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 7 of 8.
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to draw the attention of the hon. Member to two facts in the context of which the particular problem he has raised should be viewed. The first is that the Singapore Government is only one of the shareholders of the Malaysia-Singapore Airlines. The second is that the Company is run on a strictly commercial basis and that recruitment of staff should have relevance to the requirements and efficiency of the enterprise. In the airline business, the company and its employees have to deal with firms and passengers not only from Singapore but from all over the world. The medium of communication has to be one of the international languages - in our particular case, English - if the M.S.A. is to hold its own in an extremely competitive business. Therefore, there is no question of discrimination between different language groups in the matter of recruitment. The criteria is whether the candidate has the specific qualifications demanded by the job. However, for the information of the hon. Member, there are nine senior staff and about 600 junior staff who have had part or most of their education in the Chinese, Malay or Tamil language streams. Only a few days ago, one of the accountant trainees selected for employment was from a Chinese High School and one of the two-system analysts selected was a graduate from Nanyang University. Conversely, a number of English-educated staff know Chinese, Malay or Tamil as well. Since it is essential, in the very nature of the airline business, for candidates to know English from whatever language stream they may come, they should have no difficulty reading vacancy announcements in English. CIVIL SERVICE (Dismissal of Divisions III and IV officers on account of indebtedness) 2. Mr R. A.”
“As I have told hon. Members just now, a Standing Committee was set up, and since my recent visit to Indonesia, the Indonesian Foreign .Minister has told me that he expects to summon a meeting of the Standing Committee, which is composed of officials or Ambassadors of the respective countries, some time this month, if it is convenient to other members of ASEAN countries, to get down to studying some of the proposals which have been put up for consideration by the Standing Committee, like tourism, shipping, fisheries and the promotion of intra-regional trade. RELIGIOUS TEACHERS IN MALAY SCHOOLS (Shortage and recruitment) 9. Inche Mohd. Ariff Bin Suradi asked the Minister for Education how many teachers of religion in Malay Schools have been recruited this year and whether he is aware of the shortage of such teachers.”
“No, Sir, it will have no effect, because the members of ASEAN subscribe to the aims and objectives of ASEAN. Whether they have any other arrangements outside of ASEAN is none of our concern. After all, we belong to the United Nations where there are 126 members ranging from Maphilindo to other beliefs - Communist, non-Communist, capitalist, democratic and so on. The fact that members have different ideologies does not mean that they do in any way commit ASEAN to depart from the declared objectives which have been made public.”
“At the moment, I do not think we should consider any other objectives than those declared in ASEAN and those, at the moment, do not contain any political objectives but economic objectives. I am in no position to say what will happen in 5, 10, 20 or 50 years from now.”
“As I have stated, Sir, ASEAN is a scheme for economic co-operation. It is not military. It does not affect our basic foreign policies and certainly not Singapore's foreign policy, though we might have to adjust our foreign policy. This has nothing to do with ASEAN but with changing circumstances in the region. But ASEAN as such does not in any way bind us to any foreign policy that we do not want to pursue. Mr Tang See Chim: Mr Speaker, Sir, it has also been said that the ultimate objective of ASEAN is a political union. Would the Foreign Minister comment on this?”
“Yes. As far as Singapore is concerned, a common market is one of the objectives, and I am glad to say that a number of countries, particularly Indonesia, since my recent visit there, have indicated an interest in seeing that ASEAN in the course of time also develops into a common market region.”
“Sir, since Singapore is not a member of ASA, I think this is .a matter for the original members - the three countries - to decide. But they have made public what they feel would be the impact of ASEAN, and it is this. The more ASEAN succeeds. the less use would there be for ASA in that ASA would be absorbed into ASEAN.”
“Mr Lingam: Mr Speaker, Sir, can the Minister explain to the House what effects the formation of ASEAN will have on the Association of South Asia?”
“At such a time when most countries of the world, especially the advanced countries of the world, are welding themselves into bigger and bigger economic units, the countries of South-east Asia, which are relatively under-developed and small, cannot go on believing that economic nationalism and self-sufficiency are the sure roads to modernisation and progress. ASEAN is, therefore, the first substantive step we have taken with other South-east Asian countries towards a regional economy. At the ASEAN meeting in Bangkok we agreed that regional co-operation should begin not merely by declaring good intentions embodied in the ASEAN Declaration, but to go a step further and pursue projects which are relatively simple in that they are those in which, no strong vested national interests are involved. The Standing Committee which was set up has been asked to consider and make proposals for joint development programmes on such subjects as tourism, shipping, fisheries and what is called expansion of intra-regional trade at the next Ministerial meeting in Jakarta. However, hon. Members will agree that the good intentions embodied in the ASEAN declaration alone are not sufficient. They have to run the gauntlet of political difficulties before they can be translated into action. As such, it will be unrealistic to expect a dramatic leap into regional co-operation. We should remember that even the European Economic Community took some ten years of haggling before it got off the ground. But for the time being, we should be satisfied if there is a steady, even if slow, movement towards regionalism. ASEAN is South-east Asia's first major attempt to apply to South-east Asia and its problems the more hopeful and fruitful idea of regionalism.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, with your permission, I shall answer Questions Nos. 7 and 8 together. Sir, I do not propose to give a detailed account of the aims and purposes of the Association of South-east Asian Nations, or ASEAN for short, as these have already been published in the newspapers. Very briefly, ASEAN is an organisation to accelerate economic growth, social progress and cultural development in the region through joint endeavours in the spirit of equality and partnership. This is the essence of ASEAN. However, what I would like to stress is that ASEAN as such is not concerned with military problems of the region. This is not to say that member countries are disinterested in defence matters. In fact, economic and social progress in the region would become well nigh impossible if these countries cannot safeguard their national integrity and security. However, one of the consequences of the successful realisation of the aims and objects of ASEAN would be to bring economic stability and thereby enhance prospects for peace and security in the region. In this sense, and only in this sense, is ASEAN an organisation for promoting peace and security in the region. Economic life today is rooted in interdependence, and national frontiers do not coincide with our actual economic frontiers. The advanced and economically-developed countries of the West, both Communist and non-Communist, realise this. The two Americas constitute, for all practical purposes, one gigantic working economic bloc. The Communist countries of the West have their COMICON. The highly industrialised countries of Western Europe have formed themselves into an economic community.”
“So when I hear leaders from the minority communities mouthing communal slogans day in and day out, hoping to succeed in deluding the minorities into taking the communal road, I am convinced that they will turn out to be, historically and objectively, the men who have betrayed and destroyed the race, the language and religion which they now profess to defend, because every time a minority leader talks of "Malays unite," or "Indians unite," or "Eurasians unite," or Ceylonese unite," I know the day will come when somebody will get up and say, "Chinese unite." If the minorities keep on talking about Malays unite, Indians unite, then there must come a day when the Chinese will say, "All right, now I will say what you people say. Chinese unite." And when that day comes, then I say whatever might be written into the constitution, the minorities are lost. The other way, as I have said, which constitutionally is the best safeguard for the minorities, is to ask for equal rights politically. The best guarantee for minorities is to fight always and everywhere for multi-racial parties. And the best way to do that is for them to get out from their own communal parties. Then I say, politically and constitutionally the future for the minorities will be bright, safe and secure. Mr Speaker: I think this is a convenient time to suspend. I will suspend the sitting now and take the Chair again at half-past Five. Sitting accordingly suspended at one minute to Five o'clock p.m, until 5.30 p.m. Sitting resumed at 5.30 p.m. [Mr Speaker in the Chair] Debate resumed.”
“But so long as the Chinese express-themselves politically through multi-racial parties, the communalists among the majority will always be under check. Therefore, as we see it, the best guarantee against communalism by the majority is the emergence and consolidation of multi-racial parties. Only through multi-racial parties can the minorities get the majority to reach accommodation with them, by compelling the majority to pay regard to the interests of all, the majority as well as the minorities. Any minority leader who tells his people that the united strength of his community can prevail over the united strength of the majority is leading his people to perdition. The truth that must be got across to the minority communities as soon as possible is this. The majority community has more to gain from communal politics. That is fact number one. Somehow we must drive into the minds of the minority communities that if they want to play communal politics, then victory would go to the majority community. Make no mistake about it. And for the minorities, the day that multi-racial parties decline in Singapore, that is their day of doom. More than the majority community, therefore, the minorities have a vital interest in the growth and dominance of multi-racial parties whether of the Right or of the Left.”
“In any case, if the minority communal leaders were successful in getting support for their communal parties, if they could really mobilise all Malays, all Chinese, all Ceylonese, all Eurasians to join only communal parties, then unwittingly, even if the majority were multi-racial-minded, non-communal-minded, they would organisationally become a communal party. In the case of Singapore, where there is a vast majority - in fact, almost totally - of Chinese, if a Malay communal party succeeds in rallying only the Malays around them, there would be no Malays, no Indians and no Ceylonese inside the majority party; so the Chinese party organisationally, in terms of membership, must become communal. If the majority party happens, because of the stupidity of the minorities, to be a party only of Chinese, then it is inevitable that one day it must drift into communalism. So it would appear to me that the more minority communities turn to communal politics, the more certain they make the advent of what they fear, and that is communalism of the majority. Therefore, Sir, minority communalism is all the more foolish and suicidal in Singapore, because as of today there are no effective Chinese communal parties. That is an interesting fact. The majority has not resorted to the formation of communal parties. There was some time ago, it is true, the M.C.A., but it has vanished from political life simply because it could not get support from the majority community. Therefore, today we are in the fortunate position that the majority community in Singapore is expressing itself through multi-racial parties and this has acted as a brake-on Chinese communalism which undoubtedly exists as a latent force and will continue to do so for some time.”
“I would pretend to take very seriously the claims of communal political party leaders that only communal or racial parties can be trusted to look after the interests and welfare of the community concerned. I would say that is quite correct. This would suit the majority leaders fine. They could then with a clear conscience confine themselves to looking after the interests only of the majority on the same principle that only a particular race can look after the interest of that particular race. They could further disavow any responsibility for the welfare of the minorities, if the minorities should complain, the leaders of the majority could quite logically maintain that this responsibility has been transferred to the leaders and representatives of minority political parties. After all, the minority communal leaders justify communal parties on the basis that only members of a particular race can look after the interest of that particular race. But, worse of all is that once minority communalists turn to communal politics as the only solution, then the majority community is also free to go in for uninhibited communal politics themselves. It would be illogical for the minority leaders to object to communal politics on the part of the majority while at the same time extolling communal politics for themselves. The minorities cannot insist that the majority community should adhere to multi-racial parties and make a multi-racial approach while the minorities should go in for communal politics and racial politics.”
“Sir, this being so, I cannot understand why minority leaders should become fervent advocates of communal parties and communal politics, because in Singapore there is not the slightest prospect of minority communal parties getting anywhere politically by either constitutional means or otherwise. Sir, if I were a communal politician from the majority community, the first thing I would do is to subsidise communal politicians from minority communities. I would encourage communal political parties from the minorities. This would be the quickest and easiest way to assure permanent and unbridled dominance by the majority community. If I were a Chinese communalist in Singapore, what I would do is not only to encourage communal parties but even pass legislation to say that minority communities should only belong to minority parties or that one racial community should belong to a specific political party and ban multi-racial parties. If I were a Chinese communal leader, that is what I would do. I would encourage minorities to form their own political parties. I would be generous enough to write a constitution granting a few seats for the minorities in Parliament. Five or ten seats do not matter. I would give them that because I have nothing to lose and everything to gain as a Chinese communalist by doing this, because then the minorities would forever remain a minority in Parliament - an ineffective minority - and forever play the role of just a permanent but ineffective opposition in the country. If I were a Chinese communalist in Singapore, I would see another advantage in encouraging communal parties among the minorities.”
“I can well understand, though I deplore, those communal leaders who strive to advance themselves politically by appealing to the communal sentiments of the majority. I can understand a member of the majority community wanting to play communalism. Such leaders at least have a fairly good chance of success for the simple reason that the majority community can always win hands down in a communal political contest. 4.45 p.m.”
“If we have a conflict, we will know who belongs to which community. So once you precipitate a conflict, I say, Sir, it must be a total conflict. Therefore, unlike some of the other countries, it is more than ever necessary for those here who start playing around with language or religion in the hope of arousing support for themselves to be cautious of saying, "Oh, so-and-so is anti-Malay; so-and-so is anti-Chinese." They might think that they are making these statements purely to get short-term benefits, but once these statements spark off a conflagration, then the consequences will be far more horrible and terrible than has been the case in some of the other countries. I notice that communal politicians and communal parties in Singapore are well aware of all these factors that make for possible communal conflict. Therefore, they make deliberate appeals to race, language, religion and culture. I have yet to see a man or a leader of a Party, which claims to represent a particular minority community, making appeals to all on the basis of general ideology. He talks in terms of specialised appeals - language, race, religion and culture. One day the appeal may be to race solidarity or blood brotherhood. On other occasions he will appear as the defender of language or religion, and for a change may come forward as the champion of their culture. And in moments of desperation, especially just before an election or during an election, all the four instruments may be played simultaneously. These appeals to communal factors are resorted to by both the majority community and the minority communities, i.e, all those who believe that communal solidarity or racial solidarity is the soundest basis for political action.”
“Once you start playing with fire and the spark sets up some conflagration, then we get a situation even worse than what has happened either in Ceylon, India or any other part of this world, because in the case of Singapore the consequences of communal conflict will be far more total and far more disastrous than they have been in some of the other countries where communal violence was allowed to overwhelm the society. Sir, in other countries the sources of communal conflict have been either religion, language, race, or culture. For example, in India it was primarily religion that was the basis of conflict. Because the Hindus and Muslims are racially alike, speak more or less the same language depending on what area they come from, and more or less share the same history and culture. Again in Ceylon the Tamils and Singhalese are culturally and racially alike. The dividing line - the point of conflict - was just language. In fact, Sir, I was told that both in Ceylon and in India during the communal conflict there was no way for a Muslim to know that the other man was a Hindu. A Muslim might look like a Hindu. There was no way of distinguishing except by rather devious means as to who was a Hindu or a Muslim. Similarly it was difficult to distinguish between a Tamil and a Singhalese. But in Singapore the communities are divided in every conceivable way. The criteria include all the factors which make for communal conflict - race, language, religion and culture. Each community is divided on every one of these points. The situation is not like that of the other countries where only one factor making for communal conflict is present. Here all the four factors - race, language, religion and culture - are present.”
“" But we know, Sir, that that is not so and that today the country is torn asunder; that people who have lived together for centuries and who really are of the same racial group are now bitter enemies, and their economy is ruined. And it will be a long, long time before the problem, based largely on linguistic differences, is resolved. I do not think that in India or Ceylon, the leaders who fought for freedom really studied the communal problem intensely and in depth. Therefore, Sir, we in Singapore should not delude ourselves into believing that once the imperialists are out, there would be no communal or racial problem, or that because there is harmony now there is no racial problem. Fortunately, the problem is under control. Nevertheless, it is necessary for us to bear in mind that if the communal problem is allowed to get out of hand because of ignorance or because we do not understand it or because we do not take adequate measures now to control it, then the consequence must be violence of a most barbaric kind, accompanied by economic chaos and smouldering unrelenting hatreds. This is the point which is often overlooked by those who play with communal fire. There are those who play with communal fire. They may just think of scaring people by raising the communal bogey or by playing on communal passions, but they must realise the inevitable consequences that must follow once the communal problem is allowed to get out of control.”
“Twenty years after the decolonisation process began, we are in the fortunate position of being able to learn from the mistakes and illusions of other countries which acquired their independence two decades or so ago. In countries like India and Ceylon, 20 years ago when the people were talking about the communal problem, they genuinely believed that this problem was wholly the creation of the imperial power and that it was the result or consequence wholly of a divide and rule policy - playing one community against the other. Perhaps there is some truth in this - colonial powers did keep the communities divided and play one community against the other. And so in India, when the people were fighting for their freedom, there was communal harmony and racial unity based on nothing more than common hatred of the imperial power. Another good example is Ceylon. I remember when I was a student the articles that were being written. Ceylon was pointed to as a success story of British colonial policy because in Ceylon the British had deliberately refused to allow a communal Parliament-no communal representation, a high literacy rate, a sound economy. So here was one place where you could really create a united nation out of Tamils, Singhalese, Christians and Buddhists over a period of 10 years. And it looked as if communalism was not a problem in Ceylon and that somehow they had broken through this prejudice based on race, language or religion. But, unfortunately, the leaders assumed that the communal problem had been solved because they subscribed to the thesis that communalism was really the creation of the colonial power and that once colonialism was out the problem was solved. So they thought, "Yes, that is true - once the British are out, there would he communal harmony.”
“They have not yet completed the process, but today, a Dutchman or even a Japanese or Chinese or Negro from America will tell you that he is an American. So the problem of minorities is partly - not altogether - a psychological problem created by the minorities. So the first step for the minorities to take is to stop thinking of themselves as minorities and, more important, to stop acting politically as minorities. Unless they can make that mental leap, there will always be a minority problem. In some countries where there is a minority problem, the minorities become a problem to the majority because they keep apart from the rest. The more you act and think like a minority, the more you create a problem with tension and conflict and, in fact, you encourage the majority to think of you as a problem to them too. Once the majority begin to think of you not as a citizen, not as part of themselves or as part of the nation or the community, then you are really storing up trouble, because once the majority somehow fix in their minds that you, the minority, are a problem, then they will have an insoluble minority problem on their hands. But in a multi-racial, multi-lingual and multi-cultural society like ours, the communal problem, which is what the minority problem is at the present stage of our political and social development, must be and will always remain one of the major problems which, if we do not resolve intelligently, could break our society, especially of an independent Singapore. We all know what has happened in neighbouring countries which had allowed the communal problem to get out of hand. We are fortunate because we are one of the last countries in Asia to become independent.”
“But I believe that the political, economic and psychological aspects of the so-called minority problem are more relevant and decisive to the problem which the Commission was called upon to investigate. I would therefore like, Mr Speaker, Sir, with your permission, to supplement the admirable Report of the Constitutional Commission by touching briefly on the political aspects of the minority question. The main point I would like to make is that the so-called minority problem is but a particular aspect of what is generally referred to as the communal problem. The minority problem arises only when psychologically a minority feels itself to be a minority. That is the psychological aspects of the problem. So long as a minority feels that it is a minority, then it becomes aware of the majority as somebody outside itself, and therefore a minority problem, a minority attitude, a minority complex is created. If you were to read the history of modern nations, for example Britain - I used to read English history when I was a boy - you will discover that once upon a time, there was no such thing as "Britain". There were "English", "Saxons" and "Normans". They thought of themselves as minority groups. Only 100 years ago, there was no such thing as a German nation; there was no such thing as an Italian nation. In fact, there was no such thing as an American nation when Malacca was founded. There were Poles, immigrants of all kinds - just like us. Then over a period of years, the Americans had to constitute themselves into a nation. It was necessary. For example, the early settlers of America thought of themselves as Dutch, French, German, English and Irish, and over a period of 100 years or more, they had learned to think of themselves as Americans.”
“[Mr Speaker in the Chair] So the nature of a constitution is not as it is expressed on a piece of paper but as it works in a country - which is the most important thing. It is ultimately determined by the political temper and ideals of the community and the government in power or the kind of interest that the ruling party represents. That is the best safeguard for a democratic constitution - not a piece of paper. But if the party in power or if the community as a whole is undemocratic, racialist or communal in outlook, then whatever safeguards might be written into the constitution against the evils of discrimination and inequality, these can be brushed aside and real tyranny exercised over the people. Therefore, the minorities would be kidding themselves if they believed that they could find permanent and reliable safeguards against discrimination, injustice and oppression by an unreasonable majority simply because such safeguards have been written into the constitution. Even if they are written into the constitution, my advice to the minorities is that they must reinforce them and make sure that these constitutional provisions are sustained by political action all the time. In the final analysis, the minorities can and must find safeguards for themselves, not merely in pursuit of constitutional guarantees on nicely written documents, but in political and economic solutions to reinforce whatever may be written into the constitution. I notice that the Commission did not touch on the important and what I consider to be the relevant aspects of the so-called minority problem. This may be because it thought that this really was outside its terms of reference or it may be because it was reluctant to venture into spheres fraught with great complexity and delicacy.”
“Insofar as it is a constitutional problem and so long as there is a constitution based on equal rights, I say that the future of the minorities, constitutionally, is permanently and adequately safeguarded, because even if, for example, we decided to write into the Constitution special minority rights, that would not guarantee that the rights would be safeguarded, for, we all know, constitutions can be modified, changed overnight, manipulated or scrapped altogether. We know of countries around us where major constitutional changes are made in a matter of minutes or hours - or rights are sometimes ignored completely. This can be done by legal chicanery or even by the express will of the majority in Parliament; and the only way for a minority to dispense with the constitution is to seize power by violent means or by intimidation of the majority. A constitution is, after all, a formal document expressing an orderly way of exercising political power by the community as a whole or by those who have constituted themselves as the ruling class. If the government or the ruling class is dedicated to and really believes in democratic ideals, then the constitution will be democratic. In fact, even without a constitution, it will be democratic, as this Parliament is at the moment. We have no Constitution in the real sense of the word, but there is democracy, because it is the spirit of the thing that counts. You can have the most democratic constitution in the world - and there are many totalitarian and tyrannical governments which have the most democratic constitutions on paper - but there is no democracy. There are other governments which have no constitutions at all; for example, the British Government, and yet it is one of the most democratic governments in the world. 4.20 p.m.”
“Therefore, when we view the minority question purely from the constitutional angle, we come to the irresistible conclusion that the rights and freedom of citizens in a democratic society cannot be classified, defined and distinguished in terms of race, language or religion. They must be the same for all citizens. They must transcend racial, linguistic and religious differences. Therefore, in so far as constitutional safeguards are concerned, the most sensible and practical course for the minorities to take is to lend their support to a democratic constitution not postulated either on minority rights or majority rights but on equality of rights for all citizens. Even if the Commission, for some reason, had recommended minority rights in this Constitution - I as a member of one of the smallest minorities - I for one would have opposed it. If the minorities are fools enough to fall into what would really be a trap by accepting special rights, then I say that they are goners because any constitutional provision which confers extra rights on the minorities, as I said earlier, precludes the majority from adhering to the principle of equal rights. The majority could perhaps set up a Commission. That is quite possible. Once you have a Minorities Commission to inquire into minority rights, there is nothing to prevent the majority from setting up a Commission to look into majority rights. Therefore, the best constitutional safeguard is really a constitution which makes no reference to minority rights or special rights, but to equal rights.”
“Sir, as I have said, all this may explain why the Commission has concerned itself not with so-called minority rights but with inquiring into the fundamental rights and freedom of every citizen and it is within the wider framework of fundamental rights and liberties, suggests the Commission, that the minorities can really find the security that they crave for. This. I submit, is sound practical advice. Once the minorities always and everywhere dedicate themselves single-mindedly to the preservation and defence of fundamental rights and freedom, they will discover that they are not fighting alone, because the overwhelming bulk of the members of the majority community too are interested in basic freedoms, and in the desirability of equal rights. But the majority will never be interested in defending minority rights. I cannot imagine a member of the minority community going to a constituency and telling the majority community, "Please vote me in because I am going to defend minority rights." They will say, "Well, try to get a member of the minority to come and stand here and see whether he will be voted in." Therefore, by the minority identifying its rights with those of the majority and getting the majority to identify its rights with those of the minority, that is, when both enjoy equal rights, the same rights, the majority will always be prepared to defend equal rights because its own rights are involved. Therefore, so long as the minority seeks equal rights with the majority, it can always rely on the support of the majority to defend its rights, because injustice or the denial of equal rights to the minority must eventually mean denial and withdrawal of equal rights from the majority.”
“If that kind of constitution can be drawn up, the minority is always safeguarded. The real safeguard is equality always and not special rights written into the constitution. In fact, Sir, I would say that more than the majority community, the-minorities have a vested and vital interest in preserving the constitution based on the fundamental rights and freedom of the individual based on the principle of equality. That is their greatest safeguard. Whether they survive or perish will depend on their ability to preserve the constitution which recognises equality always. Equal rights for the majority, equal rights for the minority, and a member of the minority constitutionally is the equal of a member of the majority community. That is the important point. Because what the minority should always remember is that once a community, either based on race, language or religion, confers special rights on itself and if it happens to be a minority, then in no time the majority will say, "Well, since you can ask for special rights, I too will vote special rights for myself. I am in a better position to do so because I can always win in an election." So I can see why the Commission dismissed minority rights in a few paragraphs and concentrated on the real safeguard for the minorities, which is the protection of fundamental rights and freedom of the individual. That is the only safeguard - a true democratic constitution. In fact, the minority leader or the member of a minority community should be the most ardent supporter of a democratic constitution and of the equality of rights. He should never depart from that principle. The moment he talks in terms of minority rights, he is lost and his community is lost.”
“It is quite self-evident, Sir, that if such a situation arises - the conflict between minority rights and majority rights - then in a democracy I have not the slightest doubt who is going to win: the majority can win hands down over the minority who believe in minority rights. And this the majority can do quite constitutionally, by sheer weight of numbers. That is why I believe the minorities are being short-sighted and suicidal in upholding the theory that so-called minority rights defined as "special rights" are the best safeguards against oppression by the majority, against injustice by the majority. I believe that in Singapore the greatest danger to the minority today is not tyranny by the majority, but the attempt by certain minority leaders to pursue the futile and illusory goal of minority rights. This is a dangerous illusion bred by panic, emotion, ignorance or opportunism. It is based on ignorance of the realities underlying a constitution. Therefore, the real objective of the minorities should not be to run after the will-o'-the-wisp called "minority rights", but to make certain that they will always enjoy equal rights. Their real problem is, not of safeguarding minority rights, but whether they can always make sure that the principle of' equal rights is safeguarded in the constitution, i.e., the same rights as those enjoyed by the majority. In other words, the real safeguard for the minorities is not to seek special rights written into the constitution, hut the sustenance and safeguarding of the constitution based on the principle of equal rights. What the minority should strive for is to ensure always that no one citizen, regardless of his race or colour or creed, enjoys more rights than himself.”
“That is the only way the minority can compel the majority to give it minority rights, which are defined as rights over and above those enjoyed by the majority. Sir, apart from the futility of trying to secure for themselves minority rights, there is also the danger in minorities seeking to buy security in terms of minority rights and what are often termed "special rights" and preferential treatment for themselves. Because once you start defining "minority rights" as special rights or preferential treatment, then you are breaching an essential principle of democracy, which is the principle of equal rights. Once the principle of equal rights for all citizens is denied as a valid principle, even in theory: once the minorities propound the theory that minority rights is a breach of principle of equality of rights, even in theory let alone in practice, then the minorities are, in fact, encouraging the growth of the very danger that they fear, i.e., tyranny by the majority. Because once the minorities repudiate the principle of equal rights, they automatically free the majority from adherence to the democratic principle of equal rights. They cannot expect the majority to adhere to the belief in equality of rights when they demand inequality of rights. Once equality of rights is breached or is qualified, then the path is readily open to the majority to pursue constitutionally its own interests; and, worse still, without regard to the rights of the minority. Because once you say there is such a thing as minority rights, the majority can say that there is such a thing as majority rights.”
“' In other words, those minority groups who want minority rights are not asking for these rights because they are afraid of the majority - because they genuinely believe that the majority was denying them equal rights - but because they want more rights than the others. If this is true, then, as I have said, what the minorities are asking for is not equality of rights but unequal rights in a democracy. They are trying to safeguard themselves - at least they believe they are safeguarding themselves - against possible discrimination by the majority by asking for favoured constitutional treatment, by seeking constitutional provisions which, in fact, discriminate against the majority. In a democracy, as I have said, it is futile and impractical for the minorities to strive to safeguard their rights in terms of minority rights. It is impossible in a democracy, because I cannot imagine under the system of one man one vote, which is what democracy means, the majority willingly and freely agreeing to be discriminated against in this fashion: that is, to ask the majority to say, "Please vote for more rights for the minorities." This is impossible in a democracy, unless the majority happens to be all saints. In other words, to quote the famous English novelist, George Orwell, who wrote a novel called "Animal Farm", "All men are equal, but some men are more equal than others." If that is the basis on which minority rights are pursued, then I say it is impractical. The only way a minority can ensure preferential treatment, unequal treatment in their favour is by scrapping democracy altogether or by ruling over the majority by force or the threat of force.”
“[Mr Lim Cheng Lock in the Chair] 3.55 p.m. The essence of the matter is that, as the Commission sees it, in a democracy there can be no distinction between majority rights and minority rights. Once you tackle this as a constitutional problem, there is no getting away from the fact that there cannot be majority and minority rights. There can only be equality of rights, the same rights for all without regard to race, colour, religion or language. In fact, the Report says: `No one citizen has or ought to have less or more rights than another citizen and similarly no one individual has or ought to have less or more rights than another individual in a democratic nation.' In other words, in a democratic society it is futile, impractical and dangerous for minorities to try to find security in so-called minority rights, for minority rights mean rights different from those or additional to those enjoyed by the majority. If that is the way the minorities try to resolve the problem, I say it is not only impractical, but worse, it is dangerous for the minorities. According to the Commission, it would appear that minority rights were sought after not because the minorities fear the majority, but because they wanted more rights than the majority. You will note, Sir, it says: `...the bulk of the representations, both oral and written, made to us by the minority racial groups consisted of requests for preferential treatment in some matters rather than allegations of or fears regarding discriminatory treatment on the grounds of race, language or religion.”
“The reason, I think, is that the majority community and non-communal organisations regarded the Commission's work as relating specifically to the question of minority rights and not to the general constitutional rights relating to the citizens generally. So why then, it may be asked, has the Commission, which was set up to look into the question of minority rights, appear - I say appear - to have paid very scant attention to the problem of minority rights? Is it possible that the Commission has evaded grappling with the tricky and complex problem of minority rights by focusing attention on the broader and more general aspects of constitutional rights and freedoms? I think this appearance of evasion of the problem arises from the particular approach the Commission made to the minority question. It approached it purely as a constitutional problem when, in fact, as we all know, there are many more facets to this problem, many more complicated and perhaps far more relevant aspects to the problem of minorities. But having decided to tackle the minority question purely as a constitutional and legal problem, it was inevitable that the Commission should discuss the issue in general constitutional terms and principles. This being so, within the limits of this particular and narrow approach to the subject, I think the Commission has very ably and succinctly said all that could be said on the subject in a few paragraphs. It has, for all practical purposes, resolved the problem of minorities in terms of constitutional - rights and safeguards. True, there could have been more detailed elaboration and discussion of the minority question in terms of the Constitution, but the relevant and pertinent point on the subject, I think, has been amply and succinctly made by the Commission.”
“(c) To consider what remedies should be provided for any citizen or group of citizens who claim that he or they have been discriminated against by any act or decision of the Government or the administration or any statutory board or public body constituted by law, and to recommend the machinery for the redress of any complaints. (d) To consider how such provisions can be entrenched in the Constitution.' Therefore, in the context it is quite clear that what the Commission was asked to look into was the question of minority rights. But even more pertinent is that the public was clear in its mind, and understood that the Commission was set up to inquire into the rights of minorities and not the general constitutional rights of the citizens. And this is brought up clearly in Appendix I of the Report, listing the individuals and organisations who submitted memoranda to the Commission. With one or two possible exceptions, if you look through the list, all the memoranda came either from religious groups associated with minorities or from organisations of minority communities. There were 83 of these. In fact, it is significant that there was no representation from organisations representing the majority community, nor for that matter, which is equally significant, was there any representation from non-communal organisations such as multi-racial political parties or multi-racial organisations like the trade unions or civic organisations. It does not mean that these organisations representing the majority or non-communal organisations were disinterested in constitutional matters, or that they were indifferent to the questions which are raised in this Report.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, though this Commission was set up to deliberate upon and make recommendations on the question of minority rights. There is, oddly enough, very little reference to or discussion of the specific questions of minorities in the Report. The bulk of the 86 paragraphs in the 37-page Report are concerned, not with minority rights and freedoms, but with the fundamental rights and freedoms of the citizens generally. In fact, Mr Speaker, Sir, the question of minority rights which the Commission was set up to inquire into is referred to in less than half a dozen paragraphs in Chapter II of the Report. Moreover, the heading to this Chapter II is entitled, not "Protection of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms of the Minorities," but "Protection of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms of the individual." Mr Speaker, I do not think the Commission misunderstood its terms of reference. If you look at the Report, Sir, you will find that all its four terms of reference refer explicitly to the specific question of minority rights and how these could be constitutionally safeguarded. Perhaps it will be helpful to refer to these four terms of reference: `(a) To receive and consider representations on how the rights of the racial, linguistic and religious minorities can be adequately safeguarded in the Constitution. (b) To consider what provisions should be made to ensure that no legislation, which by its practical application is considered likely to be discriminatory against members of any racial, linguistic or religious group, should be enacted before adequate opportunities have been given for representation from parties likely to be aggrieved.”
“If Malay becomes an international language, maybe then a knowledge of Malay will be one of the essentials of an employee of the Foreign Ministry. But we have people who speak Malay. If the Member for Sembawang will come to my Ministry, he will find recruits who are Malays who speak Malay. There are recruits who are not Malays who speak Malay. There are also Malays who speak English and so on. So there is no particular discrimination against any language group. All that we are interested in is that the particular person can discharge efficiently the functions and responsibilities that go with the Ministry.”
“s, it may be necessary to consider increasing the number of protocol officers. As for the choice of diplomats, we have not only chosen commercial men - in fact, I think we have deployed the talents of Singapore in a rather representative way. We have commercial men, we have professors, we have professional men, ex-civil servants, a former Speaker, representing practically members of all races and all classes. So I think there is nothing wrong in appointing commercial men or businessmen as diplomats, especially since Singapore lives on commerce and trade. It may be necessary in certain areas, in certain countries, to have men with trading knowledge. The work of a diplomat is not only to have diplomacy but to give us information - information on economics and other information. So in certain countries it may be necessary to have men experienced in trade, banking, business and so on. As regards the final point made by the Member for Sembawang that we should not discriminate against, so to speak, Malay. In fact, our hope is that people coming into the Foreign Office not only speak English and Malay, but they should be able to speak French or Russian - if we should set up a mission in Russia. Definitely we must be able to use the international languages. True, Malay is a good language, but it is spoken at the most by about 110 million people. I am quite sure that if you try to converse with a Belgian or a German in Malay, you will not get very far. So we will impress on people, especially in the foreign service, which is not set up for a national outlook, that it is not our national language that is important, but the language which is useful for a member of the foreign service to have - one of the international languages.”
“One point we must understand about Singapore in its long history is that none of us has ever given consideration to the possibility that an independent Singapore would have to train diplomatic personnel. It is only a year since we became independent, and it takes a long time to train Foreign Office staff, or find people who are prepared to head missions, to be diplomats or ambassadors in foreign countries, it is not only the question of finding the money to justify the setting-up of a mission, but the question of finding the men to staff it. Being non-aligned, we are naturally prepared to set up missions in Eastern Europe. Western Europe, Northern Europe or Southern Europe. But it must pass the criteria I have indicated. What benefit will Singapore get, whether it is economic or political! If there is no benefit, then we can carry on the relationship in some other way. As trade and other relationships increase sufficiently, the moment we find enough staff to man the missions, we will give serious attention to the setting-up of missions abroad. At the moment, we have some trade missions from Eastern European countries. The other point by the Member for Sembawang is that we do not have enough protocol officers. True, we have a small number of protocol officers. That being so, we always arrange things in such a way that not more than one or two V.I.P.s visit Singapore at any given time. If a third V.I.P. intends and presses very hard to come to Singapore, we either politely tell him that maybe we will be able to receive him the next month or the month after that. So I think we can get by for the time being with the number of protocol officers we have. But obviously as we get more experience, as Singapore becomes more popular with V.I.P.”
“Small "a", yes. Thank you very much for getting me out of the predicament. But it is always helpful to get pleas for an increased allocation of funds. But I think, to be fair to the Finance Minister, the funds have been accorded to suit the work that the Ministry will do for the year 1967. If I had more work, more duties involved, I am quite sure he would have given it his reasonable consideration. As you know, Sir, we have already indicated that for the next year we will operate only some nine to ten missions abroad. There are reasons for this. We can open up missions all over the place for prestige reasons, for political reasons. But in Singapore we have decided that the only reason for opening up a mission anywhere is that we must get some advantage out of it. We do not have a showpiece either in Europe or America or anywhere. Wherever we open up a mission, we must be able to justify that we get some benefit from it. So for the time being, the size and number of missions are determined purely by these considerations. That would probably answer the observations made also by the Member for Farrer Park. Apart from deciding what advantage Singapore would have in setting up a mission, we must find the finance to set it up. Missions are very expensive outfits to maintain, especially in countries where the standard of living is considerably higher. So we cannot disburse funds just because it is good to have a mission in country A or B until I can satisfy myself, and quite definitely satisfy the Finance Minister, that if we spend $2 million in such and such a country, we can expect to get trade worth $4 million or $5 million. Then there is justification for it. Or some political advantage. Apart from that, there is the question of staff.”
“Mr Speaker, it is always very encouraging to find Members of this Assembly pleading for more funds, an allocation of more funds - An hon. Member: Members of Parliament.”
“On 18th November, 1966, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs made representations to the Indian High Commission requesting the High Commission to use its good offices to obtain the early release of the crew and the boats. A reply is awaited from the Indian authorities. AMENDMENT TO LABOUR ORDINANCE 2. Mr Bernard Rodrigues asked the Minister for Labour if he will consider introducing amending legislation to bring within the ambit of the Labour Ordinance workers who are at present excluded from the provisions of the Ordinance. The Acting Minister for Labour (Mr E. W. Barker): Mr Speaker, Sir, the Government is fully aware that, in the light of changed economic, political and social conditions in the Republic, a comprehensive review of the three employment Ordinances, namely, the Labour Ordinance, the Shop Assistants Employment Ordinance and the Clerks Employment Ordinance, with a view to their amendment, is essential. Therefore, the Government is actively considering a number of amendments to these Ordinances. These have been discussed by a sub-committee on labour matters. One of them is to extend the scope of the Labour Ordinance as well as the other two Ordinances to bring in workers who do not come within their ambit at present. BAR WAITRESSES UNDER 21 3. Mr Ho See Beng asked the Minister for Labour if he will consider introducing legislation to prohibit girls under the age of 21 from working as bar waitresses.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the three vessels referred to by the hon. Member are SMF 496, SMF 538 and SMF 500. Of them, the last - that is, SMF 500 - was detained once before by the Indian authorities at Port Blair in February 1965 and both the crew and the vessel were subsequently released in April 1965. Almost in all cases, the fishermen concerned had complained of bad weather and engine trouble for the difficulties. The Foreign Minister had discussions with the Primary Production Department to find out the facts of the case. We had discussions also with the Indian High Commission here on the same subject. I will now mention briefly the case of each of these three fishing boats. SMF 538 was apprehended by the Indian naval authorities for intrusion into their territorial waters off the Nicobar Islands. We were informed of this by the Indian High Commission on 15th June, 1966. On 27th July, 1966, a request was made to the Indian High Commission to obtain the early release of the vessel and her crew. On 8th October, 1966, this Ministry was informed by the Indian High Commission that the crew of SMF 538, who had since been sentenced to two months' imprisonment, would be released on 30th October, 1966, but the vessel was confiscated by the Indian authorities. This is in accordance with the Andaman and Nicobar Islands Fisheries Regulations. On 16th September, 1966, a letter was received from the Singapore Marine Product Workers' Union that two more Singapore fishing boats, SMF 496 and SMF 500, with a total crew of 16 persons, had been detained by the Indian authorities at Andaman Islands.”
“Mr Tay Boon Too asked the Minister for Education whether an integrated Secondary School and a Secondary Technical School will be built in the Paya Lebar Constituency.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I informed this House in December last year that it was the intention of the Government to establish diplomatic missions before the end of the year in ten countries. As of now, diplomatic missions have been established in the following countries: Australia, Cambodia, Malaysia, New Zealand, Thailand and the United Kingdom. In addition, a permanent mission to the United Nations has been established in New York. It is hoped that before the end of the year, diplomatic missions will also be established in India, the United Arab Republic and possibly Japan. As regards the second part of the question, the Public Service Commission has so far recruited four new entrants, and in addition approved the secondment of eight senior officers from different branches of the home civil service for service in overseas missions. These figures do not, of course, include the heads of missions nor do they include Division II officers serving in overseas missions. As regards the third part of the question on annual expenditure, last year this House voted a sum of $� million for the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. This sum was spent on setting up the Ministry itself and two overseas missions - one in Kuala Lumpur and the other in New York. This year, a sum of $4 million has been voted. However, since most of the overseas missions were not fully established until the middle of this year, the expenditure for the first half of the year was below the expected average. Members will appreciate that until the missions have been fully in existence for at least a year, it will not be possible to give reliable estimates of the annual expenditure. PAYA LEBAR (Integrated Secondary and Secondary Technical Schools) 6.”
“The Member for Ulu Pandan will recall my statement to this House on the 16th and 17th of December last year in which I said that it was our intention first to establish Missions in some ten countries. At that time, I also mentioned that it was our intention to set up other Missions when we can find the personnel and the money or when political and trade considerations justify their being set up earlier. It is in such context that the establishment of Embassies or trade representations in East European countries will have to be viewed. However, I would like to assure the Member for Ulu Pandan that promotion of trade with as many countries as possible regardless of ideological differences, whether they are in the East or in the West, still remains a major objective of our foreign policy. These intentions have been embodied in the trade agreements recently concluded with the U.S.S.R., Bulgaria and Poland, which provide for the establishment of Singapore trade representations in those countries in the future. HIGH COMMISSIONS AND EMBASSIES (Personnel and expenditure) 5. Mr Chow Chiok Hock asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs (a) to date, how many High Commissions and Embassies have been set up and in which countries; (b) how many personnel for diplomatic service have been recruited; and (c) what is the annual expenditure for High Commissions and Embassies.”
“The Communists, like capitalists, are quite realistic and hard-headed when it comes to trade. They are not going to trade or participate in industrial activity in Singapore just for the benefit of Singapore. It is up to us to prove to them that there is something for them also. Sir, the happy position in which we find ourselves only some ten months after independence is due to the practical and matter-of-fact policy we have followed so far. Non-alignment has not meant isolation but instead an expansion of the circle of friendly countries. It means having the maximum of friends and a minimum of enemies from both of the power blocs and from those not aligned to these power blocs. 3.16 p.m. BILLS INTRODUCED SUPPLEMENTARY SUPPLY BILL First Reading”
“I think we have left the East European countries with the impression that Singapore is essentially pro-Singapore, and friendly with any country which does not resent our furthering the legitimate interests of Singapore. The cordiality and respect with which our Mission was received in all the five countries of Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Rumania and Bulgaria is a good foundation for our growing relationships. They received us as the representatives of a friendly independent country, a friendly non-Communist, socialist country, with which they wish to establish mutually advantageous relations. Two of these countries, Bulgaria and Poland, have already signed trade agreements with us. Czechoslovakia, Hungary and Rumania have agreed to send trade missions to Singapore in the very near future. They have shown an interest not only in trade but also in industrial projects, facilities for their ships and for their airplanes, both of whose operations they hope to expand in this part of the world. For Singapore, these trade and other contacts with East Europe mean a diversification and broadening of our international trade and, therefore, of our international relations. It does not and should not mean abandoning or displacing our older trading partners. It merely means an extension of Singapore's shop-window in Asia by the addition of goods and customers from the Communist world. The Communist world is a fact of life. That world exists. It constitutes a significant part of the world. Its economic and industrial achievements are no less real than those of anti-Communists and the non-Communist world. We would be naive, Sir, if we believed that trade with East Europeans and other Communists would start on a spectacular scale.”
“We pointed out that Singapore would pay for whatever she gets and that she had lived and prospered for over a century on the basis of buying at the best prices and selling at the lowest. The East Europeans told us that they appreciated not only the business acumen and trading experience that Singapore had gathered over the years as the hub of trade in South-East Asia, but also the sophisticated and delicate entrepot infrastructure that Singapore has built and continues to develop. I would also like to draw the attention of the House to a point that was stressed by all the East European leaders in our discussions with them. We talked frankly on trade and political matters. In both these matters, there is friendly understanding on different points of view. Understanding does not necessarily mean agreement on every point. It means that there can be differing points of view without there being hostility and suspicion. We explained why Singapore was a non-Communist socialist country committed to a non-aligned policy of wanting to be friendly with all countries. The East European leaders said that given such a policy, satisfactory and fruitful relations could be developed between us and them. As far as they were concerned, their relations with Singapore would be founded on the principle of mutual respect, non-interference in one another's internal affairs and mutual benefit. They enunciated this principle both in our private conversations and in their public statements. It is our belief that, as a result of the visits and discussions, we have managed to dispel any false image of Singapore as an anti-Communist bastion and as the armed stronghold of British imperialism.”
“We went to Eastern Europe as democratic socialists and not as Communists. What has emerged as a result of these personal contacts is that relations between States with different systems of government can be sustained on the basis of mutual respect and non-interference in each other's affairs. For our part, from the free and frank discussions we have had with East European leaders, we are satisfied that trade and other relations with Communist countries impose no greater or lesser trials and tribulations than trade with capitalist countries. In their discussions with us, the East European leaders stressed that ideological differences need not be serious obstacles to friendly political and economic relations between countries. In this connection, they drew our attention to the many trade agreements they had concluded with the new countries of Afro-Asia. They pointed out that even anti-Communist countries like Western Germany had substantial and growing trade with them. As one East European Foreign Minister said to us, "Trade knows no scent and no colour." The impression we formed was that the East European countries, the bulk of whose foreign trade is with Communist countries, particularly the Soviet Union, have now reached a stage of economic development where they feel it advantageous for them to seek trade outlets outside the Communist bloc. In their discussions with us, their approach to questions of trade with Singapore was couched in very practical and very realistic terms. This may have been in part due to the frank and practical way we approached the economic relationships which we wish to establish with them. We stressed that we were not asking for aid, but trade.”
“Mr Speaker, I propose to give a brief report of the recent visit to the East European countries of the Singapore Mission led by the Prime Minister. The countries visited were Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Rumania and Bulgaria, and the tour itself lasted 18 days. I think no useful purpose will be served by giving a detailed account of our conversations with each of the many Government leaders in every country we visited. What I propose to do, therefore, is to give a general assessment based on our discussions with our East European hosts of the kind of relations we hope to develop over the years between them and ourselves. I am not suggesting for one moment that, as a result of this one visit, we have mapped out in detail the scope and character of the relations which we hope to develop. This is something which must gradually evolve in the course of our dealings, particularly as this is the first time that Singapore and the East European countries are building up direct contact with one another. In the past, when Singapore's foreign relations were not in our hands, the East European countries were cut off from us by an iron curtain erected not by the Communists but by those who were then in charge of our foreign relations. It was no doubt felt by them that any contact with Communist countries would be bad for our souls and bring us eternal damnation. Partly as a result of this policy of sheltering us from contact with Communist countries, the Communists too have formed their own image of Singapore as an anti-Communist bastion and as an armed base for the protection and furtherance of British imperialist interest. So one immediate and positive result of our visit has been to dispel this false image.”
“Mr Speaker, yes, this sum of $1� million includes remuneration of diplomats, High Commissioners, and other members of the staff who might fill these missions. As you know, Sir, we have decided to set up some ten missions during the coming year, and these missions, or embassies, will, in some cases, be concentrating more on promoting better trade relations between Singapore and other countries. In other instances, it may be necessary to promote our political interests in certain countries, because in these countries we may not have much prospect of having a large volume of trade. Sir, it is not a question of only setting up a trade mission. It costs just as much to set up a trade mission at it does to set up an embassy or a high commission. So the Member can rest assured that all our missions, whether they be embassies or high commissions, will try to promote both the political interests of Singapore as well as the trade interests of Singapore.”