this particular hotel because it was cheap. This then is the Archbishop fallacy and is one which occurs, alas, with great frequency in political debates. So the Member for Queenstown yesterday contrived a classic Archbishop fallacy. As you will recollect, Mr Deputy Speaker, he said that after his departure from Singapore and from his ministerial duties six years ago, he returned to find that during his absence things had gone to pot in Singapore.”
“That is good. Now, I would like to make clear to my colleague that my criticism of him in respect of some of the things he said is motivated by nothing more than a desire to instruct the new MPs on the difference between sound criticism and unsound criticism. Yesterday, my colleague from Queenstown made two errors of debate. The first of these I will call, the Archbishop fallacy. It is very theological. You will not unfortunately find any reference to this fallacy, the Archbishop fallacy, in many admirable books on logic like the famous one by Professor Robert Thoules called "Straight and Crooked Thinking". The Archbishop fallacy has to do with crooked thinking and I hope that, after my discourse this afternoon, the Archbishop fallacy will get a modest mention in the next edition of the Professor's book. Now, what is the Archbishop fallacy? This can best be illustrated by the case of a reporter who was determined to make it to the top by one day writing a story which would capture the headlines in the press of the world. And one day he did come up with such an earth-shattering scoop. It was that an eminent Archbishop had been caught red-handed in bed with a woman in one of the less eminent hotels, in the least eminent of side-streets. Now, you will agree an Archbishop found in the company of a strange woman in a hotel is not a peanut story. And the editor was so excited that he nearly swallowed his pipe by this scoop, this beautiful story. But it eventually turned out to be an Archbishop fallacy. This is where the fallacy comes in. The Archbishop fallacy has to do with the kind of oath which witnesses are required to take in our courts of law. It goes something like this, "i swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.”
“Apart from this, there is also the other equally intriguing question of whether it is the Member for Potong Pasir or the Member for Anson, even if you go along with their delusion, who can claim to speak for the people, since both claimed that they are the true people's loudspeaker. So that is why I think "The Three Christs", should be of particular interest to both. It may even save them. Now, I do not propose to reveal how"The Three Christs" resolved their difficulties. I think I should not deprive the two distinguished Opposition Members the pleasure of discovering what exactly happened. All I can hint is to tell them that it was earth-shaking, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the time has now come for me to turn my fraternal attention to the Member for Queenstown and launch my lecture on Useful Criticism and Fun Criticism. Let me, before I indulge in verbal karate, say that there were things in his speech which I found agreeable; others disagreeable, but legitimate and forgivable. But there was a great deal which should have properly come from either the Member for Anson or the Member for Potong Pasir. In fact, I was watching the Member for Potong Pasir closely yesterday while my colleague from Queenstown was striking out for waters which were clearly out of his depth. And I thought I saw a look of profound envy on the face of the Member for Potong Pasir, who obviously wished he had the imprudence to have gone as far as the Member for Queenstown did. Maybe next time he will not be so timid. Strike out. Do not hesitate, even if you cannot swim, deep waters are good. An hon. Member: He is a good swimmer!”
“That is accurate, factual, and there is no delusion. As against this, the PAP can, on the basis of General Election figures, claim to speak for 568,310 Singaporeans. If to this, we add the voters from the 30 uncontested constituencies and they were uncontested because the opposition parties felt they had no chance in these constituencies, if I add the two together, then the PAP can claim to speak for 1,118,989 Singaporeans as against 143,041 for the two constituencies combined. Yet both of them were claiming during the last one week that they represent Singapore. They are speaking-for the people of Singapore - not for 143,000 against 1,118,000? This, Mr Deputy Speaker, I submit, requires a delusion of considerable magnitude. It is not in the Christ-class but quite close. So these two Members with just 143,000-odd voters claim that they are the true voice of the people, possibly even of God, and to talk as though the PAP with its 1,118,000-odd votes has fallen out of favour with the people and it is tottering on the brink of political bankruptcy. The Member for Potong Pasir has got a new word - credibility. I heard him just now. He talked at great length, waxed eloquent, on the credibility of the Government was in question. I ask him: whose credibility is in question when, with 32,000-odd votes, he claims to speak for Singapore? In view of the figures I have just quoted, I am willing to go before any mind-doctor with the Member for Potong Pasir. The Member for Anson is not here - so could you please pass this offer to him? I could ask the mind-doctor to study objectively the facts that I have given to determine whose credibility is in doubt. I am talking of a scientifically trained mind-doctor, a psychologist, clinician.”
“As I recall, the Member for Potong Pasir and the Member for Anson separately claimed with great sincerity and utter conviction that they each individually represented the people of Singapore, that they spoke for the people of Singapore, that each was the only true voice of the oppressed majority of Singapore and, if I heard them correctly, that unless the PAP heeded their call to repent and amend its ways, then both of them separately saw themselves as the chosen redeemers of the people of Singapore. Mr Deputy Speaker, I am not suggesting that both these Members entertained delusions that they are Christ. At least there is no evidence so far. All I am suggesting is that they entertain delusions that mercifully fall far short of this. The question that concerns me and must concern them is: which of them speaks for the people, the majority of the people of Singapore? Therein lies the delusion. It is a minor delusion, but one never knows because all delusions have a start. Had the Member for Anson asserted here that he speaks for 9,909 Singa- poreans in Anson and had the Member for Potong Pasir insisted that he spoke for 10,128 Singaporeans, I would have accepted these as plausible and rational claims. I would also have accepted as a triumph for rationality had they claimed that each represented the majority of the people in Anson or at Potong Pasir. That is reasonable, obvious. I would have even accepted as a reasonable claim by the Member for Anson had he stated that his Party as a whole spoke for 110,939 Singaporeans, just short of one to make a round figure. I would have accepted that. Similarly, I could have been persuaded by the Member for Potong Pasir, who is the unacknowledged Leader of the Opposition, that he represented 32,102 Singaporeans throughout Singapore.”
“So I have a vested interest. Far from getting them out of this Chamber, I will quietly make quite sure that they get returned the next time because so long as they are here nobody will think of an alternative to the PAP Government. That is why I recommend this book. It is part of this process of ensuring the permanent occupancy of the two distinguished Opposition Members. Professor Rokeach brought together to his clinic three patients for extensive study. The only thing wrong with these three otherwise sane, intelligent and healthy men was that each entertained the unassailable conviction that he was Jesus Christ. What the Professor wanted to find out was how these three Christs would react to one another if they were kept together for extended periods of time in his clinic. Get them to meet one another often. How would they treat their respective claims that they were Christ? Sir, it is a very fascinating book. At first, the three men simply and politely ignored one another's claims. Then after a passage of time, they tried to convince one another that each was harbouring an obvious delusion, simply because the persuader believed that he was undeniably Christ. When they failed to convince one another then each tried to convince the Professor that the other claimants, in his view, were completely mad and that the Professor should do all he could to restore them to sanity. Mr Deputy Speaker, I must, at this stage, assure the Member for Potong Pasir that this book has no direct relevance to the predicament the two Members are in, as revealed in their speeches.”
“Because I am certain that an old guard dog, like him, with his vast wisdom acquired over two decades, can, if he sets his mind to it, use his remaining years, as I like to think I am doing, help guide the new leaders through the jungle of politics instead of as he unwittingly did yesterday, laying false scent in a desperate attempt, I suspect, to be amusing. But before I get down to my "Wednesday sermon", this being Wednesday, on the uses and abuses of criticism, I should perhaps demonstrate my impartiality in this matter by first taking a few swipes, a few ritualistic swipes, at the two Opposition Members, though I had originally intended to leave this pleasure to my colleagues. But since I bothered to stand up at my age, I thought I might take this opportunity which might not occur again. On some future occasion, the two Members for Anson and Potong Pasir can, if they work at it properly, provoke me into delivering a much needed lecture on how to be a useful, constructive and happy Opposition MP. Today, alas, I must withhold this generous bounty. I listened to the two Opposition Members and, on the basis of what I heard, I feel, partly as a public duty and partly on humanitarian grounds, that they should get hold of a very fascinating book written by a Polish-born Professor of Psychology at Michigan University. His name is Dr Milton Rokeach. It is called "The Three Christs". I cannot adequately convey the spirit and fascination of this remarkable book but this brief summary should, I hope, arouse the curiosity of the two Opposition Members whose welfare, strange as it may seem, I have at heart. I will tell you why. So long as these two gentlemen remain in this Chamber, I am quite confident that they will keep out better men from the Opposition Bench.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I had originally not intended to participate in this debate because I wanted to leave it to the newer MPs, but after having listened to some of the collected and uncollected thoughts of the Member for Queenstown, I felt I should not allow him to get away with blue murder. I do so because the Member is, like me, of the old guard, and so the new guards, out of respect for the older generation, might consider themselves lacking in piety by contradicting an elder. 3.25 pm [Mr Deputy Speaker in the Chair] The other reason for my intervention is that the Member for Queenstown has given me an opportunity to give a fatherly lecture to the newer MPs on the uses and abuses of criticism, the difference between constructive criticism and, what I call, "fun and games" criticism. It is not, let me repeat, not an attempt on my part, to teach an old political dog like my colleague from Queenstown new tricks. The problem with old dogs, alas, is not how to teach them new tricks, but to get them to remember old tricks, which they learnt at great cost and pain, and sacrifice. Like me, the Member for Queenstown is a battle-scarred veteran of many dangerous and sometimes dicey campaigns over the past two decades. I have not forgotten the lessons I learnt. You, many of you, never had the opportunity to learn the lessons. But in my humble opinion, after having listened to his undoubtedly boisterous performance yesterday, I feel that there are incipient signs of neuron depletion, and it is occurring possibly at a faster rate than I suspected. So perhaps my unsolicited lecture might, even if it cannot reverse the process, at least arrest it.”
“May I finish my speech? - and which has the distinction of being the first political party in this country or in any other country which has been brought to a state of bankruptcy by a politician. I know of no political party in the world which has been put in the hands of a Receiver and no politician has accomplished this miraculous feat. What I am here for is to make it quite clear to the hon. Member for Anson that this Bill has nothing to do with retrieving me from a lawsuit which he has taken against me, since he has made reference to this particular case. I did not make any reference. May I just remind him that as far as I am concerned, I need no legal protection against his miraculous capacity to misread the law and take action against people, without knowing his law.”
“There is an appeal going around, or going to go around, asking for public assistance for a party which was involved in lawsuits -”
“No, Sir. References have certainly been made here which involved me. First, may I declare my personal and pecuniary interest in this matter which, as the hon. Member for Anson has learned, is the proper thing to do. I understand the hon. Member for Anson to have said, in reference to this matter before the House, that this Bill is being brought about to protect me in a lawsuit which I did not take but which he has taken against me. The distinguished hon. Member for Anson has made it a practice to take on lawsuits which he does not have a win.”
“A point of clarification, Sir. I am not speaking from any experience. In view of the sneaky proposal that the Member put earlier to the Prime Minister that the charges against Phey Yew Kok should be dropped, is he really serious in pursuing this particular question?”
“Dhanabalan asked the Minister for Labour whether, in view of the fact that many small businesses are not prepared to consider employing permanent residents as they want to avoid the trouble of applying for work permits for such persons, he will consider changing the procedure to allow permanent residents to apply directly for work permits without sponsors or employers being involved, and issue work permits on such applications thus enabling permanent residents to find employment more easily.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, relations between Singapore and Vietnam had developed normally, prior to the hijacking incident in October 1977. As Members will recollect, the Vietnamese Vice-Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Phan Hien, came to Singapore in July 1976. A delegation from the Singapore Chinese Chamber of Commerce visited Vietnam in April 1977, and this was followed by an economic delegation organised by INTRACO in August. So things were developing smoothly until the hijacking incident which created differences between Singapore and Vietnam. Of course, we have our respective views on the question of jurisdiction over the hijackers. We, that is, Singapore, still hold to our views and I presume the Vietnamese to theirs. The hijackers have been tried and sentenced. As of now, I think relations between Singapore and Vietnam are normal. Direct telephone and telex services between Singapore and Ho Chi Minh City, broken off since April 1975, were resumed on 1st December, 1977. The office of the Import and Export Corporation of the Socialist Republic of Vietnam in Singapore has continued with its routine activities. Our diplomatic representatives in Third World countries maintain regular contact with each other. I expect relations between the two countries to develop along constructive lines in the coming months. WORK PERMITS FOR PERMANENT RESIDENTS 3. Mr S.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, this matter is now the subject of diplomatic contact and discussions between the two governments. It would therefore not be at all helpful to say anything further at this stage. PULAU TEKONG BESAR (Development of sea beach at Kampong Permatang) 4. Mr Teo Chong Tee asked the Minister for National Development and Communications whether his Ministry will consider developing the sea beach at Kampong Permetang in Pulau Tekong Besar as a holiday resort in view of its popularity with campers and picnickers from the main Island. The Senior Minister of State for National Development (Dr Tan Eng Liang) (for the Minister for National Development and Communications): Mr Speaker, Sir, there is no immediate plan to develop the sea beach at Kampong Permatang in Pulau Tekong Besar into a holiday resort. However, the beach will continue to be available to campers and picnickers. JALAN BUKIT MERAH (Request for pedestrian overhead bridge) 5.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, we would not know when they are specially selected until after we have spotted them. And when we spot them we arrest them. MAIN AND DEVELOPMENT ESTIMATES OF SINGAPORE FOR THE FINANCIAL YEAR 1ST APRIL, 1977 TO 31ST MARCH, 1978 Order read for resumed consideration in Committee of Supply [7th Allotted Day]. [Mr Speaker in the Chair] 2.50 p.m. Head O (cont.) -”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, first of all, we have not the slightest intention of getting rid of the foreign press. The foreign press may get rid of itself by itself. It is interesting, Sir, that Singapore is not the only country which seems to get into trouble with the Western press. All over Asia and Africa Western pressmen have been either arrested, deported or suspended. In fact, as I have said, in Singapore we have done none of these things. So there is a role for Western pressmen. I am not talking of all foreign correspondents because apart from the British press there has been no complaint from any foreign correspondent, neither from Izvestia nor from Peking nor from Hanoi. If he means by foreign correspondents the Western press, they have a role to play. "Please report as accurately as you can, even critically as you can, so long as you do not interfere in our internal affairs."”
“In my view, and I know many of them, most of them are just being straightforward newsmen. But some presumably are specially selected by their editors, including local journalists, for more than mere reporting. For example, Mr Derek Davies of the Far Eastern Economic Review has a flair (it must have been a well developed one, a very unusual flair) for choosing local malcontents for correspondents. I must assume that Mr Davies has carefully assessed their character before appointing them. He must therefore know that he will get biased, blunted and false reports from them. Mr Speaker, you may recollect a British press baron, Lord Northcliffe, if I am right, who said he never had to tell his editor what to write because the man he chose made this unnecessary. Or as a British poet put it more pungently (and I quote): `You cannot, thank God Bribe or twist A British journalist But seeing what the fellow will do Unbribed There's no occasion to.'”
“On the contrary it is because we have not been following Mr Shawcross' advice that foreign investors have shown a growing interest in Singapore and increasing nervousness about those countries where the remedies Mr Shawcross suggests have been applied. Mr Speaker, Sir, I have my own views as to why certain sections of the Western press, and in particular the British press, are going beyond the bounds of journalism to pressurise the Singapore Government into adopting policies which the people of Singapore know would bring back the lawlessness, violence, rioting, and economic stagnation which were features when the Communists and pro-Communists were allowed to run around. The Western press knows, including the Western pressmen here, that we are not crushing opposition. In the recent elections there were any number of parties. We are not crushing opposition which is lawful and constitutional but Communist opposition which is unlawful, and for the suppression of which we have full mandate from the people. And yet they go back, even now, and say we are crushing opposition, never saying we are crushing Communist opposition. So, Mr Speaker, Sir, under the pretence of upholding human rights and democracy in darkest Singapore, what this section of the press, of the British press in particular, is agitating for through distortion and even blackmail is rights for Communists and pro-Communists to run around once again in Singapore knowing full well what the consequences would be for Singapore. Is it that they want a revival of the old Singapore? Why is the press doing this? Well, Mr Speaker, that is another story for some other time. Are then the foreign correspondents resident in Singapore suspect?”
“to confess to the error of their ways in a press conference on live television." Neither of the two journals concerned mentioned the pertinent fact that the Western pressmen were there at the conference and that they had not made the slightest attempt through interview to get at the facts, to get at the truth. Sir, the truth had already been arrived at before the press conference in the editorial offices in London and any fresh and conflicting evidence would be most unwelcome. Since the PAP Government and the voters of Singapore appear to be adamant in doing what they think is good for Singapore, the Sunday Times and Mr Shawcross have now carried British journalism into the murkier grounds of blackmail. Since they cannot persuade us by threats, what about blackmail. So he warned Singapore that (and I quote): "as Singapore depends on the international money market for its prosperity (the arrests) can prove counterproductive." Telling us if we do not do what they say we must do, no more investments. That is how I read it. Mr Shawcross wants us to believe that were Singapore to release known and self-confessed Communists, stop broadcasting revelations by Communists and pro-Communists how they go about their furtive business of subversion, give immunity to those who, under cover of free speech, breach the laws of libel and slander and scrap the detention laws for which we have popular mandate then, according to Mr Shawcross, foreign investors would be streaming into Singapore, pockets full of money and with joy in their hearts. Perhaps Mr Shawcross has a pretty low opinion of Asian intelligence and especially of Singapore intelligence.”
“Had there been an intense cross-questioning by foreign pressmen of Arun and Raman, what would have in fact emerged was that we had detained a journalist who had knowingly played along with the communists, and a lawyer with affiliations with British Marxists, not averse, according to Mr Raman, to using violence to bring down the PAP Government. Had the Western newsmen actively participated in the interview, then they would have had to report it as such and report what actually happened and that would have left an impression in the minds of readers in the Western world that the detention was justified. So better keep quiet and leave undisturbed the impression that the TV press conference was rigged. Hence The Times of 18th March could with apparent honesty editorialise as follows: "The televised statements by Mr Raman and Mr Senkuttuvan, both of them hollow-sounding recitals with a dictated air - by whatever means they were extracted ...", That is, "the whole thing is phoney. Do not question. Just report what you think happened." Incidentally, Sir, the same paper dismissed the recent Singapore general elections in a couple of obscure paragraphs. It would not have suited The Times' carefully nurtured image of a tyrannical PAP Government to have given importance to the fact that it had instead won all seats for the third time and with an increased majority of the votes cast. So tuck it away. Similarly, thanks to the silence of the Western pressmen, the Economist of 19th March, the next day, permitted itself this little bit of detached comment, and I quote: "Roll up for yet another public showing of the uglier face of Singapore's police state. On March 12. the Government persuaded two of the men arrested ...”
“Sir, I can think of many occasions in Europe and America when newsmen were not averse to coming into TV studios, were not deterred by studio lights and batteries of TV cameras from grilling subjects who could provide them with news and, in this case, indeed most startling news had the newsmen been able to expose these confessions as a fraud. It was not that we had put any kind of restraints on the questions the newsmen could ask. There were none. In fact, the Chairman. Mr James Fu, had repeatedly asked the foreign pressmen to put questions and all this was greeted with what I can only describe as "studied silence". Clearly, the foreign newsmen had come determined and convinced that the cause of press freedom or some other cause could best be served by not being provoked into asking questions. This, in my view, is odd behaviour for men who earn their bread and butter and their reputation by asking awkward questions. I can only make a guess at this inexplicable lack of curiosity over confessions which had already been portrayed by sections of the Western press as manifestations of a police state. My guess, Mr Speaker, is that the Western newsmen sensed from the evidence given to them that an intense grilling of Mr Arun and Mr Raman, far from weakening the Government's case, would only have strengthened it. It would have shattered the myth so elaborately built up in sections of the Western press that the PAP Government was dedicated to stamping out all dissent, crushing all political opponents and building up a totalitarian state.”
“No government or international financiers have told us officially or unofficially that they have lost confidence in the Singapore Government as a result of the recent arrests in Singapore. So I do not know what Mr Shawcross is talking about. As regards the Member's second half of the question, I am not quite sure what the hon. Member means when he asks whether "foreign correspondents resident in Singapore have any role to play in the foreign relations of the Republic." Perhaps what the Member has in mind is, to me, the astonishing conduct of some foreign newsmen in Singapore and the even more astonishing reaction of certain British publications to the arrest and confessions of Mr Arun and Mr Raman, among others. The coverage in a number of British papers of the public statements of Arun and Raman have not been so much factual reports as sceptical and selective evaluations of what was said by them. The general tenor of the reports was such as to leave in the minds of their readers the impressions that the confessions were rigged and that the people arrested were not really communists or communist supporters but victims of PAP intolerance. Yet, Mr Speaker, Sir, when the foreign press was invited to question Arun and Raman over TV, their silence was deafening. If Western pressmen really believed that the whole show was stage-managed, that the two gentlemen concerned had been either tortured or terrorised into admitting things they had not done, then one would have thought that here was an opportunity for the Western pressmen to expose by sharp and in-depth questioning of the two that the whole thing was rigged. Here was an opportunity.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I think the hon. Member is referring to an article by a Mr William Shawcross in the Sunday Times of London of 13th March. In answering the hon. Member's question I am in danger of breaching a new convention which certain sections of the Western Press have developed in regard to criticism. If a pressman attacks a politician, that is free speech. But if the politician concerned hits back, then a hue and cry is raised that freedom of the press is in utter jeopardy. A point that has been lost sight of in recent press criticisms about the Singapore Government is that though we have, as a Government, often exercised our right to tell off certain foreign pressmen when we think them misguided, we have never arrested or deported any of them or banned their publications merely for critical and even ill-informed articles about Singapore. We have done so only when, from being mere observers and reporters, pressmen have become active partisans in our domestic affairs or, as a number of them did, got involved with subversion and the espousal of its cause. Sir, with regard to Mr William Shawcross' observation in the Sunday Times that the arrest of Singaporeans who have admitted to working with the communists has blackened Singapore's international reputation, it has about as much substance as that paper's efforts a few years ago to sell the Slater-Walker team to the world as model of 21st century entrepreneurs. Admittedly, Sir, the reputation of the Singapore Government has sunk rapidly in the eyes of a handful of British publications, like the Sunday Times, The Times, the Far Eastern Economic Review and the Economist. But these publications do not represent world opinion and our reputation with some 1 50 nations is as sound as ever before. Some hon.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, there are a few hard-core ones who have not confessed, I mean, you know their names. But who their masters are, we do not know. They may not be in Singapore at all. You read Mr Raman's statement today. Communists are like weeds. You weed them, they grow, and unfortunately you have got to keep on weeding. The moment you stop weeding, the weeds will cover the grass, and that is the end of Singapore. HOUSING BOARD ESTATES (Turfing of open areas) 2. Encik Mansor Haji Sukaimi asked the Minister for National Development and Communications what measures will be taken to ensure that debris, rusty iron rods, metal and stones are cleared before playgrounds and open areas in the Housing and Development Board estates are turfed. and that the use of barbed wires in these areas will be prohibited. The Senior Minister of State for National Development (Dr Tan Eng Liang) (for the Minister for National Development and Communications): Mr Speaker, Sir, the Housing and Development Board has in the past asked the contractors to make good the playgrounds and open areas in cases where debris were not properly cleared. The Board will continue with this practice, and also exercise greater supervision on the contractors to ensure that all debris are removed. It is the responsibility of the contractors to clean up open spaces and other grounds within a specific time after completing their work. The Housing and Development Board will impose a fine on those who fail to do so. In addition, they are required to clear the debris immediately. Barbed wires are used to fence in newly turfed areas. They will be removed once the turf is fully established.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I understand the strength of feeling of the hon. Member. But I have made it quite clear that Mr Tan Wah Piow's operation had not been directed by the Commonwealth. It had been directed by a small group of gentlemen. One was Malcolm Caldwell, who has claimed that he is even superior to Mao because he says he is an anarcho-Maoist. These are individuals who are usually of some influence. They have got him a place in Bradford University. I think the best punishment we can inflict on those responsible for this is to let them have Tan Wah Piow, because sooner or later he is going to create trouble for them too. I think it is better to leave him there, let him be a good lawyer or a bad lawyer. Let them feed him and look after him. That is better than locking him up here and feeding him.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the education has already started, and we have got the best lecturer on Marxism-Leninism in Mr Raman. He has been telling the people for the last two days exactly how they operate. We cannot convince Mr Jeyaretnam. but fortunately for us, Singapore does not consist of Jeyaretnams. So this is the first lesson in Marxism-Leninism, not in theory but in practice. We hope tomorrow everybody will listen to Mr Arun who is not a Marxist but who has been dragged in. He will be narrating how they operate. There is a gentleman called Mr Derek Davies who is also, I think, a stooge, an unwitting stooge, of the communists. These are lessons in Marxism - how the communists can manipulate non-communists or near-communists without their knowing that they are being manipulated. This is one lesson which has already started. I hope it will be supplemented by more systematic instructions in Marxism-Leninism, not as they say it is but as it actually is. I hope that Members of Parliament will buy the Marxist-Leninist books available in Singapore, study them, and also listen to the speeches of the Minister for Home Affairs who from time to time issues little statements to show what Marxism really is.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, as I have stated earlier, the relations between the governments are good, because we do not regard these operations as operations conducted by the respective governments. Both governments, I believe, are equally satisfied that on basic issues. Singapore/ Malaysia and Singapore/Britain in particular. we have the same objective, that is, to preserve a non-communist world. In fact, if there is any digression or diversion by black operations. we are really tripping one another. I hope this realisation will sink in because relations between the governments are good and, I hope, will continue to be good, unless, of course, the Communists should take over these countries. Then, of course, relations must be invariably bad.”
“Because if the communists come, as has happened in one or two countries in this part of the world, the first people they eliminate are the goat communists who, they say, are weak enough to simulate communism and therefore are dangerous, because when Communism is in power they will simulate liberalism. So they exterminate them. Sir, I suspect that people like Mr Raman and so on are affluent communists, part-time communists, goat communists.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, sometime ago I wrote an article in which I divided our communists, and possibly communists in other countries, into two categories. The first category comprises dedicated communists who believe in their cause and who will die for their cause. The other category, to summarise my thesis, comprises what I would call ``goat communists". These are the liberals who play at revolution, and the communists often use them, as in World War II when the Army wanted to clear a mine field `they first sent goats to find out where the mines were and to explode them. They are expendables. That is the role of people like Mr Raman and others. He is not the only one to come out and confess. Earlier on we had a ballerina and others who confessed. These are affluent communists, goat communists, who play at revolution. They think there is a lot of excitement, hoping to find a place for themselves - you know, thwarted ambitions, personal grudges, vanity. So they play around. And they believed that because they had very powerful friends in the United Kingdom, the Western world, who are liberals, newspaper men, to play up their cause, we would be scared to proceed against them. But the moment we do, when they are detained and brought for interrogation they see the evidence that we have and the prospect that if they do not tell the truth they can be detained for five years. If the PAP is going to last for the next 15 years, then they must ask themselves, is this what revolution is all about?”