Wong Kan Seng
Singapore
“We all want a better future for our children and the future generations. Amid the debates, let us not lose sight of what we are working for – we are working for the benefit and future of Singaporeans. Not for growth targets, not for foreigners, but for Singaporeans.”
“Mrs Mildred Tan also suggested doing a longitudinal study on the impact of new citizens on Singapore. I am told that there is a periodic study on the perception of integration and rootedness of Singaporeans and PRs. A study is now ongoing too.”
“All they need to do is simply declare that they meet the residential criteria. EASING IN US ECONOMY (Impact on Singapore) 9. Ms Sylvia Lim asked the Senior Minister what will be the expected impact on the Singapore economy arising from the US Federal Reserve's announcement on 3rd November 2010 of a "quantitative easing" of the US economy…”
“Well, from the data I have here, 553 registered to vote before the 2006 GE and this is the data I have but Ms Lim may be right. There may be 1,000-odd that Ms Lim had mentioned. From what I am told now, we have 1,325 Singaporean overseas who are eligible to register to vote have registered.”
“But, as I said, there are so many other possibilities that they could come in and there could also be many possibilities that we could have missed and they have entered or left Singapore. LAND SWAP AGREEMENT FOR KTM STATION AND RAILWAY LANDS 2.”
“They are also recruiting people by offering them scholarships. So, we hope more of our companies can do that. Hopefully they come here to work for a while and, if they like our place, they may want to settle down. This is a place which they can think about. POPULATION AND TALENT DIVISION 5. Assoc. Prof.”
The complete record
Every one of 3,192 lines we hold for Wong Kan Seng, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 53 of 64.
“Mr Speaker, Sir, in addition to the two days of debate on the Budget Statement, we have had 10 full days of debate on the Committee of Supply, and you have sat through very patiently and listened to all the arguments on behalf of the Members. We will resume tomorrow to debate the outstanding Bills. ADJOURNMENT Resolved, "That Parliament do now adjourn." - [Mr Wong Kan Seng]. Adjourned accordingly at Twelve Minutes past Four o'clock pm.”
“50 and yet the average price paid by a member of the audience was simply $9.50. Again, the sponsors and the organisers had to subsidise very heavily to the tune of almost $16 per ticket for such programmes. If families want to attend such programmes, I think there are plenty of opportunities, not just in the theatre itself, but also in the fringe programmes. Fringe programmes are free. However, I would consider asking the organisers to have a family package during the Family Week if it is feasible. If it is easily implementable, ie, a family can be identified, then I will try to ask the organisers to consider such a package. But I am not sure if it can be easily done.”
“Therefore, we will give as much assistance as possible, but much depends on the organisation itself whether it is worth supporting or not. On Mr Loh's question on ticket charges and suggestion on having a family rate, may I say that all cultural activities that are sponsored or organised by MCD or by the non-profit making cultural groups are highly subsidised, not by the Government alone but also by many commercial organisations and corporations, because they are the ones who give sponsorship and provide additional money to the organisations running these performances. Let me just quote you an example. In the Festival of Arts organised by MCD under the Festival of Arts Secretariat in 1988, the ticket prices were not expensive. For example, for foreign performances, the tickets ranged from $5 which was very affordable to $80 which was the maximum for a foreign performance. If they are quality performances, I think Singaporeans are prepared to pay $80. For the performance on Evita, for example, the organisers experienced full house every night. And even by extending another three more nights, all the tickets were sold out. So if they are quality programmes, people would be willing to pay. But still when they are organised by MCD or during the Festival of Arts, the charges are as low as $5. I think they are highly affordable. For all the foreign programmes organised during the year of 1988 for the Festival of Arts, the average ticket cost was about $23. But the average ticket price was only about $16. So somebody else was paying the balance of $7 per ticket and that additional sum actually came mainly from the sponsors. Similarly, for the local productions, that means programmes run by the local organisations, the average ticket cost was about $25.”
“For example, I understand that the May Day function that is being organised by the NTUC on 1st May, and for the rehearsals before that date I think the indoor stadium has given NTUC concessionary charges. But if you look at what is currently being performed at the indoor stadium - the Walt Disney programme - that is a purely commercial organisation and a purely commercial venture. It costs $2 1/2 million to bring the programme here. Therefore, it is only proper that whoever promotes this event should make sure that they recover cost, if not at least make a small sum of profit. From what I saw yesterday, I think the organisers are doing not too badly. So it very much depends on the kind of activities that are being organised at the indoor stadium. And if it is attractive enough or interesting enough to Singaporeans, they will attend and the organisers will be able to recover the cost. On the shortage of technical staff to manage the backstage activities, I think we are fully aware of that. In view of the shortage of labour in Singapore generally, it is not easy to train people specifically for the purpose but we will try our best in working with the training institutions to see if such people can be trained in Singapore. There are of course quite a lot of cultural organisations in Singapore and the Cultural Foundation in MCD will try to give them as much assistance as possible. But we must make sure that public money is not spent unwisely. It must be cost effective. It must yield a certain return, not in terms of profit, but in terms of spreading the knowledge of culture and appreciation of the arts or generating a sense of enthusiasm about culture and so on. We must make sure that money spent on these activities is fully and effectively used.”
“For those that are just for non-commercial purposes, non-profit making purposes and they are by amateur groups or by groups sponsored by MCD, then there is a concessionary rate offered to these organisations. And I think the rates are very reasonable. With regard to the indoor stadium, it is a very new facility. It is barely three months old. The cost of operating that stadium for this new fiscal year is about $2.6 million. Since it is a new facility, it is not easy for the indoor stadium management to decide what is a proper scale of charges. But when they look at the comparable type of facilities, say, in Hong Kong or in Australia, they find that the basic charge of $9,000 is really not that excessive. It is very comparable with these facilities found in Hong Kong and in Australia. It is not a charge of $16,000, as Mrs Yu-Foo said. Really, the charge is a basic charge of $9,000. And if they need other services, whether it is a jumbotron, the huge television screen, or they need additional ushers, they need more lights and so on, these costs will be added on as and when the users need them. I think this kind of charging scheme is much better than having one lump sum charged regardless of whether the organiser uses the service or not. As the management of the indoor stadium gains experience in managing this indoor stadium, they will try to make adjustments to the fees accordingly. Even before then, as they discuss with organisations wanting to put up performances or whatever events in the indoor stadium, they have been very sympathetic, very understanding, in the scale of charges.”
“Sir, I must thank the two Members for the kind words they have said about the cultural development that had taken place in the last few years in Singapore. Indeed, I believe we have done quite a lot in the last few years in the area of cultural development. To answer the questions more specifically, yesterday I said that we would form the Singapore Arts Council. This Arts Council will be an amalgamation of three agencies, the National Theatre Trust, the Singapore Cultural Foundation and the Cultural Affairs Division of my Ministry, so that a single agency, the Arts Council, will be able to provide synergy and promote the cultural development of Singapore. And Government will give it the necessary funding in order to make it a viable operation. Members raised a specific point about the cost of renting theatres, exhibition halls and our indoor stadium. First, let me clarify that we do not operate these theatres and halls on the basis of making a profit. There is a cost in operating these theatres and halls and the objective is simply to recover as much operating cost as possible. But we know that in the area of culture, we cannot charge full cost and, therefore, more often than not, there is a great deal of Government subsidy in the expenses incurred by these theatres and halls. Nevertheless, in the charging scheme, say, for our theatres, we also distinguish between organisers or promoters who are putting up the performance for profit and those who are doing it as an amateur or as a non-profit cultural organisation. For those which put up performances for the purpose of profit, then I think it is fair that the full cost should be levied.”
“But I am not sure if that will be to Mr Chiam's advantage.”
“Yes, there is going to be the thrust. Mr Chiam has raised this question about him not being involved in the Government's grassroots organisations. It bears repeating that the Residents' Committees, the Citizens' Consultative Committees, the Management Committees of the community centres, are all Government organisations with the purpose of promoting community spirit, community cohesion and helping in the community development effort of the nation. On many occasions, the Government will call upon these organisations to help explain Government policies and to help conduct campaigns on behalf of the Government. They are not PAP organisations. Not all the members of these organisations are PAP members. In fact, that is not a condition for them to be members of these organisations. So let us be very clear that they are not PAP organisations. They are really just Government organisations helping in the promotion of community development. Mr Chiam is not an adviser to these organisations. But this does not make these organisations political organisations. In fact, the appointment of advisers is not based on the fact that the person is an MP or not an MP. The answer has been given before in this House that a person may be appointed an adviser if he is able to guide, counsel and help provide direction for these organisations in the conduct of activities on behalf of the Government. But if Mr Chiam were to say that now he will be prepared to help the Government in its explanation of policies and that, whenever called upon to do so, he will also help the Government in its efforts in community development in regard to the policies and campaigns that the Government conducts, then we will be prepared to consider Mr Chiam as an adviser.”
“Are you concerned, Mr Chiam? An hon. Member: He is trying to save you, Mr Chiam.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to report that the Committee of Supply has made further progress on the Main and Development Estimates for the financial year 1990/91, and ask leave to sit again tomorrow.”
“Sir, as I said, our approach in helping the welfare organisations or the cultural organisations is a correct one. The Government is the catalyst in providing the basics and the necessary funding, and we will leave the initiative to the private individuals and community groups. Because they know best what to do and they know what the needs are, they can play a more significant role in meeting these needs. I would like to thank these community, welfare and cultural organisations for their efforts in raising the quality of life of Singaporeans, and they have done a good job. The Government will continue to give them every encouragement to carry on with the good work and will do all we can, where necessary, to help them to do so.”
“Sir, this is a good recommendation and it provides for efficient distribution of resources but the Council of Social Service is unable to implement the recommendation because the various voluntary welfare organisations which give out aid prefer their own way of doing so. Of the 288 recommendations which were accepted, 233 have been implemented or are being implemented as on-going programmes by the various agencies. The remaining recommendations will be implemented over the next few years as they require additional resources. The Government has announced some of the major recommendations that have been implemented earlier. For example, the per capita grant for special education of disabled children has been increased from $1,500 to twice the cost of primary education. For the fiscal year 1990, the per capita grant will be $4,200. The tax reliefs for disabled and aged dependants have been also increased from $1,000 to $2,500 last year and will be further increased to $3,500 as the Finance Minister has announced recently. A National Advisory Council on Family and the Aged, which is a combination of two advisory councils recommended earlier, has been set up comprising representatives from both the public and the private sector. It is in the good hands of my Minister of State. Mr Chay mentioned that the expenditure for MCD is very low compared to the GDP and also as a percentage of the total Government expenditure. Indeed, the MCD's expenditure as a percentage of the GDP was 0.3% in the last few years. But this will be increased to 0.5% for the next five years. You may think that from 0.3% to 0.5% is only 0.2 percent point of an increase, but it amounts to $125 million a year over the next five years. And this indeed is a very significant sum.”
“We have set up a Planning Committee under the Chairmanship of the Second Deputy Prime Minister to plan this complex and a team of experts, architects, engineers, has been sent to study the design and management of similar centres in Europe, UK, United States, Australia and Hong Kong. The specifications and briefs for the centre are currently being worked out. For the next five to 10 years, the Government has agreed to set aside a sum of $284 million for the development projects in the areas of sports, culture and the arts. These include the development of five new Museum Galleries, a new National Library and four Branch Libraries, an audio-visual archives, an international shooting range and the upgrading of the Outward Bound School. We will also incur an additional recurrent expenditure of $60 million for the next five years to carry out community, culture, arts, sports, aged, disabled and youth programmes, and 38 new posts will be created for this purpose. MCD is also looking into the development of the area bounded by Armenian Street, Stamford Road, Fort Canning Road and Canning Rise into a museum precinct within the larger Civic District. Mr Tarmugi also asked me for a report on the progress of the six Advisory Councils. Sir, the Advisory Councils made a total of 315 recommendations. The Government has accepted 288 of them for implementation. The remaining 27 were not accepted by the relevant agencies because of implementation difficulties. For example, it was recommended that the Singapore Council of Social Service undertake a review of the material and food aid schemes currently provided by voluntary welfare organisations in order to have better coordination of the distribution of such assistance.”
“In the last three years, indeed, Sir, my Ministry has awarded 359 project and annual grants amounting to $1.35 million to the various cultural organisations. But, however much we do, the results will depend on the pool of talents that we have in Singapore, and the quality of our talents. As our population is small, our talent pool for the arts is necessarily limited. Also, there are those who are talented in the arts but may not want to pursue an artistic career because there are other lucrative and more financially rewarding career. Sir, Mr Tarmugi has asked what are our future plans regarding cultural development. In the efforts to improve the quality of life of Singaporeans it is more than just the role of MCD. Many other Ministries are also involved. Nevertheless, MCD will do its part, particularly in cultural development. We have plans, for example, to amalgamate the National Theatre Trust, the Singapore Cultural Foundation and the Cultural Affairs Division of MCD into a new Singapore National Arts Council. This Arts Council will be tasked to promote more widespread practice and appreciation of the arts among Singaporeans. In particular, the Arts Council will increase the level of activities through more grants to cultural organisations, promote and document more original Singapore works through print and electronic media, provide training opportunities for talented Singapore artists and assist in building a world class arts complex. This new arts complex, which we are going to call the Singapore Arts Centre, will have several performing halls with varying capacities catering to the needs of drama, dance, opera and music. It will have state-of-the-art sound and lighting systems. There will also be exhibition areas for visual arts.”
“In this particular play mentioned by Mr Tarmugi, "M Butterfly", I believe there was discussion and that the organisers and the promoters themselves have come to some agreement with the authori- ties in regard to the parts which were found to be a bit difficult for public performance. But whatever we do or say, Sir, there is still a need for some form of censorship because in our multi-racial and multi-religious society, there is a need for us to be sensitive to the feelings of other ethnic communities who may or may not find some of the artistic works acceptable to their standards. Therefore, there is always a need to respect such deep-seated social and moral values of our communities. But we would like also to see eventually a gradual relaxation of censorship for the performing arts, but this has to be done in a responsible, in a mature, measured manner and should be in step with Singaporeans' maturity and respect for the culture and sensitivities of other races in Singapore. Mr Tarmugi also asked what are we doing in regard to helping to develop local cultural groups and artistic talents. Sir, as in our welfare programmes, the Ministry's role is to act as a catalyst in cultural development. MCD alone cannot be the sole promoter of cultural development. But we have created conditions that are conducive for the practice and appreciation of the arts by various measures. These include the following: giving financial assistance to cultural organisations, awarding training grants and fellowship to talented artists, providing housing at nominal rental to cultural groups, organising cultural activities such as the Drama Festival, the Arts Festival, the Dance Festival, to enliven our cultural scene and to provide outlets for our established and budding artistes.”
“Of course, in doing so we will provide them with the necessary funding assistance and infrastructure. Sir, let me give an example. Just last year we gave a total of $880,000 to three welfare organisations to run three new homes - a children's home, a home for Muslim children and a home for disabled children. The three welfare organisations were also given Government premises to run these homes. The largest of course is a brand new $6 million purpose-built complex for young children at Yio Chu Kang. This was handed over to the Salvation Army last December. Sir, the Government will, over the next five years, provide grants of up to $92 million on a 50-50 cost sharing basis to voluntary welfare organisations to enable them to provide welfare services to the aged, the disabled, low-income families and other specific groups of people who need assistance. These will include day care centres for the aged, the disabled, and new residential homes for the aged and family service centres. Sir, Mr Tarmugi also asked whether we are overdoing it in the censorship of drama, particularly at this stage of our cultural development. Sir, I must first clarify that censorship of performing arts in Singapore really does not stifle the artistic expressions of Singaporeans. I must also clarify that censorship does not come under the Ministry of Community Development. MCI is the censorship authority. But for drama scripts, MCI will advise the Public Entertainment Licensing Unit or my Ministry on the suitability for public performance. If there is a question as to whether particular parts of the script should or should not be acted out or used, we will discuss with the authors themselves before we come to any final decision.”
“They need an opportunity to play their role. A Government which smothers the community with too much direct welfare aid schemes, ie, schemes run by the Government bureaucracy, will smother community spirit and private philanthropy. Therefore, we should let every individual, every civic group, every community organisation, to play their role and let them be proud of their contributions. The Government will act as the catalyst - that is to provide seed money and infrastructure to enable individuals and groups to carry out their activities. As far as possible, the Government should not provide direct welfare services because doing so the community organisations will be deprived of this proper role. This is the correct approach. The Government indeed has done quite a lot for these voluntary welfare organisations. For example, voluntary welfare organisations which provide welfare services to the needy are given land and buildings at a nominal rental of only $1 a month. We also give them financial assistance in the form of cash grants or per capita grants for special education, child care and public assistance. The question was raised as to whether we are overloading these community organisations in carrying out welfare work. Sir, I do not think so. There are fewer than 100 voluntary organisations providing a wide range of welfare services. There is scope for more involvement. For example, there is scope for community organisations to help the Government to run homes for the aged, the boys' homes and the new Family Service Centres to be set up. As and when voluntary organisations are willing and able to take over some of these direct welfare services currently undertaken by the Government, MCD will work with them to transfer these services to them.”
“In one of his lectures he said that the Swedish welfare system has extracted a high economic and social price from the Swedes. Income tax on average is more than 50% with the highest rate being 78%, and this has suppressed individual initiative and the will to work. Just yesterday, Sir, the New Paper had an article entitled "Swedish kids to pay tax". I read: 'Children in Sweden with more than $320 in the bank must pay income tax starting next year. Most children's accounts are now sheltered under tax deductions which are being eliminated under the reform. The Government has said that the tax reform which takes effect in 1991 is designed to increase work incentive and big savings by reducing the top rate on the tax scale.' The Swedish daily said that some parents previously had used their children's accounts to shelter their own savings from tax. These examples in Sweden, the United States, and the earlier one that I quoted, in Britain, show us the way on what to do and what not to do in regard to our welfare policy. In Singapore we have got to where we are, not by accident, but really by a conscious choice, a conscious pursuit of sound policies that give us continued economic growth, and political and social stability. We pursue a national ethos that encourages pursuit of excellence and a sense of responsibility. We work hard to make a living because we know that there is no free lunch to be had. I believe, particularly after reading these articles and books, that we have the right policy with regard to welfare. The Government works with individuals, concerned groups and community organisations to provide a comprehensive network of welfare services for the needy. Among Singaporeans, there are many who want to play a role in helping others in need.”
“" And he said that "communities exist because they have a reason to exist, and if government were to take away these functions of the community, then it will not allow the community to play its role in helping the poor. The objective is not just to feed the poor family but also to provide them with enabling conditions to pursue happiness. The government can do only so much as to provide the enabling conditions and they cannot do more. It is a question of choosing the right thing to do." Sir, I would recommend these two books to Members who would like to know more about how choosing the right or wrong policies will lead to wealth, prosperity, or problems for countries. I think recently Members must have also read in our own newspapers examples of how the Swedish welfare state has turned sour, for example, in the Straits Times article of 22nd February and Sunday Times article of 11th March 1990. The London Sunday Times of 25th February 1990 had this to say about the Swedish welfare system: 'Yet though the state spends six out of every 10 kroner that the nation generates, homelessness is increasing, poverty is increasing and health and education services are deteriorating. The huge unionised bureaucracies which run the Swedish welfare absorb an increasing amount of the resources devoted to welfare and inefficiently hand out what is left to those who need it, but often do not deserve it. And Sweden is about to become a paradise lost.' Two or three years ago, Singapore invited a Lee Kuan Yew Distinguished Visitor by the name of Professor Assar Lindbeck. He is an eminent Swedish international economist and Chairman of the Nobel Prize Committee for Economic Science, to give a lecture in Singapore. In fact, he gave three public lectures.”
“The example of the UK which I mentioned last year or some couple of years ago, is one such example, and there is a lot of literature on it. Today, I just want to use two other examples of two countries, the United States and Sweden, to illustrate what I mean if we were to choose the wrong policies. In choosing these examples, I am not denigrating the policies of these countries concerned, because it is their right to choose whatever they want to do. Sir, an American scientist or sociologist, Charles Murray, who was formerly the chief scientist of the American Institute for Research in Washington and now a Bradley Fellow at the Manhattan Institute for Policy Research, has written extensively on the American social policy. In his book called "Losing Ground", he demonstrated that the American social programmes have "perversely slowed down and even reversed earlier programmes in reducing poverty, income, ignorance and discrimination." Murray stated that those who are truly pauperised by the withdrawal of government support and unable to make alternative arrangements, like the incapacitated and the inept, should fall back on the network of local services. His view was that "coverage provided by this network of local services is more generous, more humane, more widely distributed and more effective in its results than any services formerly subsidised by the federal government." In his second book entitled "In Pursuit of Happiness and Good Government", Murray outlined the concept of "little platoons of work, family and community in the development of this network of local services.”
“Our welfare policy is not just measured by the amount of money that we spend in the Ministry of Community Development. Regarding the data quoted by Mr Chay, I would also be pleased to get a copy from him. In all our studies we always find it very difficult to make comparisons of our welfare spending with those of other nations, because different countries use different methods and different yardsticks to measure what they consider to be welfare and community expenditure. Despite what Dr Lee Siew-Choh said, I think it is all too evident that all Singaporeans have enjoyed a higher quality of life and a higher standard of living. All this progress is evident before our eyes. In community development, our goal really is to increase personal and social responsibility, in promoting community cohesion and community participation, even in the provision of welfare and cultural services. But in saying that Singaporeans have generally become affluent, I am not understating the plight of some very poor Singaporeans. Indeed, in any society, there will always be a minority of people who will need help and assistance. The Government recognises this and the Government would do all it can to help them without creating in them a crutch mentality. Whatever the Government does in helping the very poor should not encourage more people to join the queue because the aid given is sufficient to remove the incentive to work. Neither should there be a massive welfare programme that has to be funded by high taxation which again will be a disincentive to work. These high taxation and attractive welfare policies have indeed caused intractable problems to countries which have such policies.”
“Sir, Mr Tarmugi has spoken at great length on raising the quality of life, our welfare policy and cultural development and he has asked for a progress report on the Advisory Council's recommendations that were accepted a year ago. And he has also asked whether, in the light of our progress and our national wealth, the Government has done enough in the provision of welfare services. Dr Lee Siew-Choh made a big fuss about the inadequacy of our welfare service and quoted the example of the United Kingdom when he said that in UK the reason for the decline is not the massive welfare spending, and he has referred to some economist but I do not know who. Perhaps he would let me know which economist he consulted, and I would like to learn something from him. This is something which I just picked up the other day. It is a quotation from a banker, British scientist, statesman, author who has written many books and the best known work being "Lubbock's 100 Best Works". His name is John Lubbock, born 1834, died 1913. He said in his remarks on "How Not to Create a Welfare State": 'It is important as far as possible, not so much to give a man bread, as to put him in the way of earning it for himself; not to give direct aid but to help others to help themselves. The world is so complex that we must all inevitably owe much to our neighbours. But as far as possible every man should stand on his own feet.' If the Labour government, after the War, had followed his advice, I think they would be in a much better position today. Sir, let me explain that the best welfare policy is really to create conditions whereby every Singaporean has a home, a job, equal opportunities for education and adequate facilities to meet the health, recreational, social and cultural needs of Singaporeans.”
“Sir, in the conduct of relations, one must not under-estimate the importance of good relations for the purpose of furthering economic and commercial objectives. If we did not have good relations with our neighbours, then all these commercial ventures, whether it is visiting Malaysia, tourism or investments, would not have come about. There will not be talks about a second link, or additional water or gas. So it is very important that we have, and we indeed have, good relations with Malaysia. I am surprised by what Dr Lee said when he suggests that Singapore Ministers should climb down. In the first place, Singapore Ministers have always conducted relations with all our neighbours and our counterparts in a position of mutual respect. We have never taken any arrogant position or any arrogant stance in regard to our dealings with them. We did not climb up in the first place, so there is no reason to climb down. So long as we understand that relations are conducted on mutual respect and that there are channels of communication open whenever there are problem, and we need to use these communication channels to resolve the problems, then I think we will have good relationship with all our neighbours.”
“It is important that between the Governments they understand that there are channels of communications open for problems to be discussed and resolved in a quiet, mature, and business-like manner. This is the state of relations that we have achieved with Malaysia. Of course, with the changing of leaders, with a change of Prime Minister at the end of the year, some in Malaysia may want to test how far the new generation of leaders may change in regard to the policies with the neighbours. But let there be no mistake that even with the change of Prime Minister our approach in our relationship with our neighbours will remain consistent.”
“Sir, before the break Dr Lee Siew-Choh talked about our relations with Malaysia. He made it sound as if our relations have deteriorated. But I think he has, as many of my colleagues have said, been living in a very different age. He still thinks that we are in the 1960s and early 1970s. In fact, as the Prime Minister has said on many occasions, our relations with Malaysia are the best that can ever be, especially ever since Dr Mahathir became the Prime Minister. If our relations are so bad, how could we be talking about buying additional water and gas from Malaysia? How could we be talking about building a second link between Singapore and Malaysia? If relations are so bad, how could we see so much investments in Malaysia over the last one year? For example, in 1989 there were 900 million ringgit of investments in Malaysia, doubled that in 1988. Again last year, according to Malaysia's own statistics, 2.4 million Singaporeans visited Malaysia and spent 900 million ringgit there as well. All the issues that he raised, whether it is the half-tank rule or others, we have explained them very clearly to the Malaysian Government, to their leaders, and they have understood the reasons why we have introduced some of our policies, like the half-tank rule or caning for illegal immigrants. What is most important, therefore, is that there is a clear understanding of each other's position so that there is no mis-assessment, no miscalculation of each other's capability and it is on this basis and on the basis that there must be mutual respect and non-interference that we conduct relations. In fact this is the same basis that we conduct relations with all the countries in the world. But being close neighbours, there will always be problems from time to time.”
“MFA is now finalising the appointment of two more Honorary Consuls in Los Angeles and Minneapolis. Our Honorary Consuls have helped us with the consular work that is increasing in volume with the larger number of foreign visitors to Singapore and as more Singaporeans travel and work overseas. They also provide an additional contact point in areas where Singapore has trade and economic interests. MFA has continued with its efforts to recruit more officers to staff the Ministry HQ and our Overseas Missions. Where our political and economic interests justify it, and if suitable manpower is available, we will then set up new missions overseas. As an alternative to permanent overseas representation, we will continue to appoint more Roving Ambassadors for accreditation to countries where we are not able to establish a resident mission. And here, I would welcome any suggestions that Members may have with regard to suitable candidates. Where possible, we will also consider appointing eminent personalities in other countries as Honorary Consuls to look after Singapore's increasing trade and economic interests.”
“In carrying out its tasks, the coordinating committee will have to identify specific training needs of developing countries and to formulate training programmes to meet the requirements of these countries based on the training facilities that are available in Singapore. The coordinating committee, which will be chaired by MFA, will comprise representatives from all the Ministries and statutory boards presently providing training to foreign trainees. Sir, Mr Das and Dr Ong Chit Chung also asked about our overseas representation and whether we have plans to expand them. To meet the challenges ahead, Singapore will continue to develop and strengthen its political and economic ties with other countries. In particular, MFA has worked towards expanding our relations with countries in Africa, Latin America, the Middle East and the Pacific region. As part of this effort, we are increasing our overseas representation. Singapore now has 19 embassies, two permanent representations, seven consulates and commissions. Owing to the shortage of manpower, we are unable to immediately start a new mission in Canada. In 1989, we also appointed three new Roving Ambassadors for accreditation to Ghana, Iran, Mauritius, Nigeria, Tanzania and Zimbabwe. And I want to thank Mr Das and his GPC for nominating these candidates to MFA. The appointment of Roving Ambassadors will help us to establish links with countries where we do not have a permanent representation. This would enable Singapore to be better informed of developments in these countries and to make fuller use of available economic opportunities there. Over the last one year, Singapore has also appointed six additional Honorary Consuls in the cities of Athens, Karachi, Lisbon, Rotterdam, Vancouver and Vienna.”
“Under this arrangement, Singapore provides training facilities for trainees from ASEAN and Pacific countries, while Japan provides the experts and funds to meet the cost of salaries and living allowances of the trainees. In 1988, a total of 3,123 trainees from 73 countries received training in Singapore in various fields such as communication, environment, port management, health, housing and urban development. Of these trainees, 1,403 or 45% of them came from the ASEAN countries. The other trainees were from Nepal, Bhutan, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, Fiji, Republic of Korea, Maldives, Pakistan and Papua New Guinea. At the request of some developing countries, Singapore has also despatched technical experts in various fields. A total of 92 experts was sent to ASEAN and other developing countries between 1982 and 1989. In early 1989, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs conducted a review of Singapore's technical assistance policy and decided, among other things, to propose to Japan to establish more third country training programmes with Singapore for a larger number of countries. The former Japanese Prime Minister Mr Noboru Takeshita gave the in-principle agreement of the Japanese Government to the proposal during his visit here in May last year. Hence, Singapore has submitted to Japan three third country training programmes in the fields of port management, civil aviation and productivity for its consideration. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs is also in the process of forming an inter-agency coordinating committee to oversee all technical assistance provided by Singapore, to assist in the development of a comprehensive technical assistance policy and to secure the agreement of developed countries and international organisations to sponsor foreign trainees to Singapore.”
“This position has not changed. As to how the government of Cambodia will eventually come out, I think we should leave it to the Cambodian people to decide, and we urge all parties to play their part in making sure that the United Nations play a significant role in resolving the Cambodian problem. Sir, Mr Wan Hussin also asked about our foreign aid to developing countries, in view of the developments in Singapore. Singapore has been actively providing technical assistance to other developing countries since the early 1960s. The pri- mary objective of this effort is to fulfil our obligations to the international community and to share our development experience and expertise with other developing countries. Singapore believes that human resource development is important to the economic and social development of the developing countries. The estimated annual expenditure on technical assistance is about $36 million or 0.1% of our GNP. We give priority to members of ASEAN and the Commonwealth but we also give aid to other countries in Southeast Asia, West Asia and the Pacific who are not members of these organisations. Singapore, for example, offers training to other developing countries mainly under the ASEAN and Colombo Plan Training Awards Scheme. Singapore also provides training through international development agencies such as the Commonwealth Fund for Technical Assistance, the UN agencies such as the United Nations Development Programme and the World Health Organisation. In addition, Singapore has also entered into a number of third country training programmes with Japan.”
“By contrast, the Non-Communist Cambodian groups were able to compromise. We are disturbed by the recent spate of press reports, quoting Eastern European and Western sources, that Vietnamese troops are once again fighting in Cambodia. This is not in Vietnam's own interest. Continued intervention in Cambodia will not help Hanoi's efforts to participate in the economic life of the Asia-Pacific region. Despite these setbacks, Singapore remains firmly committed to a negotiated political settlement and a United Nations Interim Administration. We believe this offers the best prospects for peace in Cambodia. We trust that Vietnam, Hun Sen and the Khmer Rouge will come to their senses and recognise that prolonged conflict is not in any of their interests and cannot be sustained indefinitely. The basic changes that have occurred in relationships among the major powers, and in the domestic policies of the major powers, must eventually force a change. The meeting of the Five Permanent Members of the UN Security Council that was recently concluded in Paris has made some progress, particularly on the role of the United Nations and the Supreme National Council. We hope that the Soviet Union and China will prevail upon their allies to take a more positive attitude towards the UN. And all members of the international community should fully support the UN Interim Administration for Cambodia. We encourage all efforts to elaborate an enhanced UN role for Cambodia. Singapore's position on the Khmer Rouge has always been very clear. In various forums we have always condemned the policies and practices of the Khmer Rouge regime when they were in power in 1975 till 1978. Singapore has always steadfastly supported Prince Sihanouk in his search for peace in Cambodia.”
“In all our dealings with Vietnam and the other Indochinese parties to the Cambodian conflict, we have always stressed that we will not compromise on the basic principles, and that the development of normal bilateral relations must await a just political solution in Cambodia. More recently, the Prime Minister made this clear to Mr Vo Van Kiet, the first Vice-Chairman of the Vietnamese Council of Ministers. In the long-run, this will make for a sounder relationship. We have always believed that the United Nations is the only organisation that has the impartiality, expertise and authority to verify the total withdrawal of all Vietnamese forces from Cambodia and to create conditions that will allow the Cambodian people to exercise their right to self-determination. As early as 1979, the then Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Rajaratnam, advocated that the United Nations ensure the withdrawal of Vietnamese forces as a prelude to determining who really represents Cambodia through free elections. Singapore thus welcomed the recent proposals by the Australian Foreign Minister and the others to set up a UN Interim Administration that will neutralise the political environment in Cambodia and prepare for free and fair elections. Recent developments have been somewhat disappointing. I regret that the Informal Meeting on Cambodia that was held in Jakarta last month was unable to make progress in elaborating an enhanced UN role for Cambodia. Despite the tireless efforts of the Chairman, the Foreign Minister of Indonesia; and the Co-Chairman, France; Australia and the ASEAN countries, it was clear that both Vietnam and Hun Sen, on the one hand, and the Khmer Rouge, on the other, were still far apart on the idea of an enhanced UN role for Cambodia.”
“But in view of the manpower constraints, we are going to change our policy of accreditation to Eastern European capitals from Moscow. Accreditations will be from one of our West European missions and through the appointment of a roving Ambassador from Singapore. We will increase the staff of the mission concerned. To encourage East European countries to utilise Singapore as a regional trading and business centre, we are ready to negotiate various agreements, such as Investment Guarantee Agreements and Double Taxation Avoidance Agreements. Mr Wan Hussin asked when we will establish diplomatic relations with China. Sir, our declared policy is to establish diplomatic relations with the PRC only after Indonesia has normalised its relations with the PRC. This position has not changed. The normalisation talks between Indonesia and the PRC have made steady progress. Almost all the issues have reportedly been resolved. Once Indonesia announces that it has normalised relations with the PRC, Singapore would be ready to enter into negotiations with the PRC on the establishment of diplomatic relations. This being the case, it is still too early to identify a candidate for the position of Ambassador. Sir, Mr Das and Dr Lau Teik Soon asked about our position on Cambodia. Singapore's position on the Cambodian issue has always been based on two fundamental principles of the United Nations Charter: non-interference and self-determination. For the last decade Singapore has worked with our ASEAN partners and other members of the international community to ensure the withdrawal of all Vietnamese forces from Cambodia so as to allow the Cambodian people to freely exercise their right to self-determination. Our position on Cambodia has been firm and consistent.”
“Its main tasks are to identify business opportunities, prepare proposals, promote and facilitate further bilateral cooperation, and review the progress in the implementation of agreements in the fields of economic, trade, scientific and technical cooperation. Singapore has also indicated its readiness to begin negotiations on the Double Taxation Avoidance and Investment Guarantee Agreements with the Soviet Union. Both sides agreed to explore the possibility of bilateral cooperation in such fields as tourism, oil refining, electronics, fish-processing and science and development. Sir, the prospects of our economic cooperation and other exchanges with the Soviet Union are good. In the last 15 months, a total of five Singapore-Soviet joint ventures dealing with products as diverse as commodities, diamonds, watch movements and personal computers have been formed in Singapore compared to only two in the preceding 20 years. Since last December we have also made it easier for Soviet nationals to obtain visas to visit Singapore. We have also indicated to Prime Minister Ryzhkov that Singapore is ready to engage in an active and constructive relationship with the Soviet Union to improve bilateral economic cooperation and to support perestroika. Mr Das commented on the developments in Eastern Europe and whether we are following events. Sir, indeed we are. We are following events in Eastern Europe very closely. We are now implementing a policy of differentiation in our relations with East Europe. We now treat each East European country as a separate entity rather than as part of a bloc. Ideally, we should open up new missions in Eastern Europe, as the Member has suggested.”
“Besides these programmes, there are many people-to-people contacts with our neighbours, such as the annual meetings of parliamentarians, the chambers of commerce and other non-Government groups and charitable groups, sports and cultural organisations. What I have just outlined are the main priorities in using our limited resources to promote Singapore's image. These resources are geared to major policy objectives, and are not used at random. We do not have a British Council, like the British have. But I believe what we have done are sufficient and effective enough to promote our image overseas. We are also making new friends and re-evaluating relationships in the light of these developments. Mr Das asked about the visit of the Prime Minister of the Soviet Union and what took place during the visit. The Soviet Prime Minister, Mr Ryzhkov, visited Singapore in the middle of last month. That visit was the first by a Soviet Prime Minister since Singapore and the Soviet Union established diplomatic relations in June 1968. It is a significant event which marks the beginning of a new relationship between the two countries. It reflects the major changes that have occurred in the Soviet Union and in the world. The focus of the visit was primarily economic. An agreement on the establishment of a Joint Economic Commission (JEC) for the Promotion of Economic, Trade, Scientific and Technical Cooperation was signed. Under this JEC agreement, the JEC will be co-chaired by two co-Chairmen, one from the Soviet Union and the other from Singapore. It will meet at least once in two years.”
“We will work to find more common ground with Japan and the Asia-Pacific countries, and together with ASEAN, work together to move forward the new dialogue on Asia-Pacific Cooperation. We will maintain the broadest possible spread of international and regional relationships. We will commit resources to making the APEC work, as Mr Das has suggested. Dr Ong Chit Chung asked how we have been promoting our interests and image overseas. We work very closely with the Ministry of Communications and Information to safeguard and promote Singapore's image in support of important policy objectives. We want to promote a better understanding of Singapore among our neighbours and internationally. The Government invites eminent and influential personalities from neighbouring countries to visit Singapore to meet with our leaders and senior Government officials. Journalists from Malaysia and Indonesia are also regularly invited here to give them a better understanding of Singapore. We are also inviting Hong Kong journalists to Singapore so that they are able to report on Singapore with direct experience. Our overseas missions regularly arrange for foreign journalists from prominent newspapers, television and radio stations to interview our leaders either in Singapore or during their visits in those countries. This projects Singapore through the international media. My Ministry also works with the Ministry of Education, the People's Association and the Singapore Labour Foundation to promote visits and study tours of students, youth and union groups. MFA has also worked with the Ministry of Community Development in promoting the participation of Singaporean talents in art, exhibitions and festivals overseas.”
“Under the new circumstances, the challenges may be greater. ASEAN thrived when the West had a vital interest in a successful pro-Western Third World grouping. With the fading of cold-war tensions, this interest has indeed diminished. We must work harder to keep ASEAN relevant. We must ensure that the organisation is able to adapt to the demands of a rapidly changing world. How do we see the roles of the United States, Europe and Japan in the region? We must keep other powers engaged in the region. The strategic balance in Southeast Asia must be maintained, even if superpower relations improve and the USSR draws down its military presence in Vietnam. Other powers are acquiring the capability to project power into Southeast Asia. The United States presence in Southeast Asia cannot be taken for granted, especially when its involvement in the more vital European theatre is being wound down. The United States wants to remain an Asia-Pacific power. It will search for ways of maintaining balance and stability in the region. Europe is absorbed by events closer to home. Capital and expertise may be diverted to Eastern Europe, as Mr Das earlier said. Realistically, there is very little that a small state like Singapore can do. But we will do what we can to encourage Europe and the United States to remain politically and economically engaged in the region. In February this year, our Prime Minister delivered a major speech in Davos, Switzerland, to alert the Europeans to the continuing opportunities in the Asia-Pacific. We are continuing our dialogue with the United States on the enhanced use of our facilities. We continue to place great importance on the Five-Power Defence Arrangement.”
“The end of cold war divisions could lead to a new period of global stability and prosperity But fading common threat perceptions could also fracture the international economic system into blocs. With the defeat of its chief ideological adversary, the incentive for the United States to play a global role could be reduced. Germany and Japan could reassert themselves on the international arena, freed of the constraints of the post-World War II order. They may take up some of the slack that the United States can no longer bear. How they will do so will affect all of us. The prospect of German reunification is already causing some stress and nervousness in Europe. The future of the United States-dominated and Western anchored alliance system is becoming more uncertain at the very time when Japan is becoming more self-confident and assertive. Regional powers may have new opportunities to assert themselves. But Singapore must adapt to all these changes. A year ago, I told Members that change cannot be resisted and this remains valid. As a small country, our influence on world events is limited. Whatever the outcome, we can only adapt. There is no other choice. In this fluid and dynamic period we must have a creative and flexible foreign policy, both to get out of harm's way if necessary, and to take advantage of new opportunities. We must build upon relationships that have stood the test of time and establish new relationships. We must play our part within our means in the new issues that are emerging on the international agenda. We must reinforce old relationships. As we enter uncharted territories, it is both safer and more comforting to do so in the company of friendly countries. ASEAN remains key. We need a stable regional environment for economic growth.”
“Sir, I thank the Members for their comments and the questions they have raised. I will try my best to answer all of them. Sir, at the Committee of Supply debate last year, I informed Members that the Asia Pacific and Southeast Asian political landscape was being reshaped. Since then, in fact, the world has been remade. The pace of change was not anticipated. Nobody could have predicted a year ago the developments that have taken place in Europe, particularly in Eastern Europe. The Soviet Union itself is also undergoing a period of serious internal stress. It will never be the same again. The United States is also re-examining its global role. Old calculations of global security are no longer valid. Cold war divisions are being erased. New actors are emerging. A united Europe, with a reunited Germany as its centrepiece, is developing as the EC moves towards tighter integration. Japan is searching for a political role commensurate with its economic strength. New issues are being placed on the international agenda. What would be the outcome of all these changes, and their implications to Singapore? Nobody can really tell for sure at this point. There are too many uncertainties. There will also be many new opportunities. It will be some time before the full implications of the changes become clearer. The restructuring of the Soviet and the East European economies may generate more trade and investment. But the transition to democracy and the free market economy is really very difficult. The planned economy cannot be replaced overnight. There could be a period of political instability if popular expectations are not met.”
“Sir, while the vehicle is used on the public road it does not follow that a private vehicle on a public road can be subject to the Smoking (Prohibition in Certain Places) Act. We cannot use that particular law to stop him from littering or to preserve road safety or to ensure that the roads are safe. There are other laws to do this, for example, the anti-littering law and the Road Traffic Act can be used to make sure that people do not litter or that the roads are used safely. I can sympathise with the passengers who are subject to side-stream smoke. I think it is for them to use their persuasion and peer and social pressure on the smoker in the vehicle. I think that is the only recourse that the passenger would have in persuading his friend or whoever in the vehicle not to smoke. We cannot use a particular law to stop the passengers in a private vehicle from smoking. But the Ministry of the Environment keeps a constant look-out for people who litter from their vehicles and I can report that in 1989 a total of 576 persons were apprehended and eventually prosecuted for littering from moving vehicles and 80% of these people threw cigarette butts out of their vehicles. The following Questions stood on the Order Paper - REGISTRATION FEE FOR MOTORCYCLES (Reduction) 5.”
“Thirdly, the major religions and religious leaders must continue to exert their influence in leading their congregations and believers into the right path whereby mutual tolerance and respect are practised. Sir, I support the Bill.”
“I feel this may be the true meaning of returning what is Caesar's to Caesar and what is God's to God. Sir, some people feel that the legislation will give the Minister too great a power and they fear that such power may be abused because the Minister can make the final decision in this matter. Such a worry is quite similar to the worries that people have for the Internal Security Act. I feel that in any legislation there is always a possibility of its being misused. So the best protection does not lie in not having this legislation but it lies in the uprightness, honesty and integrity of the people implementing these laws. It is because of this factor that the Internal Security Act has not been misused and not because of any other factor. Generally speaking, if this legislation is passed, we would have a set of basic rules acceptable by our people for them to carry out religious or political activities. By so doing, it will greatly prevent our religious harmony from being undermined and also it would reduce the possibility of conflicts between religion and politics. However, if we want to continue enjoying religious harmony that we have enjoyed for the past 20 to 30 years, it is not adequate to depend on this Bill alone. We have to continue to maintain the status of a secular state, that is to say, we cannot be a religious country. In other words, the various religions must continue to remain on an equal status and be treated equally. The State shall not interfere with our people's freedom on religions. Secondly, we need to continue having a fair and firm Government with an impartial policy towards the various religions. We must also take stern actions against anyone who attempts to undermine our religious harmony.”
“Sir, in a democratic society, if the Government becomes so corrupt and incompetent or tyrannical, it will be overthrown by the people through general elections and there is no need for the religious body to take such an action. Some living examples are the Marcos regime of the Philippines and the Ceausescu regime of Romania. What can a mere legislation do to curb the people's power? However, under normal circumstances, I maintain the principle as what Jesus said in the Bible: "Give to Caesar what is Caesar's and to God what is God's". But what belongs to God and what belongs to Caesar? We cannot make a clear distinction in this. But I believe we could at least make a clear distinction as to what are Government's affairs and what are religious affairs? What are the things that could be done through religious means and what are the things that must be done according to proper political channel? In this way, religion will not be made use of by people with ulterior motives to become their political tools and there will not be conflicts between religion and politics. In a democratic country, we must accept the fact that a government elected through proper democratic procedure must be vested with the supreme authority under the Constitution to govern the country. There are various restraining mechanism under the democratic system to prevent the Government or the Ministers to abuse the power vested in them, such as the division of the legislation, judiciary and law enforcement and the holding of general elections at regular intervals. It should not be done through interference by any particular organisation or body. In normal circumstances, religious leaders or religious groups should not interfere in the Government's affairs.”
“How are we going to ensure that the existing religious harmony will not be undermined? I believe that to maintain harmony we must accept certain confines of activity. That is to say that we must have a set of basic rules which can be accepted by all and observed by all when we carry out our religious activity so that everybody will have a clear idea as to what they can do and what they cannot do. What activities are considered to be within the confines of religious activities and what are outside the confines? In the event of someone straying beyond the confines of religious activities, we could effectively restrain him or mete out appropriate punishments against him. As such, I believe that it will be more meaningful for us to concentrate our debate on the relevant provisions of the Bill. In Part III of the Bill, an attempt is made to spell out the prohibitions, ie, activities that are deemed to be harmful or capable of undermining our religious harmony. These include four broad categories. The first one is creating mutual hatred and enmity between different religious groups; second, engaging in political activities under the guise of religious activities; third, to engage in subversive activities under the guise of religious activities, and, fourth, exciting disaffection against the President or the Government. Among the four categories, I believe the fourth category is one which gives rise to more debate or argument. Some people say that if the Government is corrupt and incompetent, then is it wrong for the people to voice their discontent or to oppose it?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, of course, we cannot deny the existence of such possibility. However, are we going to give up this legislation because of this? If we do so, then I would say this is indeed an unacceptable excuse. I think we must, first of all, be very clear as to whether or not such an issue exists. If there is such a problem, then what we have to study is our solutions to these problems. The White Paper has already pointed out that the existing legislation such as the ISA is inadequate to effectively tackle the new situation. From my observations, all those who oppose the legislation have, up to this date, been unable to provide an alternative to the "legislation to set down" some basic rules for all to observe in maintaining religious harmony. In other words, legislation is the best alternative open to us at this moment. As pointed out in the White Paper, in order to maintain religious harmony, there are two basic conditions. First of all, the believers of the different religions must practise mutual tolerance and respect, to avoid any hostilities or animosity among the different religions. Secondly, religion and politics must be kept separate. Some religious leaders and some believers feel that it is very difficult to have a clear demarcation or separation between religion and politics. But that does not mean that we are unable to formulate a set of basic rules for all to follow. I believe in a plural and multi-religious society like ours, such basic rules are very important. There is no need for us to engage ourselves in heated arguments on whether or not there is a clear separation or demarcation between religion and politics and ignore the basic problem. What then is the basic problem? The basic problem is: How are we going to maintain religious harmony?”
“Sir, I support this motion. Mr Goh Choon Kang (Braddell Heights)( In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I feel that the introduction of this Bill is necessary and timely. A Report on Religion and Religious Revivalism in Singapore published by the NUS scholars highlighted the alarming trends of development in this connection. The Government's White Paper entitled "Maintenance of Religious Harmony" stated, "In recent years there has been a definite increase in religious fervour, missionary zeal and assertiveness among the Christians, Muslims, Buddhists and other religious groups in Singapore. Competition for followers and converts is becoming sharper and more intense. More Singaporeans of many religions are inclining towards strongly held exclusive beliefs rather than the relaxed, tolerant, acceptance of and co-existence with other faiths ... And this trend increases the possibility of friction and misunderstanding among the different religious groups in Singapore." Mr Speaker, Sir, unless the actual situation is contrary to that mentioned above, there will be a need to legislate in order to control activities which go beyond the religious confines, in order to maintain religious harmony. Appropriate measures must be taken before the situation becomes too serious to contain and such measures are therefore timely. Some people feel that by legislating, it may arouse the disapproval of some people. Some may even think that this is a measure by the Government to suppress those who oppose it. There are also people who feel that by legislating, it may give rise to extremists seizing the opportunity to test the law to enhance their personal image and to give them a chance to propagate themselves and to portray themselves as a "champion of human rights".”
“There is no need at all to influence politics through religious channel, even less, and should not, make use of the church or temple or mosque to instigate the followers and fan up anybody's sentiments against the government or to carry out subversive activities, particularly in a plural society no one religion is in a dominating position. Should any one religion try it, this will surely call for certain strong reactions from other religious groups for self defence or to launch counter attacks. Of course, the Muslims would not allow Christians to be on a domineering and leading position in political arena. And likewise the Christians would not allow Muslims or any other religious groups to be on a domineering position in political field to dictate their wishes to all people or to achieve their religiose political objectives. So we can figure out the situation for ourselves, we have no choice, because we are in a plural society, therefore the government must necessarily be a non-religious and a secular government. I hope the passage of this Bill will promote better communication and understanding between the religious leaders and the political leaders and will facilitate better contact and consultation between them for speedier solution of any highly sensitive issues that should arise in future and promoting harmony anong our various people. The Presidential Council for Religious Harmony is a good way to achieve this purpose. Our secular Government has all along respected all religious faiths, freedom of belief and religious faith and their equality. I hope all religious leaders and followers can understand the difficulties and constraints of a Government in a plural society and the duties it has to fulfil in achieving this objective and give it support.”
“All these examples show that when you mix politics with religion, it would bring about very terrible consequences. The purpose of separating religion from politics is not to prevent any religious followers from exercising their legal right of raising questions of social concern. It also does not mean that we want to pass judgment on the religious tenets or moral precepts of certain religion that relate to social concern to say whether they are correct or wrong or to make certain comparison, but rather to promote peaceful and harmonious relationships among all our religions, seeking similarities among diversities and peaceful co-existence. Although we all may not have any difference as regards the premises of separ- ation of religion and politics, we may not fully agree on what is meant by "Interference of religion in politics", as we may have different views. Some religions may feel that their talks and actions are only expression of social concern, not interfering in politics. If every religion or the followers of every religion want to solve social problems according to their own formulas or tenets or what they believe and promote as the only way, then how can a secular elected government or the government which has the mandate of all the people going to carry out its policies or to maintain its administration? In fact, in principle, the democratic system has given all the people whether they are religionists or followers of any particular religion or non-religious people the rights of participation and airing in politics. They all have a part in the government through our democratic system which is the appropriate and correct channel.”
“In a plural society if followers of different religions could not live in harmony, then there would certainly be political and social instability and disorder for a long time. And if this religious relationship is mixed with racial sentiments, then the tragic situation would become even worse, such as the tragic religious and racial conflicts and wars taking place in Lebanon and Sri Lanka which are very real and terrible examples for us to see. Therefore, we believe all those people who love peace and wish to live in a peaceful and stable society will not question the promise of our Government's honest intention in wishing to maintain peace and harmony among the religious groups. Why should we ensure the separation of religion and politics? Basically, politics is secular, it is concerned with the reality of life, the necessities of daily life and the living conditions of the people. Whereas religion is somehting that touches upon our spiritual life and serves to console our mental conditions and relates to our spiritual side of affairs. So they are of two entirely different spheres. Just look around the world and you will find many regions and countries where there are religious and political mix-ups of roles and affairs which should be distinctive to their separate spheres in the first place where the people are drawn in conflict and wars with dire consequences and sufferings to many innocent people. For example, the strifing between the Catholics and the Protestants in Northern Ireland has turned into a separatist movement. In Lebanon the sharp conflict between the Muslims and the Christians has caused them to come to blows each other for many years splitting up the country in many ways. In India, the Sikhs and the Hindus attack and kill each other.”
“Sir, I understand that many Members want to speak on this Bill today. Therefore, Sir, I beg to move, That the proceedings on the item under discussion be exempted at this day's sitting from the provisions of Standing Order No. 1 until 6.00 pm. Question put, and agreed to. Resolved, That the proceedings on the item under discussion be exempted at this day's sitting from the provisions of Standing Order No. 1 until 6.00 pm. MAINTENANCE OF RELIGIOUS HARMONY BILL Debate resumed. The Second Deputy Prime Minister (Mr Ong Teng Cheong)( In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to stress in simple terms the two main objectives that the Bill seeks to achieve: One, the maintenance of harmonious relationship among all the religions, and the second, to ensure the separation of religion and politics. Why do we want to maintain harmonious and peaceful relations among all the religious? To many ordinary people who do not have any religious belief or who do not have very strong religious consciousness, they can hardly imagine that in such a peaceful and quiet small country like Singapore there could be any religious conflict or turmoil. However, in fact, from the White Paper, we can all see that certain religious followers have taken certain actions offensive to the other religions, sometimes resorting to tactics of proselytizing people of other faiths leading to mutual slandering and attacks. Sometimes added with race factor the tense relationship between different religions would be further intensified. Not only there could be unpleasant events between different religions, even among the followers of the same religion there could be conflicts and frictions.”
“It stated that "so long as all Singaporeans understand that they have to live and let live, and show respect and tolerance for other faiths, harmony should prevail". To achieve these conditions, therefore it is necessary to have this Bill. EXEMPTED BUSINESS (Motion)”