Shriniwas Rai
Singapore
“Like the Select Committee, Sir, we should encourage the public to put their proposals in writing to the Clerk of Parliament who could then send them to the Minister concerned for his consideration. Sir, I am aware that the GPC does play a very important and consultative role. But it does not come under the purview of this Parliament.”
“Sir, like good health, we take good government for granted. Sir, I end my speech with this remark. We are a young nation. Our institutions are still evolving. We must try to evolve a system of government that suits, and I repeat, our social, economic and political needs. We cannot just borrow from other countries' constitution.”
“Sir, I have the benefit of going through Mr Inderjit Singh's speech earlier, and I support his call for a two-tier category. I think it is something that is worthy of consideration. Although it may not be practical now, I think we should give it serious thought. Sir, this is a very judicious Bill.”
“Of course, if the need arises, and if it is useful for it to be corporatised, that can be considered. Question put, and agreed to. Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House. The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. - [Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee].”
“Sir, Mr Jeyaretnam has totally taken away my motion. It is not an amendment to the motion. He had been the Registrar of the Supreme Court. He knows the procedure very well. He must have my amendment in some form or other. What he has done is that he has completely taken out my motion and put in his amendment, which is wrong.”
“Yes, I am speaking on the amendment. Sir, I ask the House to reject the amendment. Do not laugh, Mr Jeyaretnam, I am coming to it. I think Mr Jeyaretnam forgets that any Member of Parliament can raise any issue in this Parliament. The fact that he has moved an amendment to my motion signifies that I have the right to speak.”
The complete record
Every one of 327 lines we hold for Shriniwas Rai, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 4 of 7.
“Mr Speaker, Sir, thank you for giving me this opportunity to speak. Sir, I am in support of the Bill. But there are certain provisions which I have my reservation. I support the move to protect only the citizens. Only citizens should have the benefit of the Bankruptcy Act. I think this piece of amendment should have been introduced long ago. I suppose initially only citizens could buy a property, but subsequently there were some amendments allowing PRs to purchase it. I think there should be a distinction between citizens and non-citizens, and I support the Minister that it is a right move at the right time. Sir, I also support the new section 49A. It would have a standard form of contract. This will allow for certainty. It would also save the purchaser, instead of going to lawyers, and he would know what he is expected to meet. I only hope when this standard form of agreement is drawn up, it will be favourable to both the purchaser and the seller. However, I must raise my objection to new section 65J, and Mr Chiam has mentioned it earlier. I have no objection at all that the Government acquires a property for the common good of the community and the country. I think we have to upgrade and I must compliment the Minister and his Ministry for having done such a good job. Those areas which I have visited and which have been upgraded have really benefited from this upgrading scheme. But clauses 8, 9 and 10 are not very satisfactory. I will go further than what the earlier Members have mentioned. HDB is going to acquire a property and it is going to be judged in its own course. Every law student and lawyer will tell you that you cannot be judged in your own course. Here the Board is going to acquire a property and tell you how much it is going to be, and that is not fair.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, may I ask the Minister what he thinks is the percentage of the projected non-performing loans in the next six months or so?”
“It is very important that we must keep a tight check, not just on public morality but also on the question of public health. And I am glad that we have now imposed a condition which requires a compulsory check by a qualified medical practitioner. Sir, one problem that we would have to consider is this. I know it is a serious problem how to discourage people from travelling with false documents? In my course of work, I have had to deal with this problem twice. I think the Government must take precaution because some Singaporean racket is involved and unless we know the source, unless we get these people busted, the poor victims will always be exploited. I know it is very difficult to ask every visitor to be thumb-printed, but it is important, for our own national security, that whenever an immigration officer feels that there is reason to believe that a person is not of bona fide standing, then we should impose this condition. Because there is nothing to stop these people from travelling with a new passport. Sir, with these observations, I would like to support the Bill and I would urge the Minister to consider reviewing the whole of the immigration law so that the national security of Singapore is not put to risk.”
“Our missions abroad have also to carry the task of informing the public there that anybody who flouts the law in Singapore will be severely dealt with. Sir, one area which has been of some concern to lawyers would be the question of presumption. It is not something new. It has been in our law and I think we should have it because unless we have this presumption, we are going to have difficulty in enforcement. In any case, I would like to assure the Members of this House and the public at large that the presumption can always be rebutted. It is for the person who is charged to disprove. It does not make him guilty straightaway. So I would say that it is timely and we should have it, especially in this law, as the Minister has graphically pointed out the difficulties our Coast Guard and Immigration officers have to face. Sir, other than our Malay community, we are basically immigrant people. We will have immigrants and we encourage them to come here. We are encouraging talents to come here, as the Prime Minister has pointed out in his National Day Rally Speech. But at the same time, we must keep a check and balance whom we want to welcome in Singapore. Although it would be out of point, I would like to request the Minister to consider getting fast speed boats and things like that so that our coastal areas can be amply guarded. Sir, another area which I am also concerned, and I think the Minister has pointed out, is people who pose danger to public health. My concern is on a very small but very important area. We do not want the flesh trade in Singapore to increase. This happens in most countries where, because of the economic downturn, some desperate people are driven to this.”
“I am obliged to you, Mr Speaker, Sir, for giving me this opportunity. Sir, having heard my friend, Mr Tay, I would just add, before I come to the Bill proper, another concern. I have known of a case, a year ago, where the father, a PR, was working in Singapore and his son wanted to visit him, and he was required to pay a surety bond of $5,000. He could not get the visa in India. So the father had to make the application. Of course, when I took up this matter with the Immigration Department, they tried to console him and me by saying that this was because we have such a large flow of people coming here. I can understand the problem, Sir, but we must be selective. We must look at the genuine cases, like those people who have family ties in Singapore. A visit of two weeks will do whoever is being visited some good rather than harm. Mr Speaker, Sir, having listened to the Minister, I must say that he has given all the details and he has given this House the reason why this Bill is necessary. One of the earliest laws that Singapore had was the Immigration law in one form or another. Sir, I will not deal with the Bill clause by clause, as the Minister has amply dealt with them. I am in support of most of the provisions, especially those which deal with higher punishments. I think it is high time we enhanced the penalties because, despite an amendment to the law some time ago, there is, as the Minister has pointed out, an increase in both illegal immigrants and overstayers. Members may wonder whether the increase in punishment will deter. Certainly, the illegal immigrants will have to think twice. Another thing which I had spoken earlier in this House is this.”
“Sir, may I ask the Minister what are the chances of not having a CPF cut this year?”
“We were told by Bhajan Singh, the Chairman of Sikh Advisory Board, who is an educationist himself, how Sikhs have welfare schemes to help those in need. I thought it is something we can emulate from them for the whole of Singapore. Sir, I wanted to say many things but, unfortunately, most of the things have been touched and I do not want to prolong the debate longer than necessary. Sir, this is the disadvantage of being the last few speakers. Everybody has spoken what probably you wanted to. But I just want to say one thing. Whatever we do, we always must do, the Government and the people, and it is important that Government from time to time consult the people, not after it has taken the decision and then get the feedback from the people. I think that is not correct. Consult the Chambers of Commerce and the various professional groups, get their inputs and see how the policy is going to be implemented to help the community. And I would say that the Government is concerned, because the Government always consults, but its consultative process must go for some fine-tuning. I urge the Ministers from time to time to consult Chambers of Commerce because they are the most concerned people in this issue and I share the sentiments of my fellow NMP Mr Tay Beng Chuan. Sir, with that, I support the motion. 5.00 pm”
“And I am really surprised when I see young people, husband and wife, earning $9,000 a month jointly, and they straightaway upgrade from a 4-room flat to a terrace house. Why must we be so much attracted by this private property? Sir, I have a private property because I could not qualify for HDB flat; otherwise, I will opt for it. In fact, when I am older in my age, I probably would do that. There will be homes for the aged, I hope by then. HDB will build them. Sir, the question that we have to ask is: can we afford? I think this is where I would urge members of the public to be very careful with these commitments. Sir, the other matter is this. It is in times of crisis that the community really is being examined, whether we are one social cohesive unit. As has been told by Mdm Claire Chiang and Dr Lee Tsao Yuan earlier, we must feel for fellow Singaporeans. I am not asking that if you have a whole loaf, give the whole thing to him, but share some of the suffering. Those of us who could afford to share a bit of our extra, give it to them. Talking about social cohesiveness, I think the Government can feel a sense of achievement. Last Saturday, together with Mr Inderjit Singh, I attended a function organised by the Sikh community. Very young Sikh boys and girls, who are secondary school students, were singing in Punjabi, songs based on Singapore's national values, and I was really touched. I can understand a little bit of Punjabi. Hindi is my mother tongue. And I was really touched by these boys and girls, how they could sing the core values of Singapore. Ten years ago, I do not think they would have done it. This is called community bonding. The Minister for Community Development was there. It is an example of bonding of a community, small it may be.”
“It was guaranteed by the British government through a charter. But it did not know how to compete and live with the economic realities of Singapore in changing times. When the market was open, they could not compete. Similarly, Sir, as Mr Lim Swee Say has said earlier, we have to be conscious of not only the cost price but we must be in position, as our neighbours are going to have cheaper cost of production, and we must be seen to be very competitive. Today, I think the only solution is through productivity and education. There are a lot of Singaporeans who do not even have primary education. The WISE and BEST programmes must be worked to such an extent that they are all gainfully employed. Sir, I move to another related issue. Again, I would like to draw from personal experience. Over $60 billion is tied to property. Every young Singaporean wants to upgrade from 4- to 5-room flats to Executive flats to terrace houses. There is nothing wrong with being ambitious. But let us have a sense of realism. Can we afford at the end of the day to pay the instalments in case there is a rise in interest rates? And specially so for those who have bought, let us say, a terrace house in 1995 for $1 million, it is probably now worth $700,000 to $800,000. And if the bank suddenly decides to call back just $100,000, where are they going to find this money to pay? So my appeal to all these people is to get their priority right. The Government, through the Housing and Development Board, has built enough houses. Nobody lives in the streets, save for some of the foreign workers. We all have a home. Get the priority right by having some savings.”
“But I think the Government can take the lead in giving indication as to which way the banking sector should go. Sir, Dr Vasoo mentioned very eloquently about the spirit. I think it is very important for us to have the fighting spirit in us. What I am a little disappointed with some of the people is this. There is some sector, and I give an example, where we see very young able-bodied men in early 30s, 40s, working as security guards. What is the pay? $1,000, $1,100. My work in SINDA has led me to meet some of these people and talk to them. And I asked: "Why can't you be a driver?" He said, "I have no driving licence." I said, "Why don't you go and take a driving licence? It will take some time." He said, "Oh, it is difficult. I have got a family to support." All he requires is half an hour to one hour, three to four times a week, and the job is ready in the market. Similarly, a restaurant man was telling me that he is finding difficulty getting workers. So something is wrong here. While some people are losing jobs, there are other people who are happy with their jobs. So I share the sentiments shown by earlier speakers that we must at all costs tell the people that they must upgrade. And unless they upgrade, unless the productivity increases, they are not going to succeed. Here again, Sir, if I could share with Members a classic example of how an institution went out of time. We used to have in early 1970s a company called the Singapore Traction Company. Who were its rivals? More than half a dozen Chinese bus companies. They started with mosquito buses. I remember they carried 20 passengers. But because STC did not know how to change with the time, the small bus operators merged together and took over STC. It operated through a Charter.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the motion moved by Mr Lim Swee Say is timely. It is a time of crisis, although I do not agree with some of the suggestions. I think we are going through an economic crisis. It is important that the people and the Government rally together and come to grips with the problem and try to find the solution. Sir, the Government can lead but it is equally important for the people to be led in such a way that they will reach their destiny. We are fortunate than many other rulers in the region are worried about their political fortune. Here the ruling Party does not have to worry about change of power from one man to another. There is political stability here. The banking system is still sound and this, I think, is a credit to our political leadership and to the people for working hand-in-hand. It is important for us, therefore, Sir, to see that this institution is preserved. Many a time we take it for granted. But when we look around the region, we realise how fortunate we are for having a banking system that is sound. Of course, some of us feel that the bankers are trying to be a little too cautious in this period. I would urge the MAS from time to time to give the bankers some indication, that they should be a little slow in enforcing claims. Because I have heard from some clients that the bankers are asking for reassessment of their loans, which they are entitled. But unless these customers are in danger of collapsing, I think we must not pull the carpet. It is very important for the banking system, the institution, to gain the confidence of the people. I know that DPM had said earlier that banking is a private institution, and we cannot interfere.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, can the Minister give an assurance to the House that when the report is completed he will present the report to the House or perhaps make a Ministerial Statement in due course?”
“Further to the question by Mr Jeyaretnam, would the Minister tell the House what is the percentage of increase compared to last year?”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, may I ask the Minister of State whether he is prepared to tell this House how many political detainees we have for the last three years. Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee: I think we all know the answer. The ISA is not used against political detainees.”
“His tune never changes, even though Singapore has changed so much, and these are highlighted in the speeches of the other Members. But it is a constant refrain, down to the very `t' and `i', the knock at the door at 2.00 am. So this phrase is used all the time. He also says some of the fears are brought about by coercion by the Government and mentioned instances where people do not want to have anything to do with the Workers' Party, whether it is businesses who do not want to serve them, or people who do not want to join them in elections, and he blames it on the Government. That it is because they fear the Government. But I think Mr Jeyaretnam and the Workers' Party should examine themselves. Could it be that there is something in them that puts these people off, not wanting to have any dealings with the Workers' Party?”
“With that, I say, in Tamil, romba nandri. Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee: Sir, it has been a long day. It is a long debate. I will not tax Members' patience very much. But let me make a response. First, this has also become a standard line of mine, but it is the truth, because Mr Jeyaretnam once again raises old issues. Together with old issues, he will bring up old cases and even old rules - the HDB sterilisation rule that no longer applies. For example, the Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Act (CLTPA). He was in the House in the 1980s, and if you look at the Hansard, he debated it fully. Government gave a response, more recently in this House, I think last year in the debate on the President's Address. He also mentioned then the point about fear, about the ISA and other preventive detention laws. I also gave him a reply. Indeed, I think the Minister for Home Affairs, Mr Wong Kan Seng, gave a written reply to Mdm Claire Chiang as to whether the ISA should be abolished. So these are in the record. But Mr Jeyaretnam, I think maybe wanting to retain his record of lodging motions in the House regularly, moves this motion. Next year 1999, the Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Act will be up for extension. Well, at that time we can have a full debate. Sir, before talking about preventive detention laws, let me address the other point about fear. I think it is very clear that even though the same word is used here, Mr Jeyaretnam's use of the word "fear" is vastly different from Mr Zulkifli's and Mr Simon Tay's. Mr Jeyaretnam would want us to believe that Singaporeans are gripped by fear, an oppressive fear. And this indeed is a recurrent theme of his, if you look at all his old speeches in the House and political rallies.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, I shall not engage with him, because time is running out. My position is, detain the anti-social elements and rehabilitate them. Some of them have come out and have changed. In fact, the secret societies are active in other parts of the world. It is increasing. Do you want it? Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, both Mr Zulkifli and Mr Simon Tay have quite extensively put the case - there is no element of fear, it is the individual who decides. I think we, the Nominated MPs, have come into this House not to toe the line of the Government. We have come here to state our views, and this view is being stated by a Nominated Member, that we have this danger of communalists and religious bigots who are prepared to stir trouble. In fact, this morning I will not mention name, from a religious group, one individual came and said, "The Government is after us." He came unappointed, and I want to be courteous to him and I do not want to besmirch the name of this organisation, and he said, "My organisation is delisted." I said I could speak to the Minister. But to say that every individual has the right to practise as he likes cannot be so. So I urge this House, Sir, to reject this motion. I did not want to speak, but because of certain allegations, certain misconceptions will be conveyed outside this House, I have decided to speak. I am asking this House to be careful not to do away with the ISA altogether. But I urge the Minister to reconsider the position. We have moved further. We are an enlightened society, and responsible groups, Roundtable and other groups, will blossom up. Give them the opportunity. In fact, I hope the Minister will give the figure to this House on how many political detainees we have for the last three years.”
“You cannot have all persons freed of detention without trial for the simple reason that secret societies' men are still active even today. I am a member of SINDA. When I visit schools, I am told that school children are being recruited by secret societies. Can we afford to allow these thugs roaming in the streets? Surely not.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I did not intend to speak, but in view of certain allegations which have been made in this House against lawyers, I think I owe it to the House and to my profession to speak up. First of all, if I remember correctly, Mr Tang Liang Hong had lawyers to represent him. And if he chose to discharge them, then of course he has to blame himself. The fact that few lawyers refused to act for various reasons, whether it is a question of cost or that they do not want to act, it is their own choice. It does not mean that the legal profession is not prepared to act. Secondly, Sir, the ISA, as he has rightly pointed out, has a history. It originated from the British. Mr David Marshall, who was a great champion of civil liberty, moved an extension of the law which allowed detention without trial in this House. We know Mr Lee Kuan Yew was against it. But when he attained power, he realised the importance of this legislation. He must have been professionally advised to carry on. I can sympathise with ISA being used against political detainees, but have we used it for the last three years? I would urge the Government to consider amending the law so that there will be more judicial discretion. But that is for the House to decide. As to the allegation that there is no right of review in the High Court, the law is clear. Parliament has passed the law. The job of the High Court is to interpret it. Parliament is the supreme body, as Mr Jeyaretnam time and again said, and this supreme body has passed a law; High Court cannot change it. I come to a more fundamental issue, Sir, which I think my fellow colleague, Mr Simon Tay has touched on. This motion is flawed from the very beginning.”
“We must not just tolerate, as I said earlier, we must appreciate and understand and take positive steps to inculcate in our youth the value of respect and understanding. And that is why I think the Government did a wise thing because nowhere do we have one community living in segregation. I think it was a very wise and bold decision. I think it was Mr Dhanabalan who initiated it and we should live by it. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, it has been a long day. I have many things to say but I do not want to hold up the Members. I would ask this House that this is an act of civility. Let us vote unanimously on this resolution and show our appreciation. And as Dr Chen has pointed out, the best tribute we could pay to them is to live and improve upon them. The British never came here to give us multi-racialism. They came and they were very honest. They came here as a trading company, the East India Company. It was only in 1955 we started moving. That was why I made it very clear. I have clarified who were our forefathers. As regards our founding fathers, I refer to post-1955. If Mr Jeyaretnam remembers, I mentioned Mr David Marshall because he was a true son of Singapore. I am proud of him. Sir, may I ask the House to support the motion? Resolved, That this House records with gratitude the contribution made by our founding fathers in building a multi-racial, multi-religious and multi-lingual society and reaffirms these principles. REMOVAL OF FEAR IN PEOPLE'S LIVES (Motion) 6.38 pm”
“I give you an example. We have Malay and Eurasian students in SINDA. We have non-Indian teachers teaching these students. Of course, I have told the Prime Minister several times that all the four umbrella organisations should work together. We are moving in this direction. Sir, on SAP schools, I share some of the sentiments expressed by my colleague, Mr Simon Tay. There is this danger which we will have to address. SAP school students will grow up, their best part of their life, isolated without having the benefit of mixing with the other communities. Of course, they play on the playing field and in surrounding areas. But in the school, they are left by themselves. My good friend, Zainul, was together with me in the University. We used to speak in bazaar Malay. We could exchange views even though we came from different backgrounds because we came from schools which have multi-racial students. My fear is that the SAP school students will be isolated. We must try to take some steps to correct this imbalance. Sir, several Members have spoken. What is Singapore culture? Singapore culture is not massing together into one, but each culture blossoms, taking into cognizance that there are different values, different cultures, different languages and different religious backgrounds. We cannot force one culture on the other, but we can co-exist. And we hope in years to come, we can create a Singapore culture. Nowhere in the world is there a mixture of so many races and languages and coming out with one. Even the Americans have tried it. They are still trying it. It is years, decades, centuries. So we have to live with this reality. In Singapore, we are a different community.”
“It does not matter, Mr Jeyaretnam. Let us talk history. In 1955, when Mr David Marshall formed an elected government, he felt that the Chinese and Malay schools had suffered deprivation. English was the supreme language, and this disadvantaged more than three-quarters of our people. The frustration of the Chinese students, the Tamil and Malay-speaking students could not be expressed by those who spoke English, and there was an All-Party Committee of Inquiry. Prior to 1959, you had no right of audience in this House if you spoke a language other than English. The rules of the game were changed, and that is what I call multi-lingualism. I speak with some fervour, Sir, because I took some risks. In 1986, my Hindi community wanted Hindi to be recognised. Prior to that, the then Prime Minister said, "No. If you are an Indian, you study Tamil." We formed a protem committee. We convinced the Government that our Indian students from non-Tamil background were losing culturally. So Government allowed Hindi and other Indian languages. And nowhere in the world such a minority community was given equal right with Mandarin and Malay. Is that not equality in multi-lingualism? I was surprised, again another aspersion by Mr Jeyaretnam on self-help groups. As Dr Ker has mentioned, if Mr Jeyaretnam was aware, he would not have made this allegation. I confess that I am not in favour of a communal set up, but there is no other alternative at the moment. I am the Secretary of SINDA and I declare my interest. As Dr Ker has pointed out, SINDA and CDAC are working together and eventually I hope, not 10-15 years but maybe 50 years from now, we can disband these bodies and we can all have a national organisation. You may laugh, but these are the realities of Singapore politics.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I am grateful to several Members who have spoken. I am a bit surprised with Mr Jeyaretnam's stand. I thought that this was a very civil, courteous act. We will not get involved in party politics, but he must get involved. I think I want to take him to pre-1959 and I will take the historical process. I have read the Hansard before coming. I have done my homework.”
“Sir, I end my speech with a reference to the Proclamation of Singapore. Allow me to quote from the Proclamation: `As from the 9th day of August in the year One Thousand Nine Hundred and Sixty Five Singapore shall be forever a sovereign, democratic and independent nation, founded upon the principles of liberty and justice and ever seeking the welfare and happiness of her people in a more just and equal society.' May I ask the House to support this motion, Sir? Question proposed.”
“These principles must be cultivated, but we cannot take them for granted. We must nurture them. We must not just be tolerant. Tolerance to me, Sir, is very passive. We must do more. We must be active. We must respect each other's beliefs and traditions. Moving on to language, Sir, language is a very sensitive issue. We have chosen English as the medium of learning. Malay is our national language. We sing our national anthem in Malay. We have decided we must learn our mother tongue, Mandarin, Malay, Tamil, Hindi, Punjabi and other Indian languages. These languages will act as a ballast, to quote our Education Minister, RAdm Teo Chee Hean. These languages will help us preserve our heritage. Sir, the Government is committed to nurturing our mother tongue and it is prepared to change its policy whenever there is merit in the proposal. Sir, moving now to religious harmony, this is the most sensitive issue. We have seen two riots which have religion as the basis of civil disturbances. Some of us felt very strongly and made representations to the Select Committee on the Maintenance of Religious Harmony Bill. And we are grateful for Parliament in passing this Bill that we have religious harmony in Singapore. Sir, we are a people of different races and different religions. We have only one dream, the dream to build Singapore where people live in peace. The citizens have pride in our nation. Our young must find it worthwhile to stay and make their contribution to this country, their homeland. I say this because in many countries, religious strife has harmed the people and the country. We have built an honest and stable Government. Our people believe that there can be no peace and prosperity without a strong government. It is essential to have political stability.”
“And let us hope that the best sons of Singapore would follow these leaders' footsteps, just not in the Administrative Service but also in politics, for our scholars must never forget that they owe a duty and debt to society. Sir, we can overcome the present and future difficulties provided we have the resolve. In every society, the cream of the society decides the fate of the community. But we must never forget that there will be no cream without milk. It is equally important for us to dedicate the course of our society from which must come the leaders. Sir, permit me to pay tribute to our civil service as well. People like Mr Howe Yoon Chong, Mr Sim Kee Boon, Mr J Y Pillay and others who gave their best beyond the call of duty, for no Government policy can succeed without a dedicated, honest, civil service. This House and the nation can be proud of our civil servants. We also pay tribute to our citizens who worked hard, hand in hand with the Government, for no government can succeed without the support of the people. We can overcome difficulties provided we are firm in our resolve. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, multi-racialism is a strong thread of our national fabric, both for the majority and minority communities; in fact, all Singaporeans. We must feel at home and at ease with each other. In many countries, the so-called multi-racialism is at best a dressing on the dining plate. In some countries, minorities are persecuted, humiliated and suffer worst indignities. Our appeal to these countries is to respect and protect the minorities. In multi-racial Singapore, our young children go to the same school, share the common goal and aspirations, learning each other's culture and mix with each other easily.”
“The PAP under the leadership of Mr Lee Kuan Yew formed the first self-government. In symbolic change, Sir, the Ministers were sworn in City Hall and not in the Government House. Subsequently, six months later, on 3rd December, Encik Yusof Ishak took office as the first local Head of State. And it was a historic occasion, for the first time we sang "Majulah Singapura". As a student, we were given a national loyalty card. Sir, I still have this card and this is a symbol of our loyalty. It reads, "Majulah Singapura, susunan kata dan lagu oleh Zubir Said." Sir, we entered Malaysia in 1963 as a free people. We had to leave the federation in 1965 and became an independent republic. We went into Malaysia in the hope of building a Malaysian nation, but we did not succeed. We must never forget our stay in Malaysia which provided us a valuable lesson. When we became a Republic in 1965, we were not certain as to the future. The resolve by the leaders and the people has made us succeed against all odds. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, it is men like Mr Lee Kuan Yew, Dr Toh Chin Chye, Dr Goh Keng Swee, Mr S Rajaratnam, Mr Ong Pang Boon, Mr Lim Kim San, Mr E W Barker, Encik Othman Wok, Mr Hon Sui Sen and others we owe much. We also remember Mr David Marshall for his dream of Merdeka. These men are representative of their time. These men could have lived a fairly comfortable life from any calling of their choice but they decided to help the people in building a modern, prosperous Singapore. They literally risked their lives and limbs for Singapore. They were a product of history. They knew what it was to be treated as a colonial people.”
“Before the British came to Singapore, the Malays were already here. Singapore was part of the Johor empire. They came from China, Indonesia, Malaya and India. They came not to set up a home but to return to their homeland after a brief sojourn, making some money. Some died without even seeing their families back home. Many survived in colonial Singapore. Some of our forefathers went to their homeland and brought their families to Singapore. They lived a very frugal and spartan life. Their life was one of pain and suffering. Through their toil and sweat, they built a place called Singapura, our home, their legacy for the future generation. Sir, we owe a debt to our pioneers that cannot be repaid. I hope in years to come, we can name one of our institutions after these pioneers. They deserve a lasting memorial. Our location has remained our greatest asset. It is God's gift to us, no man can take this away from us. Without any natural resources, Sir, except its location and its people, the island prospered under the British rule. The strategic location of this island attracted traders from South East Asia and elsewhere. For decades, life centred on trade. More and more immigrants made this island their home. Sir, with changing of the time, especially after the Second World War, the political landscape underwent change. It awakened national consciousness and our leaders realised that they had to be masters of their own destiny. The Rendal Constitution set the tone for elected government with powers still in the hands of the British government. This was in 1955. The colonial office realised that the status quo could not be maintained. There were the student riots as well as the Hock Lee riots. Things started changing. Singapore attained self-government in June 1959.”
“Much obliged, Mr Speaker, Sir. Sir, I beg to move, That this House records with gratitude the contribution made by our founding fathers in building a multi-racial, multi-religious and multi-lingual society and reaffirms these principles. Sir, this motion is a result of the National Education Exhibition. As we celebrate our independence, it is timely to recall and recognise the contribution made by our founding fathers. They fought for independence and built a progressive, peaceful and prosperous Singapore. Those of us who have lived through the tumultuous years cannot but feel a sense of gratitude. How we made it to where we are today has been compiled in about 36 minutes in a multi-media presentation. Sir, after the opening ceremony, the Prime Minister asked me how I felt. My reply was simple. The Exhibition has been an emotional journey for most of us who have lived through the period. How we made it is a miracle. Let me say this to the National Heritage Board and to MITA: every dollar spent has been well spent. They have done well. [Mr Deputy Speaker in the Chair] 5.26 pm Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I am moving this motion out of conviction to acknowledge a debt to those who have made us what we are and to convey to the generation to come that these are principles worthy of emulation. Sir, an Indian classic Thirukural says it is not good to forget a benefit. We have benefited a great deal, Sir. The principles which I have termed in this motion are principles worthy of following because without them, we will be torn asunder. I have discussed this motion with some friends. They felt it was timely. I agree with them. Sir, this motion deals with founding fathers, but allow me also to deal with our forefathers.”
“Sir, further to Mr Jeyaretnam's question, would the Minister confirm that the title is a leasehold title and not a freehold title of the various lands that the KTM holds in Singapore?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I agree with the suggestion by Mr Low. My question to the Minister is this. Why did we first of all agree to allow their CIQ in Woodlands when there was an agreement to move in fact in September 1993? Then there was a change of heart. What the Malaysian PM is asserting is tantamount to extra-territorial rights. Singapore is a sovereign nation and we cannot allow that. I would like to have this clarification. I would like the Singapore Government to convey to the Malaysian government that they cannot have any extra-territorial rights in our country.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, could the Minister tell the House how many CPF members have sufficient funds to service their mortgage repayments if there is a CPF cut in the near future?”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I have left out a point just now. I urge the Minister to write to the Law Society to ask for its representation. I believe the Law Society has formed a committee in this regard and perhaps he may want to consider writing to them for representation.”
“What type of Muslim society we are going to build in the context of Singapore? A progressive Muslim society or a society that is conservative and is not prepared to change? I think it is to the credit of the Muslim community here, with the setting up of MENDAKI which is another by-product of MUIS itself, the Muslim community has come of age. MUIS has become part and parcel of the national institution. All Muslims can be proud of MUIS. As I said earlier, I had many things to say but because all that I wanted to say have been repeated by many Members, all I can say is that I support the Bill and I am glad that it is going to a Select Committee. I have some reservations which I have addressed and I hope the Minister would consider them.”
“Then there is a Deputy President, Mr Gan Hiang Chye. There are similar examples. My fear is this. If there are too many Presidents, there is a question of protocol, there is a question of conflict. So I think at the proper time, at the Select Committee perhaps, this matter should be addressed. Sir, MUIS, in the last few years, has come of age. And I say this sincerely because I have seen how many wakaf properties have been developed for the benefit of the Muslim community. Therefore, I see the increase in jurisdiction would be welcomed. I am especially glad that trustees are now required to be more prudent and the accounts have to be prepared and audited by an auditor. I think it is important to have proper checks and balances and perhaps we could take a leaf from this Bill and we should even think of amending the Societies Act. The people who handle public funds must keep proper accounts. And in the case of MUIS, it has got wakaf and other trusts as well and I think the Schedule that has been attached to this Bill is welcomed. Sir, the Bill is trying to overcome a lacuna as a result of two decisions of the Supreme Court which the Minister has referred to. The cases are Salijah vs Abdullah Teo and Lathibaby. If not for these decisions, I think the need would not have been that pressing. But because of these two decisions, I think it is important that the law be set right. It is the prerogative of this Parliament whenever there is a lacuna in the law. We must respond and I think the Minister has rightly responded. He has been cautious. He has waited long. He has consulted the Muslim bodies. He has done service to the Muslim community, but there is still some doubt. We will leave that to the Select Committee. Sir, the concern that we have is this.”
“You follow the nomination. But if he wants to follow the law of Islam, intestate, then Muslim law will follow. Take the case of the Maintenance of Parents Act. A Muslim parent who has not been maintained can go to the Tribunal. Under the Women's Charter, Muslims have gone to the Magistrate's Courts and obtained maintenance. The figures have been released by the Minister. Sir, in the final analysis, it is the choice of the Muslim community. If there is any conflict, of course, the leave of the Syariah Court has to be obtained. But where both parties agree and they think that they can get better justice in a Civil Court, why not. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the question that is of concern to some Members of this House is this. Can we reorganise the Syariah Court? And the Minister has agreed that there is a need and I think this should be done. I wholeheartedly agree with Mr Zulkifli when he said that perhaps we could look to the resources of the Civil Courts. Could we have some of the bright and young Magistrates and District Judges transferred to the Syariah Court? They could be trained in Islamic law. It is not a difficult thing. I think this is something that the Minister may want to consider. Nevertheless, some attempts must be made to reorganise the Syariah Court. I think the community is concerned. But this is not possible now. I think the immediate problem, as I said earlier, is to get on with the disposal of the cases. Sir, there is one aspect of this Bill which I seek the indulgence of the Minister. I beg to differ. The Bill, as it stands, there is going to be one more President. I think the other alternative which I would suggest is to appoint Deputy Presidents. In the case of the Strata Titles Board, we have Mr Tan Lian Ker as the President.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I am obliged to you for giving me this opportunity. Sir, shortly after gaining independence in 1965, the Government introduced AMLA. The Bill was sent to a Select Committee. Representations were made and the law came into effect in 1968. There have been various amendments. Now, there is a major amendment before the House and I am indebted to the Minister. He has listened to the public views. There has been a report in the Straits Times that AMP and others are concerned about certain clauses of the Bill. I think it is appropriate that this House commits this Bill to a Select Committee where we could hear the concerns of the Muslim community and at the Select Committee, if need be, further improvements could be made. Sir, the life of a law is not logic but experience. I speak before this House as a practising lawyer. Some of the points that have been in my mind have already been taken up by my colleagues. So I shall not duplicate but I shall try to reorientate myself. Sir, the Bill will improve the administration of justice in Singapore. As the Minister has pointed out, the Syariah Court is not in a position to deliver the goods. What is the choice before the country? Do we wait and let the Syariah Court system exist as it is and let the Muslim friends suffer? I think the Minister and the Government have wisely decided to bring this change. And the change, Sir, is not forcing on any Muslim. A choice of jurisdiction is his or her right and I will shortly state to this House various other matters affecting the personal law of the Muslims. The Muslims have the choice in the past. They are going to be given the same choice now. Take the case of the Central Provident Fund and the law of inheritance. If a Muslim decides to nominate, so be it.”
“Sir, may I ask the Minister of State whether there has been any crying need by either the Law Society or any professional group such as the Singapore Women Lawyers' Association or other lawyers to set up a similar body like the Board of Equal Rights? I think the House will probably be interested to know. Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee: Sir, there has been no such call. But I take it that it is the NCMP's pet topic. He will come to this House and ask for the setting up of boards, committees and commissions of inquiry out of the blue.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, in view of the very adequate explanation, I do not think I want to speak. However, I support the Bill, Sir. Question put, and agreed to. Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House. The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. - [BG Lee Hsien Loong]. Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed. CUSTOMS (AMENDMENT) BILL Order for Second Reading read.”
“So if we supervise the insurance industry or the stockbroking industry, executives in those companies which come under our jurisdiction will be excluded from sitting. I think it is not quite straightforward to pin down exactly where the boundaries of financial services are. The field is growing very rapidly. Things like futures exchanges, for example, did not exist when we last amended the Act, and we have had to include them. So I think we just leave it as financial institutions and it will be clear which are the ones which come under MAS' purview. Question put, and agreed to. Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House. The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. [BG Lee Hsien Loong]. Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed. BANKING (AMENDMENT) BILL Order for Second Reading read. 1.45 pm”
“I know it will take into consideration financial managers. Would it include insurance brokers, moneylenders, pawnbrokers, because it is a very wide definition? I think it would be wise if the DPM could state to the House what are the institutions that will be covered. In any case, I applaud the DPM because it shows that we are very transparent and we do not want people who are involved in this sector to sit in judgment as a Board member. Sir, our financial sector has grown considerably. Our foreign exchange dealings per day are in the tune of US$190 billion. The fund management is also on the increase and the Bill before the House is timely, especially in view of the fact that the recommendations have been made by a Committee. With that, Sir, and with the questions that I have raised earlier, I support the Bill. BG Lee Hsien Loong: Mr Speaker, if I may respond to the points. First, on the issue of currency notes. No, the Government has no plans to transfer this responsibility from the Board of Commissioners of Currency to MAS. The MAS remains technically not quite a central bank, because it does not issue currency and we have a currency board system which has served us well. I think there is no reason to change it. On Board Members, the Member has suggested that we should look for some more members from the private sector. I agree with him. It was precisely with this in mind that I am proposing to increase the size of the Board. The difficulty, of course, is finding the right persons to serve on the Board, but we are actively looking. Thirdly, on definition of "financial institutions", I believe there is no definition in the Bill, but basically these are the institutions which are regulated and supervised by MAS.”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker, Sir, for giving me this opportunity. Sir, I support the Bill. The principal aim of the MAS has been and will always be to act as a central bank of Singapore, as well as the financial agent of the Government. And it is to the credit of this body that we have sound fiscal policies, sound monetary management and Members would welcome, as the Deputy Prime Minister has pointed out, to include one more mission statement, which is to foster a sound and progressive financial services sector. Sir, there are two areas which I would like to raise. When the first Bill was read a Second time in this House in September 1970, the then Finance Minister said that the issue of currency notes would be left to the Currency Board. I wonder whether the Government is going to change this and bring the issue of currency notes within the purview of the MAS in the near future. The other concern that I have is this. I support the Government's move to increase the membership of the Board of Directors, but I am a little worried on one count. There is now a new requirement of a minimum of four members. I think four is too few. I think we should be a bit more flexible. We should have a minimum of six to a maximum of nine, and I would urge the Deputy Prime Minister to consider appointing Board members from the private sector. It is very important to have private sector inputs in our financial management. Sir, I applaud the Government's move to appoint Mr J. Y. Pillay from 1st July. I think he would, with his experience, contribute immensely to the MAS. And as I have said earlier, I hope the Government will consider appointing people from outside. The other point which I am concerned with is this. There is no definition of "financial institution" in the Bill.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, may I ask the Minister to confirm that, in international practice, checks are normally carried out at the nearest checkpoint and I think Woodlands checkpoint is the most suitable. Members who are not aware of the international practice will be glad to know the Government's position because in most countries it is the nearest point when you enter the country. We have had the Keppel Road checkpoint for a long time and the House will appreciate that it is a move in the right direction. Could I have the Minister's clarification on this point? Prof. Jayakumar: If the Member is referring to what Dr Richard Hu is going to mention later that the move by Singapore's CIQ to Woodlands is consonant with international practice, the answer is yes. It is also the international practice that the checkpoints of countries are located in the territory of their respective countries.”
“Sir, I think I have achieved my objective. I have listened to the Leader. I think there is only one course of action for me to take. I have consulted my colleagues. I will not take any further time of the House and I beg leave to withdraw the motion. [Applause]. Motion, by leave, withdrawn. ADJOURNMENT Resolved, "That Parliament do now adjourn to a date to be fixed." - [Mr Wong Kan Seng]. Adjourned accordingly at Ten Minutes to Eight o'clock pm to a date to be fixed. WRITTEN ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS FOR ORAL ANSWER NOT ANSWERED BY 1.30 PM CYCLIST DEATHS OR INJURIES 26. Mr Charles Chong asked the Minister for Home Affairs if he will provide statistics on the number of cyclists killed or seriously injured by vehicles on our roads from 1988 to 1997 compared to the number of pedestrians killed or seriously injured by cyclists on pedestrian walkways over the same period; and whether his Ministry will consider amending the Road Traffic Act to classify bicycles as vehicles.”
“Sir, I hope Members would not want to debate the motion again. Perhaps we should listen to the Leader of the House first.”
“I have written it down, Sir. May I pass it to you?”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I assure you that I will be very brief. I know that it is past dinner time. Sir, I am grateful to Members who have spoken. Whether they agree or disagree, it is another matter. The fact that they have expressed their opinions, I think, is the most important issue. In keeping with the tradition of the contents of the motion, I have decided, in consultation with my other colleagues, to amend the motion. I would like to delete the words, "less adversarial". Sir, the motion would now read: `That this House recognises the need to evolve a parliamentary system which will further strengthen the process of consultation, consensus and conciliation.'”
“Sir, only those of us who have lived during the colonial days can understand the denial and humiliation. The joy of gaining self-rule was evident when the people of Singapore celebrated with joy the attainment of self-government. Speaking from the steps of City Hall in June 1959,”
“We have won international praise for economic miracles for our sound financial policies, for our housing scheme, for our security and safety, and even for our environmental matters. But what is saddening, Sir, occasionally, what comes under criticism is our governance. I have faith and hope that in the next 10 years, we will succeed even in this area. We, the people and the Government, must work out a system that will not just be a praise from the West but that the people of Singapore themselves will feel that it is a system ideally suited to our soil. Sir, the motion is very straightforward. It is not a binding resolution. Members are free to speak. The Government can respond in the way it feels best. Sir, as I said earlier, in many British colonies, the British Westminster model was held as an ideal form of government. And most of the nationalist leaders like Mahatma Gandhi, Nehru, our former Prime Minister, the former Malaysian leader, Tunku Abdul Rahman, were all educated in England. They were mostly lawyers and socialism was a respectable creed. Sad to say, as I said earlier, few countries have their constitutions intact. Some countries had to impose emergency rule. Even those who have succeeded had their constitution suspended and had to live with a bout of military dictatorship. In Singapore, we have even a shorter history of constitutional development. Election was first introduced after the war in 1948 and it was very limited. There was no full franchise. But the turning point came in 1959 with the attainment of self-government. Prior to this, the Government which constituted basically the Governor and his Secretary and the colonial office in London decided our fate and future.”
“Sir, the Western critics, especially the human rights groups and even a small group of our own people, feel that the Western democracy, in the British sense of the word, is the ideal model to be emulated. Maybe it is or maybe not, that is for the individual. We may be wearing Western clothes and speaking the English language, but in basic necessity of human life like diet, we still prefer and love our fried rice, noodles, rendang, thosai and prata. As the saying goes, one man's meat is another man's poison, more so if you are a vegetarian. Sir, I can do no better than to quote Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru who was a great admirer of British democracy and who was a great freedom fighter, whose speeches have been quoted in this House before. Let me quote him. This is what he told the Indian Constituent Assembly before independence. He said: `We are not going just to copy, I hope, a certain democratic procedure or an institution of a so-called democratic country. We may improve upon it. In any event, whatever system of government we may establish here must fit in with the temper of our people and be acceptable to them. We stand for democracy. It will be for this House to determine what shape to give that democracy, the fullest democracy, I hope.' Sir, I think one of the basic tragedies of Asian leaders was that they copied the constitutions of Britain, France and America. They imported Western government values to eastern societies. As a result, most of the constitutions have failed. Very few have succeeded and I will come to that later. Sir, I have an abiding faith in the people of Singapore and also the political leadership and that we could have a better system of governance.”