Sidek bin Saniff
Singapore
“Sir, I understand that roads and walkways in Neighourhoods 5 and 6 are still being maintained by HDB, as the roads and walkways in these two neighbourhoods have not been taken over by LTA as public thoroughfares. Notwithstanding this, my Ministry has moved in and taken over the cleaning of the roads and walkways from HDB.”
“For that particular area, we have our men to do the job. WOH HUP GOLDEN MILE COMPLEX (Additions to balconies) 11. Mr Goh Chong Chia asked the Minister for National Development whether the additions to the balconies at the Woh Hup Golden Mile Complex facing Beach Road have been approved by the planning and building authorities.”
“If so, it requires identification of the recycled products, in other words, labelling of recycled products. Are we prepared to consider labelling all recycled products? Recycled products could only be viable if the public accepts them.”
“They are also produced by some industrial and natural processes. ENV has been monitoring dioxin levels in ambient air since 1999. So far, trace levels have been detected occasionally. The levels are lower than the levels found in quite a number of developed countries, such as Germany, UK and Netherlands.”
“I share the concern. But, somehow, we do not have any species, like eagles or vultures, that can take care of the crows. In Malaysia or Indonesia, they have musang (fox) that can really mash their nests. In our case, it is just ourselves.”
“Sir, I thought we are taking a concerted effort with all the measures taken. There is no intention at all to pass the buck. To me, it is a matter of asking cooperation, rather than you and me with a gulf in between.”
The complete record
Every one of 250 lines we hold for Sidek bin Saniff, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 3 of 5.
“Several of my Malay colleagues would like to make their comments on this particular subject. With your permission, Sir, may I defer my reply until after Encik Yatiman has made his statement?”
“It is a political jam followed by economic jam. And, finally, it is social jam. But surprisingly, the guns never jammed. The shooting never stops. It never happens here, Mr Chiam. And the killings never end. Dr Tan Cheng Bock (Ayer Rajah): Sir, I rise to support the motion. A lot has already been said. Ever since the Francis Seow's statutory declaration, the Government has taken all appropriate measures to bring home our displeasure to the United States government. We have asked for the withdrawal of Mr Hendrickson. Our Foreign Minister has personally conveyed the message to the United States Ambassador. Our US Ambassador has protested in writing to the US State Department. By demonstrations and public forums, our Singaporeans have expressed their anger on this affair. My question is: where do we expect to go from here? The US State Department and our First Deputy Prime Minister have said earlier that we should put the matter behind us. My own personal feeling is that more rhetoric can only lead to deterioration in US-Singapore relations, a relationship which most Singaporeans value and I am sure most Americans also value highly. My Asian upbringing makes me feel most uncomfortable in not allowing our friends some face left. We have strongly made our point. We have stated our position very clearly. Let us be vigilant. We must always be vigilant. But, please, let this matter rest now.”
“Thirdly, in the process, there is bound to be casualties. Some characters may be hurt. But as a responsible Government, we will try our utmost to see that people at large, the innocent, are not hurt. Sir, we must have the stamina to face these challenges. There should not be any let-up. We must not allow it to go the distance. We must nip it in the bud. And as a responsible Government, we must maintain the following interwoven characteristics: First, to convey the truth, no matter how bitter it is; Second, to give good advice, direction and warning, like the ISA, for instance. Third, to awake our conscience and uphold law and justice. It is stated that it is all very well to paint justice as blind. She should be blind indeed to favour and prejudice. But too clear to see where lies the truth and less dust there is, the better. Let us confront this problem that occurred in our country and many other countries. Often after the stupidity of these culprits which resulted in clashes, riots, loss of lives, finally those involved acted like a man who had just shot his parents and asked the court, the Judge, for mercy by saying that he is an orphan. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, while he may claim that he is an orphan, the people at large will be deprived of the basic needs, food, housing, education and the lot. I have mentioned before during the Ministerial visit that we are lucky to have bread and butter. Basically, politics is about bread and butter. Some countries have more bread and more butter. Some more bread, less butter. Some less bread, less butter but with a lot of jam. But this is not the kind of jam Mr Chiam and myself take in the morning for breakfast.”
“As for the latter, Sir, the people in our midst, I would like to quote Francis Seow's statements to the Press on 20th and 23rd April 1988: 'My purpose in issuing these statements was to politicise the issue, and to generate public interest and international awareness so that pressure could be brought to bear on the government to release the detainees or put them on trial. In the process, I hope I could build up my reputation as an ombudsman and boost my political standing. Hence the language used in these statements are political and belligerent.' Is this what politics is all about? Belligerent, clashes, conflict, war? Belligerent language that may not lead to belligerent action? Unlikely. I would add, Sir, when leaders of the nation or those who aspire to be leaders of the nation, should fully understand what politics is all about, and that is, in the final anaylsis, politics should be morally pegged with the development of mankind and humanity; certainly not belligerent, not conflict, and not war. Politics is serious business. It is not a game, neither is it a gambling den. We do not gamble with people's lives. Sir, we have transformed this tiny island into one of Asia's most stable and most prosperous country. Our cultural heritage, commitment, dedication and foresight made us what we are today. Thus, we must be alert to this development by the super powers, by the individuals especially. First, never budge, for other nations may follow suit. Second, they may exploit in the guise of press freedom, freedom of speech or to have an Opposition in Parliament. Next, they will use something which is very sensitive and vulnerable to a multi-racial society like ours, language issue, culture and religion in order to achieve their goal.”
“Sir, small wonder, words like "Yankee Go Home", "Ugly American", even the pro-western people like the Arabs, are critical of them. Small wonder also that people like Soekarno who had an excellent rapport with US at one time, especially the Ambassador, had had at the end of the day said something to the effect "To hell with American aid". Sir, after that the communist influence was very visible. Southeast Asia was very lucky indeed to have a person like Suharto who managed to cripple the communist onslaught and changed the whole history, I may say, of Southeast Asia, and in particular Indonesia. Otherwise, we may not see ASEAN. We may have another pact, a military pact maybe. And the possibility of Southeast Asia, the Pacific Basin, to be in the area and era of growth in the 21st century may not be in sight. We can certainly lengthen the list by adding certain countries like Latin America, etc. But, Sir, as stated by the Foreign Minister just now, we fully understand the role the super-powers have to play. They must have more than one option - the government, the opposition, interested group. But as long as they do not go beyond the boundaries, it is very important, very critical. But beyond that, it is something that can be considered heinous. We have seen what happened in the Philippines, where position was correct with Marcos, sympathy goes to Aquino. With Aquino intimacy existed, yet it was clear as claimed she (US) eyed Col. Honasan.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of the motion. When we say that "politics is the art of possible", any reasonable, responsible man will concur it is for the development and construction rather than the furthering of destruction. Sir, let us put certain facts in its proper perspective. Firstly, that human rights are subject to the law of the land. Secondly, these rights and freedom must not be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations. Thirdly, what are these so-called sacred principles of the United Nations? To me, Sir, it must be the credo of non-interference in the international affairs of another nation. What should be emphasized must be the peaceful co-existence, respect, mutual respect, not blatant interference or aggression that leads to conflict, even something more destructive. Thus every independent nation must be concerned and alert to these two categories of people: (1) the over-indulgence of foreigners in our domestic affairs, as shown by Hendrickson and company; (2) the over-zealousness of our people who are in cahoots ready to be proxies to these people. The former had its history from what happened in the Second World War. Winston Churchill considered the Second World War as an unnecessary war. It could be prevented by timely action, action against Hitler when the dictator conquered small countries. But European leaders at that time did not consider small countries as vital to them. And the rest is history. The lesson learnt; correction made; position reversed. The super-powers especially are interested, some very, in the small countries. Some went beyond the legitimate boundaries. Again, the rest is history and history in the making like the one we are experiencing now.”
“Sir, I rise in support of the Bill. I always strongly believe that there are no two ways of combatting corruption except to eradicate it totally. It is one of the greatest dangers of modern times. It has plagued and perplexed many governments. There should not be any compromise. It was stated that compromise is corrupt to ideology. What happens if one were to compromise in corruption? I believe not only will it kill ideology, it will also destroy the society, the very social, economic, political fabric of that society, of that nation. Thus, this demonic creature with a human face, with a human mask, must be totally erased from our midst. I have only one question to ask the Minister, ie, the explanation of clause 21(2)(b)(i) of Part IV which says: 'the person dies before proceedings in respect of the offence were instituted, or if such proceedings were instituted, the person dies before he is convicted;' I just want to know whether this includes natural death. How are we going to convince people that natural death could be punished in such a way?”
“' Sir, I wish the Minister would consider this and, hopefully, look into this matter or, if possible, look through pages 59 to 65 of Lord Denning's book: "The Closing Chapter", and maybe make it compulsory reading for our teachers, our students especially in the university, and why not our lawyers too.”
“' Sir, this is an example of an overly long sentence. The US also mounted a campaign in favour of plain English. The US advice was, "Don't use multisyllabic jargon or verbal distortion." They called them "Haigese" because Mr Haig, the former Secretary of State, used them so much. This is the illustration given. One of Mr Haig's aides asked him for a pay increase. Mr Haig just could not say no. Instead, he replied: 'Because of the fluctuational predisposition of your position's productive capacity as juxtaposed to government standards, it would be momentarily injudicious to advocate an increment.' The perplexed aide replied; "I don't get it." Mr Haig replied, "That's right." Sir, I know we do not have Dickens among us or maybe modern day Dickens like Denning. But browsing through the speeches of our Prime Minister and some Ministers, I would say we have that talent. If we can only institutionalize this talent, I think it would be good for us in Singapore. For instance, I think Denning has the courage at one stage to really change the Law Reports. Instead of the long judgments, covering many pages without a break, he divided each judgment into separate parts: first, the fact; second, the law; and the heading after another. So much so that when he retired, Mr Simon Brown, the "Treasury Devil" according to Denning, added humourous reference to his style of judgment which I think it is worthy of our lawyers, and especially, our civil servants, to emulate: 'My Lord, we shall continue also, as will generations to come, to read your Lordship's judgments in the reports, and how refreshingly easy it is to read them compared to many others. We shall recall that short sentences are best and the verbs are optional.”
“Sir, like the Member for Ayer Rajah, I would like to know from the Minister about the bottom-up approach and what is the progress made. I firmly believe that whether it is the bottom-up approach or top-bottom approach, the most important area is that human factor or the human approach. Since the human approach encompasses personal contact and the other one is by communication through letters, now computers and so forth, I would like to know whether the Ministry would like to consider the decision made by Britain recently asking their civil servants, their people, their lawyers to use language in a simple, practical way. This does not happen only in Britain but to a certain extent in US also. Because they are very wary, as early as 1970 I would say, over the use of long words or even long sentences. Let me illustrate by examining the overly long words that was awarded a booby prize in Britain. A village had asked for a bus shelter to be provided near the school. This was the sentence given in the reply. Mind you, there was only one full stop at the end of the sentence. 'The stated requirement for a shelter at this location has been noted, but as you may be aware shelter erection at all locations within West Yorkshire has been onstrained in recent times as a result of instructions issued by the West Yorkshire Metropolitan County Council in the light of the Government's cuts in public expenditure and, although it seems likely that the Capital Budget for shelter provision will be enhanced in the forthcoming Financial Year, it is axiomatic that residual requests in respect of prospective shelter sites identified as having priority, notably those named in earlier programmes of shelter erection, will take precedence in any future shelter programme.”
“Sir, if the figures given by the Chairman of the Estimates Committee is correct, then nearly 50% of our students will be rejected or will not be admitted into the University. I would just like to ask the Minister and maybe the Ministry concerned to look into the finding of a report, the Plowden Report, chapter 2, paragraphs 56 to 64, which states: 'Children's ability had been shown to shift with opportunity. If the IQ had been made the single criterion at 9 or 10, [this is where our streaming is all about] for sorting the children into sheep or goats, and if the same criterion had been used again at 19, it would have been found that a mistake had been made in 20% of the cases.' My question is, when we project our manpower projection whether this particular area has been taken into account. In other words, if your projection is 1,000, is it possible to increase by 10 or 15%, which means maybe lesser students will come to see their MP. They say, "Look, last year the criteria to go to the university is about 45 or 46 points, but this time Mr So and So says it is 48." I always advise them, "Look, the moment you understand that some of your colleague last year happened to enter university at 48 points, you must try to add another two points, which is 50." This is the reality of the matter. My second question is this. Is there any monitoring of this particular group, those who are not being admitted into university? For instance, whether they go into the job market, what sort of job they are attaining. Second, those who pursue their studies abroad, whether there is a monitoring on these particular students. What are their successful rates and second how good are they compared to our local students?”
“First, under the GRC system, the voters do not just elect one candidate, but three. In the past, if they had wrongly elected a party or a candidate, it would affect only one candidate, whereas in future, in a GRC election, three will be involved. So, the responsibility of the voters will be enhanced and it will match the growing maturity of the political consciousness of our voters. Thus, we also expect the political maturity of our voters to increase. That is to say, the voters must think carefully before they cast their votes. The second point is that the success of this system will depend on the implementation of multi-racialism by all the political parties. In the past three decades, history has shown through general elections that the PAP has been pursuing this line by putting forward candidates from all the races. Whether the proposed system will be successful or not depends, to a certain extent, on whether the opposition parties will also pursue this multi-racial line. The earlier they put this into practice, the faster will be the maturity of multi-racial politics in Singapore. The third point is that among the elected candidates in the GRC system, some candidates will be from the majority race, others from the minority community. Whatever it is, they will have to weigh the interests of the minorities or the majority in the context of the whole nation, to ensure that the candidates elected through the GRC system would not become a hindrance to our social unity but act as a catalyst for communal harmony and social cohesion. Therefore, the responsibilities of such candidates will be heavier. Now that the Bill is sent to the Select Committee for consideration, I hope that any details in the Bill which might not be perfect, will receive further consideration. 12.”
“In tackling a matter, the Government would consider various options and work out a solution that is most suitable for dealing not only with the present situation but also taking into account the future. In the same light, the GRC system has come about under these considerations. In other words, we have good wishes that in our Parliament, there will always be the characteristics of multi-racialism. However, other than good wishes, we must also put in some measures of human efforts to institutionalize it. That is why we have arrived at this GRC system. I feel that the people of Singapore can understand the Government's efforts and good intentions in this respect. Earlier, some Members also mentioned that this measure is aimed at institutionalizing multi-racialism in our Parliament regardless whether PAP is in government or not. This shows that GRC is not based on party politics. Now, I would like to say something about how this system would be in keeping with the interests of all the people of Singapore. In view of the unique characteristics of Singapore society and the geopolitics in the surrounding region, the interest of the minorities also constitutes the indivisible interest of all Singaporeans. In Singapore, if the Chinese majority ignores the interest of the minorities, a situation may arise whereby the interest of the minorities will be protected and looked after only by the minorities themselves. Then, it will be bad for all the people of Singapore. Therefore, we cannot just look after the interest of certain races in Singapore. The GRC system, in my view, will get Chinese support, as it is also in their interest to safeguard the interest of the minorities. I would like to make three points regarding this system.”
“What we should seek is to build our national consciousness and the sense of national identity. We should promote mutual understanding, mutual respect, mutual tolerance and communication among different races. We should seek unity among diversities. Therefore, the institutionalization of multi-racialism politics is just an extension of the multi-racialism policy. If we accept the principles of the GRC system, then what follows is only a question of form, method and other implementation details. The First Deputy Prime Minister has sent the Bill to a Select Committee for further consideration and representations so that improvements could be made for its smooth implementation and other alternatives could be discussed. Therefore I would not comment on the form and the details of the system here. Thank you. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Education (Mr Tang Guan Seng)( In Mandarin): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, after yesterday's day-long debate and also the debate this morning, I can definitely see one salient point, that is, the need to preserve multi-racialism in our Parliament. Why? Because it meets the political reality of Singapore. Of course, it also meets the interests of all the races of Singapore. Even the Member for Potong Pasir agreed to this point. What he disagreed to, is the GRC system. But he did not propose any practicable alternative. It seems that his approach is that since there is a need for multi-racialism, it will come about without any effort. But this attitude of allowing events to take their own course is not the practice of the Government.”
“However, this kind of racial reaction can easily cause other races to react to the reactions or even revulsion. We cannot overlook this kind of undercurrents of mass sentiments which may manifest in elections. The third fact is that in the past three general elections (1976, 1980 and 1984), the election results showed that the PAP Malay candidates, although were all elected, their average percentage of votes was lower than the average percentage of PAP votes. In 1976, the average percentage for PAP Malay candidates was 69.5%, the average for all the PAP candidates was 72.4%, the difference was -2.9%. In 1980, average PAP Malay votes - 70.6%, average PAP votes - 75.5%, the difference was - 4.9%. In 1984, PAP Malay candidates got an average of 60.5% as compared to the PAP average of 62.9%, the difference was -2.4%. These were the differences that occurred in the last three general elections. These differences also occurred among the Opposition candidates in these general election. So I do not think it is a casual or accidental phenomenon. The third reason against the GRC is the argument that this system may perpetuate racial differences and magnify the bi-polarization of the Chinese on the one hand and the Malay or other minority races on the other. Yes, it it true that we are all citizens of Singapore. We have all pledged to unite and build a just and equal society regardless of race, language and religion. We belong to the same country and share the common destiny. But it is also true that we are of different races. It is not necessary for us nor should we compel the various races to give up their own languages, religions, traditions and cultures. In fact, multi-races and multi-cultures are our characteristics and our assets.”
“I notice that in the past two general elections, the candidates put up by Opposition parties - the Singapore Democratic Party and the Socialist Front - were entirely Chinese. But even if all the political parties were to put up candidates from all races, it would still not be adequate because the expectations of the voters are now higher and their mentality has changed. They not only vote for the party but also vote for the candidate of their choice. It does not necessarily mean that the voters vote according to the race of the candidates. They want to select a candidate of higher capability and quality and at the time, a candidate who has the language ability to communicate with them effectively and to channel their feelings to the higher-ups and government. This language ability of the candidate rather than race is more important to the younger voters. I do not think they would vote according to the race of the candidate alone. Here, I would like to elaborate the importance of the language ability of the candidate. According to the 1980 Population Census, more than 65.6% families spoke Mandarin or dialects. In terms of literacy, 37.5% of those literate were bilingual, 36% were literate only in Chinese, 19% only in English, 5.6% only in Malay, and 1.3% only in Tamil. Therefore, candidates who could not command Mandarin or Chinese dialects, whether from a ruling party or opposition, will find the situation disadvantageous to them. This is a fact. The second fact is when Israeli President Herzog visited Singapore and the question of the Malays' position in the Singapore Armed Forces was raised, there were strong opposing sentiments and reactions from some members of a certain race.”
“It may, according to him, enable three Opposition candidates to be elected into Parliament at one go and as he said, if Potong Pasir, Kim Keat and Kolam Ayer or Boon Teck constituencies were to be grouped together as a GRC, then he would have a chance of defeating our 2DPM! In fact, when this GRC system was first raised, many PAP Members and supporters regarded it disadvantageous to the PAP. They were worried that their MPs who have served many years (some over 20 years) and with whom they have been working loyally together for many years, when standing in a GRC might be dragged down by other candidates in the same team. They used the expression "other lose the election on behalf of our MP." This psychology is understandable and this feeling is only natural. But for the interest of all and the long-term interest of our country,personal feelings should take lower priority. We must be resolute and be pragmatic. The second reason for opposing the concept of GRC is that our political system over the past 20 years has worked very well and, therefore, there is no necessity to change it. If in the past one or two years, we have paid attention to events taking place within and outside our country, we will realize that these Amendment Bills are necessary. They are precautionary and pre-emptive measures against such happenings. Here, I would like to cite certain facts that we cannot afford to ignore. The first is that so far our political system has been working well is precisely because the PAP at every general election has been deliberately putting forward a balanced slate of candidates from all races and these candidates have been accepted by our voters.”
“The minorities are aware that to be Singaporeans, they must identify with the aspirations and goals of the nation. As more and more minorities get into the national mainstream, they can understand why national goals must be promoted in the interest of all communities. The multi-racial approach to nation building is still the best approach as it allows the integration of all minority and majority communities to co-exist and live in harmony. GRC is one of the answers. Much obliged, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir. Dr Ow Chin Hock (Leng Kee)( In Mandarin): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I have decided to support this Bill and the concept of GRC. In our situation, we have this political need. After about one year's discussion, most Singaporeans understand that the GRC system aims to institutionalize multi-racialism politics and to ensure Parliament has a balanced multi-racial representation so as to promote racial harmony and political stability. Therefore, the basic principles and spirit of these two Amendment Bills are consistent with the long-term interest of our nation and our society. Of course, there is some opposition to this concept for different reasons. I classify these reasons into three categories: First, some people regard this system as a strategy or even a conspiracy of the PAP to deal with the Opposition. But in actual fact, this Bill provides fair competition between both sides. The Member for Potong Pasir admitted on several occasions that "it cuts both ways". That is to say, this system may also be beneficial or advantageous to the Opposition.”
“Such participation provides the minority groups with equal opportunity for a stake in the economy and society. Interaction with the major community fosters closer cooperation between all groups. Inevitably, however, I believe continued cooperation may provide sufficient impetus and competition. The competition can be encouraged in Singapore as ultimately the objective is to upgrade the quality of all Singaporeans. When the minority community enters the mainstream of national activities, each community aspires to achieve the highest in excellence in all endeavours. This healthy cooperation and competition must continue. However, any attempt to dissociate from the mainstream of economy and society, however small, will weaken the position of any minority group. The minority group will suffer economically and may find their cultural identity, including the political culture, threatened as a result of the withdrawal. Political culture of today, to me, happens to be the very scheme of GRC. Efforts by the Government to make all sons of Singapore Singaporeans must be welcomed by the minority. It is only through this common identity can the minority groups mobilize their roles more effectively in, what I term, the New Society of Singapore in the 1990s. Come the year 2000, the 21st century, this New Singapore Society should exist. This could be the pinnacle of our values which are inculcated through our education system, especially through our languages, literature, religion, moral education, besides having to undergo national service together, and staying in the same blocks and socializing in the same workplace. The Government leaders have given their assurance of participation by the minority community in the future of Singapore.”
“Sociologists have concluded that political leaders who champion racial politics do not fight for the cause of the community but instead clamour for individual political gains or self-interest. More often than not, these are the people who invite other people into communal politics - minority and the majority alike. Sir, it is maintained that only people who appreciate and understand their own culture and religion tend to show respect to others. The Government has always encouraged the retention of each ethnic group's own distinctive cultural and spiritual heritage. The majority, as well as the minority communities must continue to promote toleration and mutual respect and facilitate the growth of a culturally and spiritually dynamic multi-racial society. We must make sure that our community centres and other social institutions, our mosques, our churches, temples are part and parcel of the social and religious fabric of our society. The major community constitutes about 74% of the population which means that the minority will always remain the minority in Singapore unless, of course, if one were to engineer it in such a way that the number may be comparable. But I think it may take about 300 years. Even then, I suspect there will be a lot of politicking going around at the expense of the nation's progress and interests. According to Bertrand Russell, fanatical belief in democracy makes a democratic institution impossible. What more, fanatically communal. Therefore, in order to provide any meaningful contribution to Singapore, the minority must interact with the majority community. We must spend the greater part of our life with each other in order to participate in Singapore's economy and society.”
“The Muslims want to make sure that a good strong society must strengthen five major areas - social, cultural, administration, economic and, of course, politics. We have been working together between the majority and the minority comprising the Malays, Indians, Ceylonese, Eurasians, Arabs, Jews. Although the minority collectively forms only about 25% of the total population, their contributions to Singapore cannot be overlooked. The minority has always played their role in the nation building of Singapore and without doubt will play an increasing role in the future of Singapore. Thus, we accept the GRC scheme. The first sign of "trouble", as I mentioned before,I foresee, is when there is no minority race in Parliament.If that happens we may inherit some, if not all the turbulence or crisis that ravage many countries that are heterogenous. As you must know, an electoral system must satisfy two needs: an accurate reflection of popular will and the capacity for firm and effective government - which to us must be multi-racial. The growing importance of minorities in nation building has been recognized by many nations in the world. Singapore is no different in having the same view. In our endeavour to make ourselves Singaporean, we must never allow a communal syndrome to be cultivated. Phrases like "that Indian", "that Malay" or "that Chinese" must not be permitted to take root in Singapore. Communal politics must be erased from the face of our body politic. Needless to say, Sir, for any minority group to think that its interests can be best safeguarded by racialism is not only foolish but, I would say, disastrous.”
“We are talking about "yes men". Maybe I can go half-way. Would he like to be a "no man". You know why? Because when it comes to the exercise of the mind, our Prime Minister, our 1DPM, our younger leaders say "yes" to us and "no" to you.”
“6 million people, 400,000 of whom are Muslims. Is he suggesting that we are under the armpit of our friends, our colleagues? That we are stooges? Our leaders do not conform to that sort of conformity. He says, we are "yes men". Mr Chiam See Tong rose -”
“I cannot understand why the Member for Potong Pasir finds it difficult when he said that there is no need to put multi-racialism in the SDP's constitution because to him socialist means multi-racial. I do not know. I want to ask him this. Hitler described himself as a Nazi socialist. What did Hitler do to the Jews? Is this racial harmony? I do not know why he is so afraid to put this in his constitution. Is he afraid because the First Deputy Prime Minister exposed Ling How Doong's conduct? Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the advocacy of democracy through multi-racialism has created over-riding loyalties among community groups to the claims of the nation state. A consensus on national values as well as cooperation among the communities was also developed. For this, the Government must be commended for delicately balancing and harmonizing conflicting demands and expectations of the minority and majority communities and galvanizing them towards a common goal of excellence for Singapore. This was consciously done by this Party, this Government, from the outset. We believe democracy implies not just according to the majority interest but also the protection of the minority rights. The Member for Kampong Ubi has given an answer aptly yesterday to the question posed by the Member for Potong Pasir and if I were to give one simple word on what the Malay wants, just like any other community wants or any other nation wants in the international community, I would say it is Respect. We know that respect must be earned. It cannot be taken or given. Because of this respect, we are not going to give our Prime Minister or 1DPM something that boils down to GIGO - Garbage In, Garbage Out. We have to give him the real input because we are dealing with the lives of 2.”
“Is it a remarkable coincidence that for the past 20 years, because of the foresight of our Government by discussing this matter, they have come to the conclusion that the formation of the Presidential Council for Minority Rights, in the words of Mr E.W. Barker' "reflects the intention, the purpose and the spirit of the Council of State recommended by the Constitutional Commission. As recommended, it is an advisory body, and leaves untouched the present unicameral legislative. It also does not infringe upon the responsibilities of Parliament" that stability and progress have been made while all those countries, including Sri Lanka and India, ugly incidents, conflict and bloodshed have taken place. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, it is of utmost importance for us to remember that while religious or racial clashes happen in all these countries, the third person like a hungry hyena watches to devour the nations. And the third force happens to be communism. The racial harmony that we Singaporeans have harnessed for the past 22 to 23 years is the result of our leaders' no-nonsense, cautious, not playing to the gallery approach towards this very sensitive, easily destructive issue. The scars of the racial riots in the 1960s would be too painful even to scratch. Nation building in Singapore, to a large extent, means integration of the four ethnic groups. The multi-racial element of the Singapore society has been the dominant feature of Singapore's success since gaining independence 23 years ago. Multi-racialism is considered the best political approach for Singapore as it adopts the democratic process of governing a nation.”
“So they thought, "Yes, that is true - once the British are out, there would be communal harmony." 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 not just 10, 20, 30, 40 years, 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.' Since then, the same Minister, in his speech at the Hari Raya celebrations in City South, continued the list, no more about Ceylon and India but he was talking in terms of Britain, North-South Ireland's clash between Catholics and Christian protestants, Spain, Middle East, Africa, Ceylon again (of course this time it is Sri Lanka), India again (of course this time you have Bangladesh besides Pakistan) and Fiji.”
“All the minorities were represented in this Commission. A very lengthy discussion was held, suggestions were made such as the Council of State, for instance, with all its powers, suggestions about Ombudsman, translated as "a man of the people", But, of course, at that time they had already about 49 "man of the people" (Members of Parliament) whereas we have about 77 now. Now we hear certain suggestions about the proportionate representation, lower house, bicameral, what-have-you. But still maybe our answer is GRC. It is very difficult to ignore that during the discussion of the Bill from December 1966 to March 1967, it was quite an irony for the Prime Minister, Mr Lee Kuan Yew, and the Minister for Foreign Affairs then, Mr Rajaratnam, cited only two countries as examples, namely, Ceylon and India. I wish to quote what the then Minister for Foreign Affairs said. This is very interesting. Said he, an I quote: '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.”
“Sir, I rise in support of the Bill in the name of the First Deputy Prime Minister. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, leaders must lead. They must have answers to every question, issue or problem. Better still, they must anticipate problems before the problems become a burden to society. The GRC is a problem of the future, maybe 15 years or beyond. The Council of Rome, the think-tank in Europe, came to one conclusion which I am in favour - that tomorrow is no more a simple continuity of today. It is the direct consequence of today. The GRC is the direct consequence of today. It is not the most ideal option but to me it is certainly the best option under the circumstances. It is just like asking a person, who is so used to living in a bungalow house, a landed property, to go and live in a flat. He has to adjust himself to his new surroundings, the neighbours, and working together, and finally he has to make certain adjustments which, to me, sometimes can be even better than living in his bungalow house. For instance, bigger and better landscaping, knowing more people, socialising, so on and so forth. Sir, the last time this Government in this very august Chamber discussed the participation of the minority was when, on behalf of the Government of the day, the Minister for Law and National Development, Mr E.W. Barker, mentioned the formation of the Constitutional Commission 1966 headed by the Chief Justice, Mr Wee Chong Jin, with the then Speaker, Mr A.P. Rajah, as the Deputy Chairman, and the following members: Mr C.F.J. Ess, Mr M.J. Namazie, Mr C.C. Tan, Mr S.H.D. Elias, Tan Sri Syed Esa bin Syed Hassan Almenoar, Mr G. Abisheganaden, Mr Starforth Hill, Encik Abdul Manaf Ghows, Mr Kirpal Singh, and Mr S. Narayanaswamy as Secretary.”
“They may taste, I believe, a Vietnam there but make no mistake that since 1974 they dominated nine Third World countries and without sending troops like the one in Afghanistan. I think it is wise for us to be on guard, to be alert all the time and remember that instability is a fertile ground for Communism. 3.04 pm”
“He came to this conclusion about British attitude when dismissing an appeal against deportation: 'This is a case in which national security is involved and our history shows that when the State is endangered, our cherished freedom may have to take second place.' Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I think everybody understands this. And I think the Member for Potong Pasir must also understand. Let me quote another article, Article 23 about the right to work and what is the stark reality of life. Article 23 proclaims that everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favourable conditions of work and to protection against unemployment. Everybody agrees. It is a beautiful, crafted, worded article. Only the insane persons may denounce it. Yet we know that any sane government will not employ people whom they consider a security risk. That could put the majority in danger, in jeopardy. The world is divided into Blocs, the Western, Communists and the Third World countries. Conflicts, fighting, seem to be the order of the day. The 20th Century, it is stated, is the era of growth of the Atlantic. Economists now predict that the 21st Century is the era of the Pacific. The Pacific Basin is in the realm of the Third World also. As I said just now, after the Second World War, there have been 120 wars with 10 million victims. All in the Third World countries except Greece in 1977 and quite recently Falklands in 1981, where the British defeated the Argentinians. And two-thirds of the world's population are in Asia, Africa, Middle East and Latin America. In our case we are the Third World country. We also have this kind of threat. The Communists have their puppet regime in Afghanistan. They suppress the revolutionaries.”
“But let me say this. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights is a document of guarded idealism. Thus it is capable of many interpretations. Because words or meanings of the words may change because of three important elements: (1) time, from decade to decade; (2) place, from place to place; and (3) people, from one person to another person. So I would suggest that we read all those 30 articles. I would also like to advise all of us by taking note of what the noted lawyer, Judge and a Queensrow, mentioned: 'If you have to make a choice, choose the meaning that accords with reason and justice.' And I must say that our Government's action is pegged with enough reason and justice. I also notice that conveniently many people left out especially Article 29. I would have thought that any sane person will compare in such a manner with this article which maybe the most important article which says in Part 1: 'Everyone has duties to the community in which alone the free and full development of his personality is possible.' It reminds also in Part 2: 'In the exercise of his rights and freedom, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights, freedom of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order [I emphasize "public order"] and the general welfare in a democratic society.' I guess we understand fully the extent of this particular article. And sometimes people complain. But let us go to Europe or to Britain, the so-called mother of Parliament is there and see what Lord Denning said. I think the opposition member knows who Lord Denning is. He is a maverick, well-known judge.”
“" Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the Communists accepted the Helsinki Agreement, ie, the post-war national boundaries of Europe. They accepted that. But we all know, unlike the Europeans and the Americans, they continued their support for the so-called "national liberation movement" especially in the third world countries and we have witnessed one after another the countries fell. Maybe it is timely for us to recap what Winston Churchill once said: 'That World War Two was an unnecessary war because it could have been prevented by the timely action against Hitler when he launched his conquest of smaller countries.' We have 18 countries now under the communist influence. At that time, European leaders did not consider them vital to their interests. We all know the rest is history. After Vietnam, Richard Nixon in his book "No More Vietnams" has this to say: 'Communism observes no rule of engagement except for the one that says "Winning is everything."' I repeat, "Winning is everything." No one uggested that we should become like them in order to prevail. There was talk of the Americans. Nixon also said that it was Nietsche who wrote: 'Who fights with crocodiles becomes one.' But Nixon mentioned here that "we must also remember that he who does not fight will be devoured by the crocodiles." Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, maybe it is worth our while to flip through the Universal Declaration on Human Rights as part of the enshrined articles was mentioned by the Opposition Member. I always notice whether they are persons inside or outside of this House, inside or outside of the country, somehow or rather will keep on quoting articles 9, 10 and 13 only. I do not think I should read the articles. I would like to think that the Opposition Member for Potong Pasir understands them.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of the amendment to the motion. The Communist threat is a reality. It is not imaginary. And we are not crying "wolf". It is as real as night and day. It is as real as the 1st and 2nd World Wars. It is as real as the 120 wars that happened after the 2nd World War. It is as real as the 10 million victims who perished in those 120 wars. It is as real as the Communists have gained power, not just one or two, Poland and a few others, in 18 countries since the 2nd World War. It is as real as six years after Vietnam when the dominoes fell one by one. In 1975, Laos, Cambodia, Mozambique. In 1976, Angola; 1977, Ethiopia; 1978, South Yemen; 1979, Nicaragua. South Yemen is a Muslim country. There are pious people or alims there. Somehow the masses followed the socialist trend or socialism as they called it at that time. Finally, they ended up being engulfed by the Communists. They killed their religious leaders, people who taught them, people that they learned from. The Member for Potong Pasir said that Christians oppose the Communists most. And I say Islam also oppose the Communists most. But then South Yemen was devoured. Of course, there is another one, the Tudeh Party in Iran. According to Shaul Bakhash in his book "The Reign of the Ayatollahs - Iran and the Islamic Revolution", he is an Iranian, he said, "It is a Moscow oriented party." And mind you, at one stage, this particular party threw its full support behind Khomeiny. We all know that besides the trade union movement, the religious organizations also have been and will be the fertile ground for socialist fervour. The Opposition Member asked; "Who are the phantoms? They are not armed.”
“Financing of the Majlis Ugama Islam Singapura (22) That the sum to be allocated for Head J be reduced by $10 in respect of Subhead JM-01 of the Main Estimates.”
“Secondary Education (13) That the sum to be allocated for Head L be reduced by $10 in respect of Subhead LD-02-1210 of the Main Estimates. Bursaries and Scholarships for School Children (14) That the sum to be allocated for Head L be reduced by $10 in respect of Subhead LD-02-3310(3) of the Main Estimates.”
“So my conclusion, especially to my GPC Chairman, if we finally found out that independent school is the answer, not to allow RI to be an independent institution is a disservice to RI. Unless of course you can find some other alternative and that alternative maybe to give all the manpower, all the money and create two RIs. You solve the student population problem. You need two RIs, two schools to cater, in order to have the 20 or even 15 students per class. So I wish we can ponder this problem and, as the Minister said, we come to the conclusion so that that conclusion will not only satisfy us here in this august Chamber but the people of Singapore.”
“I am not a Rafflesian but my boy is. Maybe he may not agree with me. Second, the stronghold of unrelieved and monotonous experience. The third hamper, bureaucratic reticence. Fourth, fear and insecurity. Fifth (maybe this does not apply to us) limited financial resources and shortage of educators with both knowledge and perspective. That is why if we were to cover these five hampers, we will notice that a person like Stedman, for instance, in his book "Engineering and the many Cultures", and in De Simone DV, "Education for Innovation, London, Pergamon, 1968" page 40, what did he say? He considered the following as the killer phrases. What are the killer phrases for change? "We tried something like that years ago". This reminds me of the so-called Christian Brothers School run by themselves. "That's ridiculous", "That's too radical", "Let's form a committee to consider it", and it takes years and years to find the solution. "That's contrary to the policy", "Has anyone ever tried it?", "It won't work", "That's superficial", "That's interesting, but we don't have the time or manpower". And to add to these, according to Dr Ruth Wong, a well-used local retort, "My gosh, the English school teachers will not like it". Or as the case may be, "The Chinese school teachers will not like it", "The Malay school teachers will not like it", or "The Tamil school teachers will not like it". Ladies and gentlemen, I pose you this question simply because I think we must ask ourselves: if we agree that independent school is better than the present school, then we must change. But if we think, if we observe, if we finally come to the conclusion, that "towards excellence in school" will give the right answer, then status quo. Do not change.”
“Mr Chairman, Sir, I would just like to touch on change, not for change's sake but change that has brought progress for Singapore and the third-world countries. It means survival. Sir, our future, as the Prime Minister said and reported in Newsweek of February 1987, "lies in being plugged into the international network of trade and communications," which means from finance to robotics to biotechnology. And this can only be achieved through our educational system. That is why I must say that changes in the educational system and innovations in Singapore started as early as 1946, right after the Second World War and have continued ever since. Mr Chairman, Sir, the innovative effort was later embodied in the Education Ordinance in 1957. But, of course, as we all know now, it needs an action oriented, business-like Government like ours to translate intent into action. We have gone through many phases of educational change. From 1946 to 1956, as educationists term it, the period of conflict resolution. I mentioned earlier, in the case of 1957-59, and 1960-68, that period of dynamic action, 1969-78, the period of qualitative consolidation and, of course, 1978 till 1985, upgrading of quality, Dr Goh Keng Swee's Report on streaming to prevent wastage or wasteful, talented students, gifted education projects and SAP schools. Educationists are always being posed with many questions such as: are there not factors which inhibit change? The answer is always yes. And they found that whenever a change is being introduced, there are five areas which hamper changes. One is the entrenched beliefs and I am quite sure here, with due respect to my colleague, the Chairman of the GPC on Education, he expressed that maybe we have to ponder about the change to be made in RI.”
“If it is a Malay community, let the community take it as their responsibility, as a present, as an award to the parents or to the students. As far as the growing elitism is concerned, my conclusion is that any tendency towards elitism would be eroded over time by Singaporeans' sense of common destiny and common aspirations. I always believe that whatever measures taken, let us put everything equal. On the suggestion made by the Minister, I would like to highlight one important area and, that is, the number of students in the class. Being a former teacher, I always believe that if you put 40 students in a class, say, in ACS, and 20 students in another class, let us say, in Raffles Institution, I have this notion somehow or other, that everything being equal, the school with 20 students in a class will perform better. I am indeed glad that the number of pupils in a class is 30. Who knows, as time goes by, maybe we can make it to 25, 20 or even 15, as suggested by the principals. I congratulate the Minister.”
“Sir, I am glad to hear the reply made by the Minister. It is amazing that within a short space of time the Minister managed to get all the information, browse it through discussion, come to a conclusion and give this House and the people of Singapore a crystal clear direction. As the Minister mentioned just now, over 30 years ago in 1957, an intensive school building programme was initiated where double session schooling was first introduced. Then in 1958, the Singapore Polytechnic was established. The great demand for adult education was met through the Singapore Council for Adult Education or more popularly known as the Adult Education Board. Let us compare 30 years after 1959. The Minister mentioned that instead of having double session schools we are going to have single session schools. We are going to build between 40 and 50 secondary schools within the next 6-7 years. For adult education, our Government has introduced BEST, MOST and then WISE. What can be wiser than by giving us today a clear direction of excellence in schools and, of course, independent schools which I will comment later. In my meeting with the community leaders, there are three major areas which the people are concerned about. First, they are worried about the criteria of admission that would be adopted in the independent schools. This has to be answered by the Minister. Second, fees. I am glad that the Minister mentioned that the Government will take care of it. I am not quite sure whether the independent schools will look after it. And third, the community. I would say that the moment our kids manage to go to independent schools, it is best that parents do not worry about it. We have nothing to worry about it because the community as a whole is responsible for it.”
“I know about that. Maybe we should have reviewed it earlier. The findings of the Committee and the deliberations of this august Chamber will be for all to see and judge. This is the hallmark of this Government. We will be strong but not arrogant. We will not abuse authority but we will be firm. Any wrongdoing will be nipped in the bud. There is no two-way about it. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, many a time the unscrupulous and the wicked will try to appeal for the highest sympathies with most honourable motives to deceive and use anybody at all as an instrument for defeating justice. We should be very careful and very cautious about this. We must protect our people against any form of deception. And we have firmness when dealing the strictest justice without fear or favour. To do otherwise is to betray the trust thrust upon us. As trustees, we must defeat all attempts made to mislead the people. This is a sacred trust. Sir, the gravity of the accusations made by the former MP for Anson we have, if anything, to my mind, been lenient. I believe ultimately, as always, humanity still wins the day as it must. 12.40 pm”
“Singaporeans should know by now that we have all along tried our very best to look after the affairs of the state or the affairs of the nation with our utmost care.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of the Report made by the Committee of Privileges regarding Mr Jeyaretnam's abuse of privileges of Parliament in his allegations of Executive interference in the Judiciary. Sir, fighting is an exceptional necessity. It is true in war as well as in peace. The only difference is that in peace we use every available law or legislation to fight the problem or to fight the most potent enemy like untruth. Whether in time of war or in time of crisis, expressing something out of fear, false repetition, hearsay, gossip or rumours can be dangerous because, if true, they may give a wrong impression, a wrong signal; the timid will be frightened; the brave will have some misgivings. But if such rumours are false, they may cause needless fear or unnecessary alarm. Sir, false news, unfounded rumours will be ammunition to the enemy or those who are envious of us. It will encourage them to strengthen their position. Their stand as well as their posture will be markedly different. In peace-time, untruths can be equally dangerous - politically and economically. Even our very social fabric can be threatened or damaged. So we must check untruth. We must checkmate it. Not to do so is to fall directly into the grip of the unscrupulous. That can cause irreparable damage to property and life. The decision made to fine the former Member for Anson a sum of $1,000 - it should be more, if possible, or maybe the $25,000 later on in the Second Report - is fair and justified, humane and balanced. Whether one is managing one's home or governing a nation, balance or fair play or justice must be seen and adhered to.”
“Society exists because of the aggregate of the individual, the organized system and, of course, the esprit de corps. I would like to quote two Malay sayings. One is: Hidup sandar menyandar Seperti aur dengan tebing. You live like the river bank and the shrub. You need each other. If you don't, you will be swept by the current. Another saying is what they term as the Adat Berbilangan Perpatih which is still being practised in Minangkabau or Negri Sembilan. They say: Berakit-rakit kehulu Berenang-renang ketepian Bersakit-sakit dahulu Bersenang-senang kemudian. Feel the pain now and enjoy prosperity later. I just said we are in difficult times. I do not know whether we are in a crisis, but if we are, there is a Chinese word for "crisis" - weiji. I was told this word combines the element of danger and opportunity. Maybe the danger is in front of us, face it, and opportunity will be there. For my Muslim colleagues, it is stated in the Al-Quran. God said: "So verily, that for every difficulty there is relief." God said twice to make sure you doubly understand it, doubly digest it and, that is, besides the unhappiness and bad things, there is good thing after that. Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the motion. 4.30 pm”
“Among other things, because of the political stability in Singapore and the region. Because of the strong tripartite relationship between Government, labour and employers. Because we had prepared our children, our students, and the efforts made by the Government as early as 1970, if not earlier, for the age of technology. Of course, we also never forget about the BEST programme and, mind you, the objective of the BEST class, to me, is not only to create a skilful person. I am quite sure those over 40 years will find a new world for them when they know how to read a foreign language. I have several of my friends who never knew how to speak English. They only know their mother tongue. They feel envious whenever they see people carrying thicker and thicker books. There is a whole new world in front of them. They slogged. They studied. They succeeded. I told the BEST Committee, "Please create and design textbooks for such a particular group." One day they may go to our National Library and, who knows, our Parliament Library. Mr Speaker, Sir, I agree that the 15% cut in CPF is very painful. As usual, we are being truthful. We never ask Singaporeans to come into the PAP garden. The roses are blooming. The sun is shining. No, we never placed blind confidence in our own ability to handle the economy. We are not drunk with our confidence. We are being realistic. We are being factual. To me, our garden is still beautiful. What we need is some pruning with caring hands by all in the family. I am quite sure there will be one or two in the family who happen to be painters. Only they happen to be myopic painters who will just paint our garden city black. Sir, the rich colours of the garden city cannot be reduced to black and white only. We have to work together.”
“The powerful Teamsters Union for Transport Workers, in the US again, settled for a no-wage increase for 37 months, about three years. This was in March 1982. So keep your fingers crossed. By March that year there may be some increment for them. And there are other measures. Some cut their pay between 9% and 11%. Sunday pay dropped from 1(r) times to 1� times. Vacation leave was reduced. In a country like Belgium there was an overall across-the-board cut of about 15%. And not forgetting Britain's dramatic reduction of work stoppages. Mind you, Scargill started the mining strike from March - when I was there - until nearly the end of the year. A dramatic reduction of work stoppages over cuts in tea-break time or changes in work rule. And never forget, there was a firm with 200 vacancies which was stormed with not less than 20,000 applicants. Mr Speaker, Sir, this reminds me of what the Acting Minister for Trade and Industry once said in this very august Chamber and, that is, the best charity is to give a person a job. There is every element of truth in that one short sentence. The NTUC and the workers knew about this. That was the gravity of the situation. Why? Let us reflect and see the figures at that particular juncture. While the ASEAN countries registered a GDP growth of between 2.6% and 6.3%, Hong Kong, Korea and Taiwan registered between 4% and 6%. The industrialized countries were not making that much. For instance, the OECD countries suffered -0.5%. The so-called engine of growth, Germany, -1�% and US, -1.8%. We were -1.7%. Our recommendation, accepted yesterday, is "only" 15% of the CPF cut. I think the Opposition should appreciate why there is a delay of three years. We were prepared in 1982. The unions were told in early 1983. Why the delay?”
“The move to let the private sector take the lead is a "direct consequence of today." The change, I presume, is deliberate. It must be the guiding principle of our approach in dealing with our economic well-being that has put us in good shape for the past 25 years. Mr Speaker, Sir, we are living in an inter-dependent world and the reality of interdependence means that no country can recover from the world recession on her own. For instance, the strong dependence of NICs' economies, including ourselves, is unlikely to change. And as a nation, led by the Government and the politicians, it is our duty to confront reality, whether it is uncomfortable or not. It is important for us to have a proper perspective of the present economic recession. We are fully aware that the world recession that originated from the second oil crisis worsened in 1982. The workers were aware, not just the Government. There were measures taken by nations affected at that particular juncture in 1982. They knew the severe unemployment situation in the industrialized countries have forced the traditionally large and militant European and American labour unions to consider seriously and finally accept wage settlements they have never before dreamt of accepting. Why? Simply because they were being rational, practical, objective and realistic. They sacrificed short-term gains for long-term benefits and survival. Let me go through how several companies faced this reality in 1982. Take a company like Sunstrand. It is a high-tech company manufacturing aircraft components. It provided a 45-month job guarantee for its workers in return for a wage freeze for its skilled employees, a 20% cut for their semi-skilled workers and a 30% wage reduction for their unskilled workers.”
“The Sub-Committee noted that as manufacturing operations become increasingly automated, there are fewer incentives for the developed countries to locate their plant here. One way of overcoming this problem is for us to go on three-shift operation to make it attractive for firms to locate their capital-intensive project in Singapore. The Sub-Committee estimates that typically a company which goes from one-shift operation to three-shift operation could save approximately 15%-20% company's local cost. Of course, this is dependent on the industry and capital-intensity. However, implementing the three-shift operation to give us this comparative advantage will need adjustments by the workers. Workers will have to re-order their social lives, their family lives, to fit their new working hours. Mr Speaker, Sir, on the part of the Government, the Government should provide the infrastructure necessary to support three-shift work, such as extended transportation hours, TV and radio services, etc. It will mean adjustments for all. However, the potential cost-saving is very significant. I therefore urge that these recommendations be seriously considered, studied and implemented. We need every additional comparative advantage to regain our competitiveness. Mr Speaker, Sir, the future is no more the simple continuity of today. It is the direct consequence of today. In the 1960's Government intervention was considered necessary for the economic growth of a young, newly independent nation of Singapore. But now, more than two decades later, conditions have changed. Government does not create wealth. It is a job for the private sector. And with the wealth of experience, the Government could be the catalyst of wealth generation.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to join my fellow colleagues in thanking the President for his address. I am heartened that the Government has accepted virtually all the main recommendations of the Economic Committee and will implement the key measures quickly to turn the economy around. The Economic Committee Report is a well thought-out document. It not only attempts to recommend measures to steer us out of the present recession but it is also a comprehensive blueprint to chart the direction of our economic development in the next decade. However, the most significant point about the Report is the manner in which the recommendations were reached. The Report represents the consensus and opinions after long, open and comprehensive consultations between the Government, private sector and, of course, the NTUC. To me, Sir, it is a document of the opinions of the people. Now that consensus has been reached, the most important task at hand is to translate these recommendations into action. Mr Speaker, Sir, as the President has pointed out, implementing the recommendations require all Singaporeans to work together, both with each other and with the Government. Some of the remedies, like the cut in CPF contributions to regain our competitiveness, will be painful but unavoidable. They are necessary short-term sacrifices we have to make for our long-term survival. In some cases, the adjustment may mean a change in the life-style we are used to. For instance, the Sub-Committee on Manufacturing pointed out that the major strategy to regain our competitiveness is to reduce costs. The measure that is likely to have the largest impact on total cost reduction is the promotion of three-shift or round-the-clock operations.”
“I am confident that if we can truly take cognizance of this fact, then only can we claim to be the elected representatives of the people, to protect their interests not only for the next 25 years but for ever. Only then can we be able to say that we have discharged our responsibilities to the best of our ability. 11.50am”