Simon S C Tay
Singapore
“Sir, it is a question that the Minister may have missed. This is a simple question that while I give the benefit of the doubt to the Government's assessment of security, I would like to ask the Minister whether any other changes will be made to security at our overseas embassies, such as the holding of large receptions.”
“Looking further ahead, may I ask the Minister whether we should not look towards secured electronic voting for overseas Singaporeans. Can we not use this time between this coming GE and the next to look into this possibility? This should be good for the ease and security of voting.”
“Sir, may I ask the Minister three questions. The first is, while I commend these extra efforts, may I enquire how much this would cost. The second question is: are there targets? How effective do we hope to be in creating the number of jobs that we hope to create or match?”
“What I am hoping, Sir, is that we should move towards not just allowing political parties and their sites to have a free and fair debate but rather elections must be about people, voters and their opinions, and that these regulations, if anything, must err on the side of freedom in order to give people their say.”
“And if they can establish free trade zones in various parts of the archipelago and create conditions which assure businessmen of stability, I think they can take off. And I was cheered that the US, the EU, Japan, the IMF, have all come up with strong statements in support of President Megawati. We would do our part, but we are small.”
“Sir, I appreciate the Minister of State doing his back-of-envelope work. 10%-20%, if it excludes the very large projects like reclamation, seems a little low, if I may say. Is there any inclination to push it up higher? Is the private sector up to the job? Historically, the Government has had reasons to doubt the private sector.”
The complete record
Every one of 525 lines we hold for Simon S C Tay, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 6 of 11.
“We will consult and canvass our initial thoughts with relevant actors, especially those in civil society and also those in relevant Government agencies. We will aim for consensus. But that is not always possible. I think we should not water down our study to the lowest common denominator. Therefore, we will not shy away from controversy. We hope to coach and also to criticise. We hope to persuade and debate and also press. Those who do not have power, who do not sit in the seat of power in Government, can do no more. But active citizens should do no less. With this, I support the motion.”
“It cannot be, on the one hand, that we allow speech without responsibility, and allow for sedition, racial slurs, defamation, mis-information and possible disorder in the streets. But, on the other hand, should we continue to have all public speech, including that on political and social issues, licensed under a Public Entertainment Act, and decided by some faceless bureaucrats? In comparison, our censorship of films has, in the last decade, moved far beyond this already. Let me at this juncture, mention this debate about having thick skin. In my case, I think, it is more just bad skin which people mistake for thick skin. I want to point out that, of course, people who want to participate in public debate must have thick skin. But I also want to emphasise the question of whether, in this robust engagement, it is truly equal and truly fair. The analogy I have, in a sense, is traffic. We all drive. You may have a car, I may have a car. Others drive in bigger cars and some of us may be bus drivers. Buses today are big, fast, turbo-charged. Both cars and buses have honks. I may sound my "horn", or to use Singlish, I may horn. But if I am driving a car and I honk, it does not mean that I will be able to engage the bus, even if it is in the wrong. He is probably a wiser man who values his car, his life and that of his passengers who gives way to the bus. I think this analogy needs careful consideration when we talk about debates between a fledgling, young people sector with an established strong, knowledgeable and determined Government. These are some of the issues that we hope to consider in our study over the next few months and to seek a new balance for. But, as I said, I do not prejudge our conclusions. What I can tell you is our approach.”
“And I am disappointed that I do not find such a series of small bangs in the Ministerial Addenda. But while I criticise, I certainly do not want to be seen as an armchair critic, or even a Parliamentary chair critic. I and my fellow NMP, Zulkifli Baharudin, will undertake a study on civil society in 21st century Singapore. We will roll up our sleeves as an active citizen, do our part to study this problem. The study will focus on three areas: (1) the registration of societies; (2) the limits to speech and assembly, especially in public; and (3) the role of private foundations and Government agencies in supporting and fostering civil society organisations. These are, to us, three of the key limits and obstacles to a more active people sector. Mr Zulkifli and I do not prejudge what the conclusions of the study will be. In each area, while there is a need for more openness, there may also be valid reasons for limits and obstacles. Take the first area, for example. The registration of societies is fundamental to having active citizens organise themselves. If they do not register, they may be considered illegal and prosecuted. Yet, it is within the discretion of the Registrar of Societies to refuse their registration on a number of grounds. So some cases take time. In comparison, the registration of private companies is automatic and easy. There are historical reasons for this, and also some present day concerns. We therefore have to more closely examine how to balance the needs, on the one hand, of a more active people sector to organise themselves and be lawfully registered and recognised, with, on the other hand, the need for caution and control. In the second area too of public speech, I think there is a need to examine the balance.”
“But a head, a mind that can independently think and want to propose or oppose policies, rather than just helping smoother implementation. And with that head comes mouths that can freely and reasonably speak. What the Ministries have proposed is a start, but a very modest one at best. The Singapore 21 Committee on the idea of active citizens went quite a bit further. The subject committee which I chaired with Mr Lim Swee Say, now Minister of State, on "consensus and consultation against decisiveness and quick action" made a number of concrete suggestions that have yet to find a place in the Addenda announced by Government. I hope perhaps they will. In making these points, I want to emphasise that I am not arguing for free licence and a rowdy free-for-all. Those who argue against a status quo can often be mischaracterised in this way, and they find their proposals labelled "radical" or "unrealistic". The approach I am arguing for finds its analogy in the liberalisation of the financial sector. First, we must have a broad vision of what the Government wants and an identification of present limits. Second, we need a recognition that while Government will have a regulatory role, that role has changed. Third, we need an emerging practice that shows all the practitioners concerned that the philosophy and tools for regulation have changed. And, fourth, we need a series of measures that will push and change the existing limits. In financial liberalisation, the Government's approach has been, I believe, for a series of "small bangs". Not radical, but readily discernible. Measured but measurable. I would call for a similar approach to the liberalisation of our laws and policies towards an active people sector.”
“It talks about the access to information and again this is obviously very important to an active people sector. But there seems in their Addenda to be more concern that the greater and easier access to information will impinge on economic, social and political life. While this is true and should be studied, I would have hoped that there would be an equal study on enabling citizens to have use of greater access to become more knowledgeable and aware of important issues facing our society. This will be the necessary basis, the foundation, for more informed, reasoned and active people. I turn next to the Prime Minister's Office. I was heartened here to see a subsection of the Addendum entitled "Towards Active Citizenship", and by the pledge in this Addendum to have the public service play its part towards attaining this goal. But the particulars of the Addendum fall short, in my view. The promise here is to "consult the private and public sectors more, in order to obtain feedback, tap their specialised knowledge, and [I want to emphasise] ensure smoother implementation of Government's policies." "Smoother implementation of Government's policies" is a necessary and helpful step. But it is not enough for an active people. Active citizens are not just there to help Government policy implementation. In this regard, it is worth pointing out that all of us citizens have at least three parts - hands, a heart and a head. Government wants helping hands. Government increasingly wants the hearts of Singaporeans too, if this is to be our home. But it is less clear from the various plans whether Government also wants the head. Not on a chopping block.”
“In this regard, I must confess that I am disappointed on this point of active citizens by the plans announced by the different Ministries in their Addenda to the Presidential Address. What specifically should and will be done, and by whom? Let me deal with this in the second question: What specifically should and will be done, and by whom? If we go through the Addenda of the different Ministries, there are relatively few references to plans to make active citizenship possible. Perhaps they have their own more immediate concerns with existing policies and plans. There is, after all, no Ministry in overall charge of this initiative for active citizens. Where the Ministries do mention plans for active citizens, these plans do not seem to me to go very far beyond what we already have. Take, for example, the Ministry of Community Development's plans for the Feedback Unit. This Unit is very important for active citizens to be heard and to also listen. But if you look at paragraph 9 of the Addendum, and I quote: "The Feedback Unit will reach out to more Singaporeans to obtain varied and representative feedback. It will also inform and explain to opinion makers and grassroots leaders the rationale and details of Government policies." How is this different from what they have done before and what they are doing now? Why is the emphasis still on a downward communication to opinion makers and grassroots leaders to explain to them why policies are as they are? If there is no difference, and an emphasis on downward communication, how will this status quo promote the change towards an active citizen sector? The plans by the Ministry of Information and the Arts are similar in this regard.”
“The call for active citizenship in this sense has a very rational economic basis. First, and most immediately, we can improve on policies. Second, and more broadly, "heartware" is to be the social bond for a vast and rapid economic change. Are these rational and economic reasons enough to motivate real and necessary change? Some Singaporeans will, of course, always queue up if there is a sale. If there is a dollar sign, they will queue up. For some people, it is. But not for all of us, and not always. Some of us respond to other stimulus. One of these is the goal of becoming a "democracy". When I use this word, I do not want to embroil this House in a debate about definitions. Democracy is a loaded term. It is often used to mean a certain form of liberal democracy, as we see in some Western societies. But here, I use the word "democracy", in the terms of our own pledge. We pledge to build a "democratic society, based on justice and equality". If we hold true to this goal, this ideal of democracy, this can be a third and potent reason to have active citizens. In a democracy, more than any other society or system, people count. Literally they vote, and their vote counts. More than that, they participate in the society and in the political processes. In this sense, I do not see that active citizens are an option, a luxury for good times. They are essential to face the coming challenges for Singapore to be a home amidst the open, competitive, rapidly changing and often turbulent world that is coming. We should not wish for a crisis or to lose a war in order to have real change. But we have to be motivated for real change. Only then can the goals set by the Presidential Address be reached.”
“Japan is, by the way, now looking at a commission, much like the Singapore 21, on Japan's role in the 21st century. Singapore, of course, is very different from Vietnam or Japan. We did not fight the kind of war (although in the 1970s, the conventional wisdom said that we might if the dominoes in Southeast Asia fell). But we did win through another struggle for economic success and survival. We too had succeeded. In achieving this success, this victory, we have our own veterans and our own system of society and politics. These have served us well in the past and in the present, and it is very difficult to abandon them abruptly. Indeed, there are those among us who also fear that if we open up too fast, they are not sure what influences will work on our society, and change our politics. Are we then too successful to truly change? Will we just simply tinker around and hope to muddle through the 21st century? Or can we truly commit ourselves to necessary and real change for an active people sector? Much depends on our motivation. Why do we need active citizens? This brings me to my first point. Why do we need this change? Why do we need active citizens? Why do we need people to actively participate in the nation's affairs? The Presidential Address gives us two main reasons for this goal. First, active citizens can improve Government policies. Second, active citizenship and participation gives people a stake in the country. The second of these two reasons - giving all a stake - ties with the overall goal of developing stronger social cohesion to make sure we gel together as a people. This is important as we prepare for a knowledge-based economy because such an economy will tend to reward people very differently and can potentially divide us.”
“Sir, I am grateful to join in this debate. I wish to speak on this Government's promise to focus on people and to promote active citizenship. In so doing, there are three fundamental questions we need to ask ourselves: (1) Why is this important? (2) What specifically should and will be done, and by whom? (3) What obstacles and limits stand in our way? Allow me to begin with an observation not about Singapore but about Vietnam, where I have been and why I missed the first two days of this debate. We are not alone in facing change and the new millennium for our society. Vietnam is in something of a dilemma. They recognise that they need to open up their country to the world market and to foreign investors. This is their doi moi policy. However, they are concerned about foreign influence on their society and how society and politics will change as they open up. So they seem to muddle through. A very astute observer remarked to me, "the problem is that they won the war." The problem is that they won the war. This statement is not to wish that they lost. But this statement acutely sees the problem of success. When you have won the war, you believe you have the formula for success. You have the veterans you must take care of, and a system that brought victory. It is therefore very hard to change, to say, "we need something new". Instead, there is some tinkering, some muddling around, half measures. In this sense, past success inhibits real and necessary change to meet the future. In contrast, where people lose, there is justification and occasion for widespread change. Something like what Japan experienced after World War II, just as before, in the Meiji restoration. A crisis and a failure bring a country the opportunity for a deep change, a transformation.”
“Mr Speaker, may I ask the Minister, given the trade increases within Asia itself, would the Government consider prioritising a Free Trade Agreement with Japan or other East Asian economies? BG George Yong-Boon Yeo: Our offer is to all those who are ready to move along with us. We have little difficulty in establishing FTAs with other countries. So those countries that are prepared to move earlier than others, we will welcome them to join us. For this reason, our FTA negotiations with New Zealand are based upon open-ended membership.”
“At the same time, we know that these principles cannot be cast in stone and therefore there must be a mechanism by which either party can be allowed not to follow the principles if they think these are not applicable. But there is tremendous moral pressure in the example that Dr Lee Tsao Yuan raised. If indeed a government does not want to return the money from a sale of land, using the argument that it will return the money at market value at the start of the term and not at the time of the sale, I think that is clearly in violation of the preservation of the past reserves. And the President will be well within his power to veto that transaction, because that would mean a draw down on past reserves. So I think both the principles as well as the intent and spirit of the Constitution are quite clear. That would be deemed as a draw down on past reserves, and the President would indeed either veto the transaction or gazette and make it known that the Government has drawn down past reserves, in which case the Government would be forced to replenish the past reserves from its current reserves. So there is no ambiguity in that. Let me just conclude by saying that we have worked hard to establish the principles between the President's Office and the Government. We believe that the principles set out very effectively the common understanding of how we will proceed to implement the safeguarding of the past reserves. It is a complex issue and we are glad that we are able to complete this White Paper on time. The White Paper can indeed be said to be a legacy of President Ong and this White Paper will help future Presidents in performing their constitutional functions.”
“In the context which I explained just now, the institution of the elected President would mean that all future governments, whether PAP government or an Opposition party government, would have to operate a balanced budget. If they operate anything other than a balanced budget, they have to go to the President to unlock the past reserves. And if that is not clipping the wings, I do not know what is. It is a very major restraint on the way we run future Budgets and the way we run future governments. Several Members asked about giving the President more resources. Again, the Prime Minister has explained, that the President can call upon the entire resources of the civil service in executing and implementing his role. He is assisted by his Principal Private Secretary (PPS) who is a civil servant in the Administrative Service of Deputy Secretary Grade. So he is a very senior Administrative Officer and can call upon the entire resources of the civil service. It is the same way the Prime Minister operates through his PPS, the same way the Senior Minister operates through his PPS as well as the Deputy Prime Ministers operate through their PPSs. So we do not see the need for additional staff for the President for him to implement his role effectively. Let me now turn to how the White Paper would bind future Presidents and future governments. As indicated in the White Paper, these are principles which both the President, his staff and the Government had worked together to establish, and we find it effective and we intend to make this binding on future Presidents and future Governments.”
“How to operationalise it is a lot more complicated, because it is a complex issue. We have to define many terms. We need to come to a common understanding, a common agreement on what these terms are and how to interpret them. Therefore, the White Paper is important to set out these definitions and to spell out the working arrangements between the President and the Government, so that both parties can fulfil their respective roles effectively and smoothly. Mr J B Jeyaretnam asked why not put out this White Paper at the beginning of Mr Ong's term and not at the end of his term. As explained in the White Paper, many of these principles require time for them to be operationalised, to be documented, formalised and then institutionalised into the White Paper. We would have liked to do it earlier, but it is in the nature of such complex issues that we can only complete it towards the end of the term. And for this, I think we have to thank President Ong for setting the pace and wanting to make sure that the White Paper is completed before the end of his term. The White Paper is a statement of how we would proceed with the administrative actions to implement the objective of the elected President. So it is not an agreement between President Ong and the Government, as Mr J B Jeyaretnam tried to argue. A few Members asked about the role of the civil servants. I can only reiterate what the Prime Minister said yesterday. The civil servants have a constitutional role to support and advise the President in his role in the two areas that we are concerned about. Mr Low, Mr Chiam and Mr J B Jeyaretnam talked about clipping the wings of the Government.”
“I endorse that entirely. But Members may not realise that, in fact, the elected President mechanism is also important even if there is good and honest government. You do not need a bad and dishonest government to dig into old reserves. This elected President mechanism is not about corruption. It is about using past reserves. So it is to protect ourselves against a government that is honest, not corrupt at all, but wants to spend old reserves for well-meaning and even well-supported policies. With the elected President mechanism in place, if such a government wants to spend on programmes, however well-meaning, honest or well-supported, a red flag will be flashed. The President will have to come into play. The President has to agree that such a programme is in the interest of Singapore. And as the Senior Minister has explained, this is a hurdle so that Singaporeans are alerted. Because we are a small country with limited resources, we have decided to set aside past reserves. And if we are now going to spend on programmes using the past reserves, let that be a transparent fact. The objective of the elected President is not just to guard against dishonest government. In fact, it is equally effective against a good, well-meaning but profligate government. So we do not need to have a rogue or a bad government for the elected President to be effective. I think the main benefit of these two days' discussion is the ability for us to clarify the role of the elected President and to better understand how this new mechanism that we have put in place would change the nature of future Budgets and future governments. Why did the Government put the principles in a White Paper? As explained in the White Paper, the objective of the elected President is clear.”
“I just want to make a few key points after listening to the debate so far. First, because of the perceptions and the confusion through the use of the terms like "executive President", etc, the Government decided to clarify the role of the Elected President and his specific roles in the two areas - protection of past reserves and key civil service appointments. This clarification, in my mind, is not intended to diminish the role of the Elected President. It is because of this confusion that we thought it necessary to re-establish or to re-visit the objectives in setting up the elected President. I think Mr Simon Tay has gone through at great length the role of the President. So I have no wish to go through the same ground. But just to highlight to Members that by introducing the elected President, we have made a very major change in the way future governments will run Singapore, whether future governments come from the PAP or come from the Opposition parties. And this change is that all future governments will find that they have to run the government on a balanced budget, because at every stage of their term of office, they can only make use of current reserves. Without the elected President mechanism, the government could use past reserves without it being clearly made known to the public. But with this mechanism now in place, future PAP governments or future Opposition party government, if there is one, will find it incumbent to run the government on a balanced budget. Any time any government wants to use the old reserves, they have to seek the President's agreement to unlock the past reserves. So this is a fairly significant change to the way future governments should be run. Secondly, there is a lot of talk about the need for good and honest government.”
“But if he disagrees with the Prime Minister on the use of reserves for wasteful welfare programmes, then the Elected President must have the moral courage to tell the Prime Minister that he is not going to spend the reserves." We do need men of such moral courage to fill that office. We also need a Prime Minister who is committed to making this very new and unique system work, as Prime Minister Goh has said that he is committed to doing so. The Elected President is supposed to check if we ever had, God forbid, a so-called bad government or rogue government. Of course, it need not be a rogue government. There can be reasonable disagreements between reasonable people. But while we are planning for a scenario of a rogue government or disagreement, it is ironic that to make the presidency work in the first place, it must be put into operation by a good government and by a good President. Only when both these two important officers are concerned with the future of Singapore and the future of institutions will this new and unique system be strongly embedded in the hearts and minds of Singaporeans and the way our system works. With these comments, I will support the motion. The Second Minister for Finance (Mr Lim Hng Kiang): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, first let me thank Mr Rai for moving the motion for the House to endorse the principles for determining and safeguarding the accumulated reserves of the Government and the Fifth Schedule Statutory Boards and Government Companies as set out in the White Paper and also to the other Members for speaking in support of the principles. I think this motion has taken the debate in several directions. I have no wish to clarify or explain all the issues that have been raised. Many of the issues have been addressed yesterday.”
“It can be open to questions by the next President or indeed it can be subject to judicial interpretation under Article 100 of the Constitution if matters should be brought to the tribunal. To make the system work, another point must be that the President should be entrenched sometime in the next term. By this, I mean that, as it stands presently, this House, under the leadership of the Prime Minister or another leader, could amend the Constitution and limit the powers of the President without the President's approval. Only if it is entrenched can the President be assured that his powers will not be nibbled away. I think this matter is not a light matter because once we are doing that, we are locking ourselves into such a position. But I think it must be seriously looked at and considered over the next term of the President and I am glad the Prime Minister indicated yesterday that he would look seriously at this question. Only then can we have an assurance that the President is an institution that is strongly established and accepted by all. This White Paper and the other measures I have suggested are necessary to make it work. But perhaps they themselves are not sufficient. Institutions are necessary but never enough. We do need a President with moral courage. I can do no better on this part than to quote from then Deputy Prime Minister's Goh Chok Tong's speech in this House on 5th October 1990 [Hansard, Vol. 53, Col. 560]. He said, "We are actually looking for people with competence. They must be competent people before they can stand for election. Secondly, they must be trustworthy. Thirdly, they must have sound judgement. They must have the moral courage because the President may come from the same party as the Prime Minister.”
“We need to make the system work in practice. Yesterday in this House, the Prime Minister told us that there is no need for parallel government under the President's office. I agree. People want less government and less red tape, not more. They do not want another bureau, another bureaucracy. But people do want transparency and accountability and they do see the President as an important additional element in ensuring transparency and accountability, in addition to the direct accountability of the Prime Minister and his Cabinet. The Constitutional duty of the civil service set out in Article 22F is to reply to the request of information by the President. This should be reinforced in the mindset of our civil servants in case it is ever forgotten. It is not just a nice thing you should do because the President is a nice guy. It is part of the burden of their office and the obligation to defend the Constitution. I would venture to say that while the civil service must observe their constitutional duties and while there is no need for a parallel government, there may be some need for additional staff and resources for the Elected President. Perhaps, this question should be left to the next President to decide within a reasonable mandate. Let me next turn to the nature of this White Paper. This White Paper is not binding on either this House or the next President. This is despite the suggestion in paragraph 10 of the White Paper itself that it should be so unless the next President disagrees. Senior Minister Lee Kuan Yew's point in Parliament yesterday bears repeating. What we say in this White Paper or in Parliament are not of the same effect as the words in the actual Constitution. Therefore, the White Paper is of limited use. We must understand this.”
“Will the sale of every HDB unit or every block or every defined estate have his assent? What about resale?." We have therefore to thank President Ong for trying with the Prime Minister to make some of these matters clearer. I dare say if we had somehow managed to do the White Paper before President Ong came to office, half the controversies that President Ong alluded in this press conference would have been avoided. Of course, this could not have been done. But now, having the White Paper, I think it helps the next President. We are trying to clarify and we will come to a position of clarity. I think the White Paper also does a very good service in setting out some ideas about the Net Investment Income (NII). Commonsense tells us that capital, the reserves and return on capital are different. Many businessmen will agree that NII can be used by the present Government. The Finance Minister, Dr Richard Hu, says that this might be defined to protect some part of the NII in the next year. Of course, this can be done, perhaps to take care of inflation or rise in replacement costs of certain assets. But the essential principle is that the NII is part of income, return on investment and not past reserves. Similarly, I think that there is a point to say that the valuation of assets should be at the point of transaction of sale or alienation rather than to try to sit down at any one point in time and take stock of everything in Singapore. This is not easy to do and actually it is not much sense in doing it because the value of property changes according to use and the rules you allow a property to be used for. It is sensible and workable therefore in what the White Paper recommends. But while the White Paper is a step forward, it is not the only thing we need to do.”
“And so we must see that the President's powers in the Council of Presidential Advisers and Parliament sit in a very intricate balance that may well change over time according to certain numbers. The President, in that sense, can win in some circumstances but the point today is that the President can act, even without the concurrence of the Council of Presidential Advisers. He may act but, ultimately, be defeated. But in acting, he would raise issues, an alarm bell would have been raised and a controversy would have begun. It is therefore a question of judgement and discretion on the part of the President whether to act alone and risk defeat or whether to only act when the Council of Presidential Advisers is with him. This is a new and unique institution. The Prime Minister and Elected President Ong had, in their own ways, pointed to teething problems. We have to accept this as part of the price for embarking on a bold constitutional adventure to create a new system of Government. The White Paper is therefore very important in this context. It seeks to record the present President's agreement on ways to smooth over these problems. The Member of Parliament, Dr Tan Cheng Bock in 1988 in a debate in this House on 12th August 1988 [Hansard, Vol. 53, Cols. 578 to 579] put it correctly on the issues that the White Paper now touches on. Let me quote: "I shall now touch on financial assets and reserves. The definition of "assets" is indeed very wide and may in practice mean every cent and every square centimetre of Government land in Singapore. Singaporeans want to know if this means that every parcel of land sale must be approved by the President. Must the sale of HDB properties have his assent?”
“Similarly, when we say the President guards the reserves, it is clearly not all the reserves. Those not accumulated by the present Government are protected. Those accumulated by the present Government can be used at their discretion and are not subject to the Elected President's veto. More importantly, it must be seen that the President does not exercise this function absolutely or alone. There is a role for the Council of Presidential Advisers as well as other balancing institutions or pillars such as I have mentioned, the Presidential Council for Religious Harmony. In exercising discretionary powers, the President is not an absolute ruler. He is independent but he is neither wilful nor singular. The President can disagree with the Prime Minister but there is no guarantee that the President will always prevail in case of such a disagreement. The role of the Council of Presidential Advisers is critical. It is said so in Article 21(3) of the Constitution that the President shall consult the Council of Presidential Advisers, and he may do so in other circumstances set out in Article 21(4). If the Council of Presidential Advisers agrees with him, the President can carry the issue. If the Council does not agree with the Elected President, then the Prime Minister can override if two-thirds of Parliament supports the Prime Minister. This is clearly seen in Article 22(2) as regards certain appointments. In today's Parliament, I would dare say that if the Prime Minister wants the two-thirds majority, he would get it. That is the standing of the Prime Minister in today's Parliament. But this is not always vouchsafe for the future. It is possible that the future Prime Minister would have a majority but not a two-thirds majority.”
“In Article 21(1) of the Constitution, it is clear that the President acts on the advice of the Cabinet. But, here, the word "advice" is not simply a nice suggestion you give to a friend. The word "advice" here is a polite way of saying "instruction of the Cabinet". How then is the present system of the President different from the old form? The President today differs from what we had before in that he can exercise his discretion and make up his own mind on a limited set of matters. These matters are set out in Article 21(2). There are various shorthand ways of saying what these powers are. Some people say that this is the second key, custodial. Generally, people say the Elected President acts as a check on the use of reserves and on key appointments. These short forms are not sufficient to a full understanding of what the President can or cannot rightfully do. The NMP, Mr Shriniwas Rai, earlier mentioned - correct me if I am wrong - that the President can veto on the Internal Security Act or the Maintenance of Religious Harmony orders. Well, he has a role in it. But look carefully, and I quote Article 22(I) that the President can only act on orders on religious harmony if first, the Presidential Council for Religious Harmony disagrees with the Government. If the Presidential Council agrees with the Government, the President cannot veto. This is what I mean that we are dealing with very complex issues which in the end we must try to simplify to be understood by the people who elect the President. These short forms are not exact. They never would be. But we can, through various exercises such as this, try to educate our people and ourselves in trying to understand these concepts.”
“Let me go through some of these quite briefly in this House. In classic constitutional theory, there is a separation between only three arms of the state - the Executive, the Legislature and the Judiciary. In these three-fold divisions, the President is clearly part of the Executive. He acts in this classic model. The President, while being the Head of State and part of the Executive, does not hold powers or discretionary initiative. The running of the Government is indeed with the Prime Minister and his Cabinet once they have been appointed to the office. The President or the monarch - in the case of England, it is the Queen - reigns but does not rule. It is almost all ceremonial. This is what Singapore used to have before the creation of the present presidential system. What do we now have? As I said, in our Constitution, if you look at it carefully, there is no use of the word "custodial", "ceremonial", or "executive". On the other hand, there is no term like "executive President". The definition of the words "Elected President" is not even there. It is just simply the definition of the word "President", which is the person elected to that office. The main provisions of the President are found in Part V of the Constitution and this is the same Part, under the title of the "Government", where we find the provisions of the Prime Minister and the Cabinet. None of these is to say therefore that the President is the Head of Government or the CEO. I tend to agree with the Prime Minister in this sense. All things done by Government are done in the name of the President, eg, in giving the Presidential Address. But it is clearly the agenda set by the Prime Minister and his Cabinet.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, the debate on this motion takes place amidst the context of considerable controversy and the incoming President. There are factual differences between what President Ong said in his press conference and the Ministerial Statements given yesterday by the Finance Minister, Dr Richard Hu, and the Prime Minister. The Opposition have been quite opportunistic in seizing the comments by President Ong to their own advantage. I myself find I cannot comment on these factual differences. They are not in my knowledge. I wish, in this sense, to avoid the question of personalities. At most, I think all of us would join in thanking President Ong for the service he has given to the country and to welcome the incoming President, Mr S R Nathan. And I would like to place my thanks to President Ong alongside the thanks of many, many Singaporeans and my well wishes to President-designate Mr S R Nathan among the well-wishers of many people. Beyond this, I wish to focus on the Presidency as an institution because Presidents come and go, but for the present and future, for our children, the principles set out in the White Paper before us and of the Constitution are what would endure. There has been great debate in various media about whether this Presidency we now have is executive, or custodial. And many other terms have been bandied about by me as well as other people. We know for a fact that the President is now elected. But these other terms are not in the Constitution. The Constitution does not call it "executive", "custodial", or "largely ceremonial". None of these is there in the Constitution. These are words, analogies that different people have used differently to try to simplify for the public the very complex issues and laws in the Constitution.”
“We would be benefiting if we were to professionalise in a way that is competitive and allows the pool of professional and qualified people to be increased and to give the existing technicians a chance to compete on fair and even terms. With this, I support the Bill.”
“They are not a guarantee of perpetual employment or perpetual relevance to the economy that is emerging. In this sense, the push for upgrading is the correct one. What we then need is to assist people who want to make that upgrade, that is, to make that possible for them with the minimum disruption. There would, of course, be disruption and not everyone would be happy to have his or her normal livelihood and normal way of life disrupted. But I think the amendments proposed by the Minister of State - to have a time period upon application, possibly six years, and the new course to be conducted by the polytechnics for the advanced diploma - are necessary and sufficient. But there is another hurdle of course after that. After the qualifications, there would still be the examinations set by the Board and I would ask that these examinations be fair and foster suitable standards, given that there would be in some ways a larger variation of quality and qualifications of people coming into the examinations. That is to say, in the past where it was mainly people of university degrees who sat for the examinations and only a small number of them qualified, we are going to have examinations set for a number of candidates without university degrees and, instead, with advanced diplomas. The effort of the Minister to accommodate these changes is a very good one and shows that the Ministry is trying to accommodate differences. This is not to preserve a monopoly of a small clique, either the existing technicians or the existing surveyors. I think we must agree that a closed shop in either sense would be a bad thing for the construction and development industry of Singapore and Singapore as a whole. Only a small number of people benefit from a closed shop.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, I support the Bill as amended. Mr Deputy Speaker, I want to associate myself with some of the comments made by NMP, Mr Tay Beng Chuan, just before me and I will try not to repeat the points. I think that clearly in this time of economic crisis, we have two quite different but intertwining concerns of the Singapore economy as a whole. First is to help people keep their livelihood and the second is to upgrade to be ready for the new competition. In this broader context, I find that the Bill makes sense. It does affect existing people. It affects the surveying technicians which others have spoken about. It makes them unable to continue their practice as individual shops or their own businesses in non-title surveys. And therefore, it does affect their livelihood. These are a small but a necessary number of sometimes very experienced individuals who know the ground well and who know their work. And they have, in that sense, a legitimate concern. In particular, one of their concerns is that legislation seems to go beyond what the Australian and UK requirements are as regards surveys and the registration of surveyors. If I could invite the Minister of State to comment on that. If that is so, why is it necessary for Singapore to go beyond the Australian and UK requirements? But at the same time, while we are affecting the livelihood of this small but necessary group, as I mentioned, the other impulse and requirement in Singapore's drive to become world-class is to upgrade to be competitive. And here, I think that we should, in principle, support the idea of registration and on improvements. The Minister without Portfolio, Mr Lim Boon Heng said it quite well in a crisis. He said that our degrees are in a way time-barred.”
“One of the details in the President's press conference which caught the attention of the people was the reference to the reply of the civil servant saying that it would take 52 man-years. We have heard clarifications that it was 56 man-years. May I ask the Prime Minister, given that the President has a right to access the information under Article 22F of the Constitution, is it, in his opinion, the right thing for a civil servant to tell the President roughly how much time it would take to answer his question? Is that fulfilling the duty under Article 22F? Secondly, whether in his own experience as Prime Minister, civil servants come to him and before answering his questions, tell him roughly how many man-hours it would take?”
“Yes, Mr Speaker. I hope the Prime Minister will take occasion to share points on which the elected President agrees with the Government that his action is not necessary, just as disagreements may surface later. Thirdly, I would ask the Prime Minister whether in the next six years, the next term of the elected President, the Government will entrench the Presidency within the Constitution and therefore strongly establish an accepted office for the elected President.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, this is not an occasion for me to clarify my own views, but I hope the Prime Minister could clarify some of the points that he has brought up. First, I think it is very important that the Prime Minister has emphasised that this is a new and unique institution. The principles have just been published in a White Paper and the points he clarified after the President's comments are new to me and the whole House. I think if I have to make comments again, it would be different in the light of the clarifications the Prime Minister has made. With that point, let me ask three questions. First, I hope the Prime Minister, as CEO, stands by the duties under Article 146 that the civil servants must report. A few minutes ago, he said that he thinks it is an offence. But can I ask him, as the CEO, to state very clearly to the civil service that this is taken as a clear offence and a breach of the constitutional duty. That point has to be made just as importantly, as he has said that the President must have the moral courage to be independent when necessary within his limited powers. Secondly, I hope the Prime Minister will consider that there is a need at times to air both agreements and disagreements. I recollect that in the last ---”
“So those should be made transparent, and similarly for banks. As for POSBank's social mission, as I have explained, we have not abandoned this social mission, but this is something which has to be evolved and adjusted over time. Where it has to do with the POSBank's mortgage loans where the social mission is really the weakest case, we are going to take some years to adjust them to market levels. In other cases, like taking deposits and encouraging savings, that is a mission which needs to continue. But what form DBS should choose in order to implement this mission is something which I am sure DBS is considering now.”
“Sir, I have three supplementary questions. First, how many small account holders are we talking about? Does the Deputy Prime Minister have a sense of how many are, say, below $500? Secondly, would the Deputy Prime Minister consider the need for transparency and clarity in banking charges, especially to give small account holders simple terms which they can understand? Thirdly, he mentioned that the social mission of POSBank has been changed. Would he like to indicate how DBS and the Government, as a major shareholder in DBS, see the change in the social mission of POSBank? BG Lee Hsien Loong: Firstly, on numbers, I do not have the figures. It depends on where you draw the line. If you file a Question, I will try and look them up for you. Secondly, on clarity and transparency, I fully agree. That is one of the problems with the present arrangement. There is no clarity and transparency. You make a current account deposit and you can have $10,000 there and you are paid no interest, neither do they tell you that you should really be paid interest. In other countries, you would. But in Singapore, we just quietly do not talk about it. Now that has changed. It is incumbent not just on banks but on other financial institutions - brokers, stockbrokers, insurers, fund managers, unit trusts - that when they provide a service, they should state quite clearly what is their fee and what is your investment. For example, in unit trusts, one of the factors which an investor must consider is how much of their payment is fee. When you put in your contribution, it may be a significant amount that goes straightaway to fees. Or when you buy insurance from your broker, a significant amount of your premium may go to commissions to the broker or, if not, payments in some other form.”
“Sir, I am not in favour of compulsory education either. But I think that we should be interested in the best interest of the child. Let me ask the Minister then. In the question of follow-up in the Annex that is given to us, if I add the figures for items 3, 4, 5 and 6, in item 3 (Parents responded to letter but did not specify very much), item 4 (Addresses not available), item 5 (Parents could not be contacted at the address stated) and item 6 (Parents have divorced and whereabouts of child are not known), may I ask the Minister, given that this is over 50% of the figures, will the Ministry further follow up? Surely it is possible for the SIR or other Government agencies to update the addresses and to pursue the parents and the children? RAdm Teo Chee Hean: Sir, first, I will comment on the way that the Member has added up the numbers. Item 3 should be added to the first two items, ie, items 1 and 2, that is, these families have indicated that their children are attending some form of schooling or other. So item 3 should be added to items 1 and 2 and you will get about 75%. For items 4, 5 and 6 where the parents' addresses are not available in the record, parents could not be contacted at the address stated and parents have divorced and whereabouts of the child are not known, we will take whatever measures we can to trace the children. As I said, we have a record of all these children and we actually go to quite some length to follow up on each of them. And I think that is a better way of dealing with the issue of trying to get as many children as possible into school than some blanket formula, like compulsory education, which looks nice but is not going to solve the problem.”
“May I ask, given that the Government has no control but only acts in rash and inappropriate circumstances like the Business Times, whether the Government intends to take any measures or penalties against Business Times, or to review its printing permit?”
“Sir, may I ask the Minister three points: (1) If one is given the figures year-on-year, as I understand it, how do the job numbers compare to the pre-crisis figures? Have we a net gain? (2) In the down swing, there were concerns about discrimination in job-hiring practices. What measures would the Minister take in the upswing to make sure that the jobs created are hired out fairly? (3) Is there a sense that the type of jobs we are getting are now different from the jobs we had in the pre-crisis days, as certain lower end jobs are gone for good and these people might face, in that sense, structural problems in seeking re-employment?”
“May I ask whether the NCMP will give the floor to me? Will you allow clarification?”
“The PAP team in Jalan Besar should observe the differences and, even if Mr Heng serves as Second Adviser, he should not act as an MP without being elected. I am confident that the PAP team in Jalan Besar GRC will observe the constitutional and legal principles of representation and fair play. Sir, it is for these reasons that I do not support the motion.”
“I would say that while that, in theory, taking over government is the goal of the Opposition, the Opposition has failed to do that so far. And I do not see, more to the points of this motion, what a by-election would do to further the cause of the Opposition of trying to be the next government. Having talked about the nature of representation and emphasised the team GRC concept, I think I have another point to make. And this is the degree to which a person who is not an MP can be allowed to take on additional duties caused by the vacancy. It has been widely reported that Mr Heng Chee How is now serving as the Second Adviser to Whampoa. Citizens can, of course, help at the grassroots, as can party members who are not MPs. I think almost all MPs have somebody from their party helping them, as a very close associate. But I think there must be a line between what an MP can do and what these normal citizens and party members can do. A legal principle says it quite nicely. The nature of parliamentary representation is that it is delegated to you as elected MPs. What is delegated cannot then be further delegated. There are, in that sense, some things an MP can do that a non-MP cannot. Of course, parliamentary debate and duties is one of them. But, also, I would argue, things outside this House, eg, signing letters to Ministries on behalf of constituents, officiating as guest-of-honour. Let me give Members an analogy. When a football team has a player sent off, the team as a whole is not disqualified, but it cannot substitute the sent off player. The position of the PAP Government is that the team in Jalan Besar can cope and carry on and, therefore, there is no need for a by-election. It is consistent with that stand.”
“I frankly do not know. I am not a mind reader. But if I were to guess, I would look at some of the elections that are coming up in the countries around us in this time of crisis. When we look at Malaysia, we realise that in the run-up to a possible early snap elections, their foreign relations seem to be taking a very aggressive and unreasonable stance at some of our issues. If we look at Thailand's elections that are coming up and those in South Korea, we will see this as well. Basically, by-elections or general elections force both parties to make their voices more shrill and more nationalistic. My bet would be that in the Thai general elections, you will see a lot of statements made about nationalism, about foreigners buying up Thai companies. That could be a problem for us too. We had a debate in this House about foreign talent, especially in times of crisis. Do we need, in a time of crisis, therefore, to open up potential fissures? Another stray point made by the NCMP is related to the nature of Backbenchers and NMPs. He says that the nature of democracy must be judged by the number of Opposition Members in the House. Well, I would say this much. The job of the Opposition is to be the next government. That is their claim in democratic theory. It is not to ask questions here in Parliament. My job, as an NMP, is certainly not to be the next government. It is to try, as best as I can, to increase accountability and add what little I can to the debate in this House. In this sense, we cannot compare the two. One is an apple. The other is an orange. I do not see what he stands to gain by this, except for a stray bullet here and there. [Laughter]. Let me deal with the stray bullet.”
“The NCMP has a very nice argument that the right of voters for a team then is to have four representatives, rather than three which the Jalan Besar GRC now has. I think that Singaporeans do not care about the formal numbers. It is a question of function and efficiency, rather than numbers. And so long as the team tries and believes it can do well, then it should be able to continue. If the team does not do well and does not meet the constituency's needs, then there will be a price to pay at the next general election. They can choose another team. In that sense, I think it is very much a question of political judgment by the party in power, rather than a legal question. Let me turn in this sense to two other points made by, first, the NCMP and then by the Member for Potong Pasir, Mr Chiam. The first was that several people - I think Mr Chiam as well - suggested that the PAP was afraid. There was a question of fear. I must, in fairness to the PAP, bring up the Marine Parade GRC election. I think there is clear evidence that where it is felt there is a moral obligation, Prime Minister Goh, of all people, had not been afraid to put his own neck on the line. Secondly, Mr Chiam, the Member for Potong Pasir, made a great deal about the fact that it is a by-election. I would remind Mr Chiam to remind himself that he has twice claimed credit for the so-called by-election effect at the last two general elections, and none of these was the question of government at stake. And yet in both, the PAP achieved quite substantial victories. I am not pro-PAP. But I think these are facts that must be stated, to be fair to the debate in this House. We then turn to the question of why the Prime Minister has decided not to meet the request of the Opposition to hold a by-election.”
“The NCMP has stressed at great length that the nature of democracy means that every voter must have a representative in Parliament. That is true. But it is a jump from there to suggest that every constituency must have a Member, and he misunderstands the fundamental change that has been made in Singapore under the concept of a Group Representation Constituency (GRC). These are fundamentally different from single-seat constituencies. The concept here is for a team representation. And this fundamental change in Singapore's system has not been understood by many people who draw analogies from Britain which does not have this system, as the NCMP has done. In this sense, my answer to him is quite simple. When he points to the Constitution and suggests that when a vacancy arises, it must be filled in certain ways. But there is no vacancy. Nobody elected Mr Choo Wee Khiang as an independent, separate constituency. It is a team concept. We do not even know whether the constituents of Whampoa did, as a majority, elect Mr Choo Wee Khiang. All we know is the official result. For the Jalan Besar GRC as a whole, the PAP team led by Minister Dr Lee Boon Yang won. So, to me, there is no vacancy and it is a political question. We have analogies to this in other systems. In a system of proportional representation, once a party is elected, it is up to the party to say who should fill up the slots it has won in Parliament. And I think this shows that our constitutional system has changed fundamentally from certain English roots, and must be understood on its own terms. So long as a majority of a team exists and believes it can meet the needs of the constituents, I would think that Singaporeans are pragmatic enough to focus on the level of the service.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I am obliged to join in the debate. I do not support the motion. Having heard the NCMP and the seconder, Mr Low Thia Khiang, I regret that I cannot agree with their reasons. It is clear to me that there is no legal requirement for a by-election under existing laws. In this sense, I think the hon. Member for Hougang, Mr Low Thia Khiang, and Mr Chiam See Tong, Member for Potong Pasir, have got it right, and the NCMP has got it wrong. But I think there is another debate about the principles of democracy and of morality, and these are, basically, around two possible principles. The first is on the nature of the offence and the second on the question of fair representation for constituents in a parliamentary democracy like Singapore. First, the nature of the offence. In the past case of the late Dr Tay Eng Soon in the Eunos GRC, it is clear to us that it was his untimely death that caused the vacancy. There was therefore no question of approbation. Here, given the nature of the disqualification faced by the former Member of Parliament, Mr Choo Wee Khiang, it could be argued that this might have affected how voters have felt if they had known at the time of voting. That is to say, we could argue that the nature of the offence vitiates the vote at the last general election. However, I believe the Singaporean public as a whole trust the PAP, on a general basis, is not corrupt and, in fact, the events in this case evidence that wrong-doing will be investigated thoroughly and punished, no matter who is the perpetrator. Therefore, I think on this ground, the nature of the offence, there is no need for a by-election. Let me move on to my second point on representation.”
“Sir, if I may simplify then. Is there a variance allowed on the limits that we set? The second supplementary question is: is the Minister convinced that our standards are consistent with the Sanitary and Phytosanitary Agreement under the WTO?”
“Sir, the reports from the media are that the Government's practice is to allow a certain percentage above the limit set. I think a figure of 20% has been suggested. If this is so, why is this so? Why do we allow a variance of 20% above the limit we set?”
“Is the Minister confident that the ASEAN Free Trade Agreement will assist the increase in intra-ASEAN trade and that in the preparations for the WTO meeting, ASEAN will play a strong role? BG George Yong-Boon Yeo: Despite the economic crisis, there has been a continuing determination by the ASEAN countries to stay the course. I have just come back from the Trade Ministers' Meeting of the APEC economies in Auckland last week and the results were much more than we could have hoped for, given the fact that in many countries in East Asia, the economic crisis has caused political leaders to turn inwards. Partly because the crisis seems to have bottomed out, there has been a renewed determination by these countries to stay the course and to prepare for a good Leaders' Summit in Auckland in September this year, and to help shape the launch of a new round during the WTO Ministerial meeting in Seattle in November.”
“In 1997, the year in which he commissioned the S21 Committee, our present Prime Minister, Mr Goh Chok Tong, had asked us not to depend wholly on a small elite for all ideas and initiatives. If a government of the future should fail or perish in that hypothetical airplane Senior Minister Lee alluded to, it will always be a loss to our country. But if there is an active, able and responsible people sector, it need not be our end. Let me close. We are used to imagining the global city of Singapore in the future. There are even sketches of what our future downtown in Marina Bay will look like. The Singapore 21 Report does not focus on skyscrapers and infrastructure, however. The S21 Report looks at the future in a different but complementary way. In putting people at the centre, the S21 Report seeks to describe the necessary qualities and principles that must guide people who will live, work, and give life to that city and our common future. In this, I believe there is a dose of realism, as Prime Minister Goh has called for. There is, I hope, also a good measure of faith, idealism and vision, that is, "heartware". For it is this marriage between realism and such heartware that can and must carry Singapore into the next century.”
“Fewer of you will have the time or inclination to read the summary of deliberations of the subject committees. Let me just quote one section about our desired society, and the attempt to resolve the dilemma between consultation and consensus against decisiveness and quick action. I quote: "The [desired] society will be open to a diversity of ideas. The increased interaction between the government and the people sector will deepen the mutual trust and facilitate the Government's decision-making. With trust, it will be easier for the Government to act quickly and decisively under imperative circumstances. While consultation will not always lead to agreement or acceptance, it will lead to a better understanding of the constraints and problems faced by both the Government and the people sector. Underpinning our desired society are 2 key factors. First, the Government must be open and receptive to ideas. Second, the people sector must be constructive and responsible in its actions." In calling for an active people sector, the S21 Report does not assume that for the next century we can always guarantee good government and able leaders from the PAP or any other party. It does not assume that we always have a Mr Lee Kuan Yew or Mr Goh Chok Tong. What the S21 Report does call for is an equal place for active citizens. Some years ago, I believe the then Prime Minister Mr Lee Kuan Yew considered the danger if the leadership of Singapore were all to perish on a single airplane, for that was the size of our leadership and establishment then. Who would run Singapore, he rightly asked then. He was concerned that without this planeload of leaders, our country would fail.”
“I also see that a people sector can cut across race and other differences to help widen our common ground and help make us more of the Singaporean tribe. There is a utility, in this sense, in having a people sector in both the process as well as the end product. By "disutility", I mean that we need to lessen our fear of change and of including new people in the way we make decisions and of getting things done; that we need to clarify and lessen the out of bound or "OB" markers of what people can say and do; and that while real national security concerns can and should be met, we need not fear every shadow or every word or act. To do this, to increase utility and lessen our fear of disutility, we will require that the Government has a greater trust and that, increasingly, people understand the fragilities of our society and will act responsibly. We will correspondingly require a people who do, in fact, understand and act responsibly. Our desired society is not one in which Government is strong and people are weak. Nor in calling for an active people sector, is it a desire to see Government weak and the people strong. The two are not always and necessarily in conflict. Our desired society lies in the growth of an active people sector, participating in community and national issues, as an independent entity. When I say "independent", I do not mean one that is determined to oppose, nor do I mean one that is beholden to obey. I mean, one that is free to agree and cooperate, or to disagree and make counter arguments. With such an independence, we have to see that the two can come together and truly cooperate. You can read the S21 Report for yourselves, although some, not all, have.”
“In this view, people can be seen as having to fit into assigned jobs and created categories or else they do not fit in at all. In this, there is a tendency to see people solely in an economic paradigm, as cogs in a grand machine, and not as people. Accordingly, the machine, in this misinterpretation of "people are our only resource", was designed, driven and refined by a small elite, and not the people themselves. Maybe this is an over generalisation. But such a contrast allows us to see the quiet but real revolution in the call to make every Singaporean matter, and to have an active citizenry. What the S21 Report calls for goes beyond the politics of consultation that Prime Minister Goh and his second generation team brought. It calls not just for ideas but for actions. It calls not just for suggestions but for initiative. It calls for participation. It calls for ownership. The S21 Report is not saying that we are already there. The Report points to obstacles. This includes especially what we have referred to as the "Black Book" and "Black Hole" problems, that people do not speak or act because they fear it will be held against them, or because there is no feedback or discernible response to what they have put forward. The key to changing this is to change mindsets, like water on a stone. We need, as a society and a polity, to be convinced of the utility of an active people sector, and be less afraid of its possible disutility. By "utility", I mean that an active people sector can produce new ideas and initiatives, or refine existing ones; that it can act as a genuine partner to state agencies; and that consultation and participation strengthen legitimacy and ownership of actions taken to address problems.”
“I have followed, similarly, the establishment of a citizen's network, which calls itself "The Working Committee on Civil Society", and I see it as part of the response to the S21 and its call for an active people sector. I hope other such initiatives will follow, not just from the Government in the public sector, or because the Government calls for it, but also from the private sector and from the people sector. I hope that such initiatives will be aligned to the concerns and principles of the S21 Report, even if they do not explicitly refer to it. Let me turn now to my third and final point. What do we mean when we call for Singaporeans to be "active people"? This deals with a particular part of the S21 Report, that I co-chaired with the hon. Member for Tanjong Pagar, Mr Lim Swee Say, on "consultation and consensus against decisiveness and quick action". It also relates to the call to make sure that "Every Singaporean matters". I do not agree that the call for an active people or for every Singaporean to matter are platitudes. Rather, I think these principles call for a quiet revolution in the way Singapore has traditionally done things, and the way governments in the past have viewed people. It is a quiet revolution that is required by changed circumstances in the global economy and the political landscape, and by a people who have different aspirations. It is also an unfolding revolution that faces considerable obstacles today. In Singapore, we have been used to saying, "People are our only resource". This is an accepted truth. But part of the way this truth has been seen is that people become just a resource. That is to say, people become important only in so far as they give utility to the national good, the economic bottom line.”