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 59 of 64.
“Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." This Bill seeks to provide for the control, licensing and inspection of child care centres, and to repeal the Creche Establishment Act, 1973. To encourage more women to join the workforce and parents to have more children, reliable child care centres and facilities have to be made available to them. The present pool of foreign domestic help may not always be available to parents, especially when the economic situation in the countries where these maids come from improves. The pool of grandparents who now look after the children may also decrease over the years when the retirement age increases. The Government has been actively promoting the establishment and development of child care centres over the last few years. As a result, there has been a significant increase in the number of child care centres. For FY 81-82, there were only 33 child care centres. Now there are 114. Based on the targeted increase in the female labour force participation rate by 1995 and the projected population growth, it is estimated that we need about 15-20 new child care centres each year between now and 1995 to meet the increasing demand. The Government itself does not and is not likely to operate any child care centre. The Government's policy is to encourage and help private entrepreneurs, employers and organizations to set up and operate child care centres. However, the utilization of these child care centres depends very much on the confidence parents have on the child care centres and on the quality of care provided by the centre staff. When choosing child care arrangements for their children, what is uppermost in the parents' minds therefore must be the reliability and the quality of the care arrangements.”
“What is more relieving to one's mind is that the only Opposition MP, the Member for Potong Pasir has more than once expressed publicly that this GRC system actually would not be disadvantageous to the Opposition, it might even be advantageous to them because earlier without the GRC the Opposition might only have one candidate elected at a time, but now the Opposition party could have three Members in Parliament. So the argument that the Bill would be of disadvantage to the Opposition parties does not hold water. Sir, I think we do not want to see our own homestead on fire. We would not like to see our own house on fire. To prevent it, we must take precautionary measures. We cannot presume or hope that there will not be any fire breaking out in our homes. If we do not want to see our own homes on fire, and if we want to see Singapore forever in peace and prosperity and all the races living harmoniously together without racial conflicts and if we do not want to see the disastrous consequences of racial conflicts as happened in other countries to happen in Singapore,if we want to avoid all such racial disasters and unfortunate tragedies taking place in multi-racial Singapore, then we must take all the necessary precautionary measures against any unforeseeable fire breaking out in our household. The GRC system is, I believe, a very good system which will prevent any future communalism and racial conflicts from happening. Therefore, I support this Bill.”
“Whereas now in the GRC system a voter's vote will be counted as one vote for all the three candidates together. The voters will realize the enhanced responsibility on them in voting in a GRC. However, this one vote for one group of candidates is not really very new. In some in democratic countries there is the system of lists of candidates for election where the political parties taking part in a constituency election will have to nominate, say, five to ten candidates in a list, whereby the voters will vote on them. Those political parties having the highest number of votes can freely allocate seat to those names nominated in the list, perhaps five, or six, or seven of such candidates. Therefore, this idea is not quite new. It is not an innovation. But what I would like to stress is that in this Group Representation Constituency system the voters have an added responsibility. The last question that I have asked myself is whether this Bill is of any disadvantage to the Opposition parties or unfair to them because at the moment all Singaporeans have a sense of fairness and fair play. They want to see that all political parties are given a fair ground to compete fairly. Some of them might feel that it is not fair to the Opposition parties which do not have enough candidates. If so, I feel that if an Opposition party thinks that they do not have enough candidates to contest in a Group Representation Constituency, they can stand in single-member constituencies, as the GRCs will not be more than half of the total constituencies. Therefore,nobody will be deprived of a fair chance.”
“Therefore, I can say that this is a Bill that will continue to consolidate and strengthen the institution and foundation of multi-racialism politics. The third question that I had considered is whether this Bill, according to some people, might bi-polarize the races in their relations or would give prominence to racialism. Between the two, half similar terms of racialism and multi-racialism there is a big difference. Multi-racialism and racialism are entirely different. Some people mix them up as one. That is what the Opposition parties are trying to do, to confuse the people. Perhaps, they are really confused over these two issues, as some people have a very blurred or confused idea about these two terms. About the GRC system we cannot find any precedent anywhere in the world, whereas we can find some instances of institutionalized communalism in some countries. Examples of communalism can be seen in practice in some countries. For instance, voters of a race elect a candidate of their own race. If we Chinese here elect a Chinese candidate, Malays elect a Malay candidate, Indians elect an Indian candidate, then it will be a form of communalism. The GRC system which is meant to implement multi-racialism is entirely different from all this. The fourth question that I had considered is whether this Group Representation constituency system is contrary to the principle of one-man-one-vote. After careful deliberation, I feel that it is not against the one-man-one-vote system. Because every voter will still have only one vote, where his one vote has added on triple weight compared to that before. If it is election of one candidate in a single constituency, his vote will be one vote for one person.”
“In other words, this Bill does not require the process of a general referendum. On the second point regarding the rights and interests of the minority communities: Articles 68 to 92 of the Constitution provide for the setting up of a Presidential Council for Minority Rights. As we all know, the GRC proposal is to ensure that we have multi-racial representation in the Parliament. That is also to protect the political rights and interests of the minorities. Therefore, this is entirely in accord with the spirit of the Constitution. In fact, the proposal is also providing an added safeguard to the political rights and interests of our minorities. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the second question that I had considered concerns whether this Bill is meeting the interests of our country. Ours is a multi-racial society. Multi-racial politics is the basis for the political stability of our country. But, at present, there is no law requiring all political parties to go along a multi-racial line, including the putting up of multi-racial candidates for elections. The purpose of this Bill is to institutionalize this concept of multi-racialism politics so as to prevent communal politics from endangering our country. Viewed from this angle, therefore, this Bill is in keeping with the interest and the long term interest of our country. Although this Bill may not do away with all communal politics because less than half of the constituencies will be GRCs, nevertheless, the Bill will at least ensure that all future Governments will have to go the line of multi-racialism, because whichever party that wishes to form the government will have to field a state of multi-racial candidates in the GRCs, not just in single-member constituencies.”
“May I make two points, Mr Speaker, Sir? When Members address the House, could they please confine themselves to the titles or the constituencies which Members belong to, instead of calling "Mr Chiam" or "Mr Ng"? That is one point. The other point is that when a Member speaks, the whole House should be silent according to the Standing Orders. If Members want to make encouraging and supporting "Hear, Hear" and so on, please do so but do not hold your stomach and laugh too loudly. Otherwise the Member speaking could not be heard clearly enough on the television. [Mr Deputy Speaker in the Chair] 11.40 am Mr Goh Choon Kang (Braddell Heights( In Mandarin): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, allow me, first of all, to say that I support this Bill. Pondering over the Bill, I asked myself the following questions. First, whether this Bill is against the spirit and the provisions of the Constitution. There are two points relating to this. First, regarding the proposal for Group Representation Constituency, is it necessary for this GRC proposal to be put to a general referendum? Secondly, whether this proposed Bill will adversely affect the rights and interests of the minority communities. After going through the present Constitution, I found that Article 6 specifically provides that only in assigning the sovereignty of the country or the control of the military and the police that it requires, in addition to a two-thirds majority decision by Parliament, also a two-thirds majority support through a general referendum to decide on any such proposal. According to Article 8 of the Constitution, any amendment to Article 6 of the Constitution requires, besides a two-thirds majority of Parliament, also the support obtained through a referendum.”
“This new system will ensure that every political party which wants to be the government will have to ensure that they are going along multi-racial line, reflecting the characteristics in our multi-racial Parliament. What is wrong? So if the Member for Potong Pasir wants to be the government, if he is going along with multi-racialism in Parliament, I will also welcome him, if he is able to. So this is a measure by the Parliament to chart the course which will ensure future peace and prosperity for Singapore. As for personal interest, whether this constituency or that constituency, or whether one wins or loses, it is of individual and minor interest which is a small matter and does not matter. What is important is to enable the Parliament to look after the interest of the whole country and we all should support the measure whole heartedly. Don't you think so? Thank you. 3.38 pm”
“He said with full confidence that he had got very popular support and was absolutely sure of becoming an elected PAP Member two days later. He said a very important reason was because the Opposition candidate was a Hainanese who professed at a rally that he could not speak Hainanese, he could only speak in Hokkien. That had caused the voters in that constituency, the majority whom were Hainanese to sign jointly to support him, a PAP candidate. Ostensibly, in the United Nations Declaration, all men are born equal. However, we are living in a practical world, a world of cold reality where we strive for survival and preservation, not a halcyon world of fancy and idealism with blissful living. In the human history of several thousand years of civilization, there are several countries which have a few thousand years of experience. We do not have to talk about Sri Lanka, Fiji and such small countries with only a few decades of history. We can look at those countries which have a few thousand years of history like China which is growing stronger day by day and India, countries with a long history of culture. Today, even in China which has 5,000 years history, there is still the Tibetan revolt or opposition. Why? It is because of racial question. In India, there is the Sikh rebellion and opposition also. This is also a question of racialism. So it is high time that we should discard any fanciful thinking or self-delusion and take up and meet the challenge of communalism. Now we already have this sytem of non-constituency MP besides the elected MP. The GRC system will add a new dimension to the picture.”
“Smith, an American black, in 1944 who wrote a book called "Strange Fruit" which was all about the whites and the blacks. Later many whites destroyed the books or prohibited the book from being on sale. Why? It was because of racial prejudice. I will give another example for all of us to think about. When entering the 20th century, there was a Sir Wilfrid Laurier who was the first French Canadian to become a Canadian Premier. He fervently called upon the French Canadians to be loyal to Canada not to France. He also said that in the coming 20th century there would be a bright and prosperous era for the Canadians, not the French. However, half a century later when General De Gaulle became a French President, he not only wanted the French to be strong and to support Franch, very good, but he also wanted the Canadian French to be stout and strong and to be be firm. This was in the 1960s. He said this at the time when some parts of Canada were having some intense racial partition campaign on in the country. Until 1974 the Canadian Federalgovernment had to concede to even allow French to be an official language in the province of Quebec where the French were in the majority. Talking about language, we all know it is a very sensitive issue. In Malaysia recently, there was an atmosphere of racial tension. We all know that it was closely related to language. I can recount a story. In the 1963 general elections, one night at the height of campaign Mr Ho See Beng who took part in the elections in Bras Basah Constituency who had left, this Chamber few years ago, happily coming to our PAP Waterloo Street office. He was very happy. He took out a piece of document full of signatures to show us. I have also saw this document.”
“He stood under the banner of MCA and was elected. Later, he became a leader of MCA in Johor. So we went different ways. However, my failure in the election had redoubled my conviction in multi-racial line of nation building, particularly in view of the racial turmoils which I went through in 1964, and the May 13 communal incident. I was perturbed and it abhorred me to see the savage behaviour of extreme racialists towards whom they considered to be enemies. I hate this kind of behaviour. I remembered one day just before the Japanese surrender in the Second World War, my mother and I together with all the villagers were brought to the countryside. All of us gathered round and squatted on the grass. What did we do there? We were watching the Japanese soldiers cutting heads off with their sword. I was too young then to understand what was going on. After the Japanese surrendered, the village elders disclosed that the Japanese had asked all the Chinese to turn up to see how their soldiers kill people. The Japanese had a very intense feeling for communalism. In fact, as we all may know, everywhere in the world there is such a thing as the fire of racialism. As some people may know, on 20 October 1943, some 14 missionary Bishops of the Church of the Province of South Africa issued a joint declaration saying that the Bible espouses universal love and against racial prejudices. Therefore, the 14 Bishops jointly condemned the apartheid racial policies of the South African Government. What kind of country South Africa is today after these 40 odd years we all can see. In this world, at the present moment, there is still the ubiquitous existence of the superiority complex of the universal white supremacy. There was one Miss Lillian E.”
“At a general election in the 1970s, I in particular and the PAP were accused by an Opposition candidate at a mass rally in Henderson for selling out Chinese culture as I was from the Chinese education stream and yet joined the PAP which espoused the policy of selling out Chinese culture and that, as a PAP candidate, I was therefore a traitor to Chinese culture. But I was not ashamed by this accusation. I was still very proudly living the way I have been and stoutly supporting the PAP policies and principles. I remembered when I was a Nanyang University student, one night I visited a teacher who was the Dean of Arts Faculty and an advisor to the Chinese Teachers' Association of Malaya, Dr Yen Yuen Chan. We talked at length about the future prospects of Chinese education and culture. This teacher whom I most respected gave me a very good impression. He was serious and careful in his choice of words. When I left his house at midnight, I had a very clear mind that if you want to seek basic rights of the Chinese through such a racial political party as the Malayan Chinese Association, then it would cause the Malays also to seek special Malay rights through UMNO. This would lead to perpetual racial disputes and political instability in Malaya (there was no Malaysia yet). In such circumstances, as a Chinese, what should I do? I remembered my teacher's words, "If you have read all the books and teachings of the sages, what do you learn? All those who have the will and ambition should try to seek a practical way out to enable the Chinese also to share on this common land he basic rights and interests of a multi-racial country." So this talk enabled me to separate from a very close friend and colleague in the 1964 general election.”
“PAP Malay MPs or MPs from other minority communities have shown their abilities, just like PAP Chinese MPs. I appeal to good and capable leaders from the minority groups to come forward to participate in the elections and serve our nation. Finally, we should understand our situation and learn from the mistakes of other countries. Our Government plans to strengthen the multi-racial political system in Singapore as a precautionary measure. The GRC is a good system and serves our future interests. Mr Deputy Speaker, I support this Bill. Mr Lai Tha Chai (Henderson)( In Mandarin): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I will speak on certain problems of racialism as reflected in this Bill. Let me recount some stories relating to the challenge of racialism which we are often confronted with. From these stories, we know that the measures taken by the Government to prevent racial problems well in advance is very appropriate and important. Some two decades ago, I had the occasion to meet a Malay friend from Johor Baru who came to my office. I was acquainted with him when I took part in the 1964 general election in Malaysia. We talked about many things. Finally, he told me that his Malay colleagues had accused him of being a traitor to the Malay race, for selling out Malay rights and interests. So he was very embarrassed. But he still stoutly supported the PAP's multi-racial policies and principles of nation building. Yet he was faced with pressures of Malay racialism all round. Finally, when he and his family could not live in peace any longer, he withdrew from PAP. After that, Singapore was separated from Malaysia. From this episode, I was reminded of my own position when I was once accused of being a traitor to my race, for selling out the interests of my race.”
“We have succeeded because of the far-sighted vision and the ability of our Government to guide our society along the right path. Today, Singapore is highly regarded by other countries. Today, we live in a multi-racial and a multi-cultural society. Today, we recognize ourselves as Singaporeans. As Chinese Singaporeans, some of us can speak Malay. As Malay Singaporeans, some of us can speak Hokkien, Mandarin, or other Chinese dialects. There is no doubt that today we are a cohesive multi-racial society. In view of this you might ask, "Why do we want to introduce GRCs in Parliament?" Our future is full of uncertainties. The system to be introduced is meant to protect our multi-racial infra- structure. It is a guarantee that would help us face an uncertain future that could destroy our infrastructure. Introducing GRCs in Parliament now is timely because we have political stability. To wait until problems crop up or until our multi-racial infrastructure is destroyed, I think, it would be too late. Our Government is far-sighted in dealing with national problems and it has been introducing policies to ensure peace, harmony and political stability in a multi-racial society. I do not agree with the Member for Potong Pasir who said that a Member of Parliament elected from a minority race will find himself being belittled in the Team MPs System. The question of weak Members of Parliament does not arise unless political parties field weak candidates. On the other hand, this system requires them to ensure that qualified candidates from minority communities are fielded in the elections if they want to win. If the Opposition parties wish to participate in the elections, they should field capable candidates from the minority groups, just as the PAP has done.”
“Sir, I understand that many Members would like to speak on this Bill. 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 5.00 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 5.00 pm. - [Mr Wong Kan Seng]. 3.14 pm PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS (AMENDMENT) BILL Debate resumed. Mr Chew Heng Ching (Kaki Bukit)( In Malay): Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise in support of this Bill. Sir, the First Deputy Prime Minister stated that the real objective of this Bill is to ensure Malay participation and the participation of other minority communities in Parliament. It is aimed at enshrining multi-racial politics in Singapore. This is important condition for political stability in multi-racial Singapore. The Team MP concept is not new. It is a system that has been practised in democratic countries. The system has been discussed in Singapore for the past one year. For the last 12 months, this subject has been widely discussed. In changing the parliamentary election system, Singapore will be moving away from the British Westminster system. However, it will not be deviating from the fundamentals of democracy - government by the people through the one-man-one-vote system. We must remember that we cannot run away from what is happening in our neighbouring countries. Unless the multi-racial society that is the foundation of political stability in Singapore is secured, the country might face problems. For the last 28 years Singapore has undergone many tests that have given us anxious moments. Now we have succeeded.”
“Sir, I beg to move, That Parliament do now adjourn. Question proposed. BY-ELECTIONS IN ANSON AND GEYLANG WEST CONSTITUENCIES 3.21 pm”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, since we have 23 Questions and many of which were brought forward from the previous sitting and there are only four Bills for Second Reading, may I seek your consent as well as the general assent of the Members present to move that Questions for Oral Answer be taken beyond 12.00 noon today.”
“File a question and I will answer it. MAJOR POWER FAILURES (Particulars) 17. Mrs Yu-Foo Yee Shoon asked the Minister for Trade and Industry how many major power failures occurred during the 12 months ending on 30th September, 1987; what was the cost of damage resulting from such power failures; and whether his Ministry has any plan to improve the existing system to prevent further power failures.”
“No. Training of child care staff. Mr Chiam See Tong: Please, at least attempt to answer it.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, this is really a separate question from the main question. It has nothing to do with this question.”
“Whenever parents make known their concern about the quality of child care, these are always looked into and borne in mind by me, to help develop child care centres.”
“The Ministry places great emphasis on the training of child care staff as this affects the quality of care provided by a child care centre. When parents consider placing their children in a child care centre, the quality of care is an important factor which they look for. As there is an increasing need for more training courses for child care staff to meet our expanding child care programme, the Ministry is prepared to give accreditation to any centre which conducts courses that meet the minimum standards set by the Ministry. With the assistance of the Institute of Education, the Ministry has drawn up training syllabi for such child care courses. The NTUC has applied for its Fundamentals Course conducted by it to be accredited. This is under consideration.”
“Sir, I beg to move, That Parliament do now adjourn. Question proposed. MARXIST CONSPIRACY AND VULNERABILITY OF SINGAPORE (New developments) 4.35 pm”
“11 of 1987 be and are hereby made to the Standing Orders of Parliament and that the resolution relating to revision of times of sittings passed on 1st March, 1985 and the resolution relating to questions for oral answer passed on 4th March, 1985 be hereby rescinded. ADJOURNMENT TO A DATE TO BE FIXED (Motion) Resolved, "That at its rising today, Parliament do stand adjourned to a date to be fixed." - [Mr Wong Kan Seng]. ADJOURNMENT MOTION”
“--- to move a motion if he wishes to raise any matter of public importance. He does not need to owe anyone a favour when they support him. Calling for a division, as we see it this morning,is important because it concerns an amendment to the Constitution. But I just took a count of the time spent in taking the division. It took 10 minutes. During that time the whole business of the House came to a standstill, other than calling of names to indicate the "Ayes" and "Noes". Any Member who wishes to dissent on any matter or any Bill can still have his vote recorded in the Official Proceedings and people will still know that he has voted against it. The Member for Potong Pasir must not make the false assumption that when PAP MPs speak against a Bill or a part of the Bill, they will be voting against the Bill. All PAP MPs are in support of the Bills. Sometimes they may disagree with parts of the Bill, but I think all PAP MPs are sensible people. They do not throw the baby out with the bath water. The Member for Potong Pasir also cannot compare our system, the British Parliamentary system, with the US Congressional system. They are two different systems. Unless the Whip is lifted in this House, all PAP MPs are expected to vote in favour of the Bill or any matter that the Government puts across. Earlier on I mentioned about the time allowed for Members to speak in other Commonwealth Parliaments. Maybe to make it more clear to the Members present, I will ask the Clerk to circulate later on a Table that shows how these other Parliaments use their time. Question put, and agreed to. Resolved, That this Parliament resolves that the amendments set out in Appendix I to the Report of the Standing Orders Committee as contained in Paper Parl.”
“He can call the press, he can ask questions in this House, and all the proceedings in this House, are telecast every night and people can see that Members are given every right to speak. But that cannot be equated with filibustering and time wasting, as can be seen in the example not too long ago. I give the Member for Potong Pasir the assurance that when he wants to move a motion which requires the agreement of another Member, we will find someone to support his motion, if he is not objecting to this particular amendment. Even if he is, I will still find one of my colleagues to support him ---”
“Sir, I must thank the Members for speaking whether they were for or against this motion. Responding to the Member for Chong Boon, the idea of giving the Ministers one hour to respond to views is to ensure that all the points brought up by the Members, and each one of them has half an hour, will be fully answered. Unless of course the Members after having made their points do not want the Minister to respond. Sometimes the Minister may ask his Parliamentary Secretary or his Minister of State to respond. So for the same reason, the Parliamentary Secretary and the Minister of State are both given one hour each. If the Minister does not have the full hour to respond, then many of the points raised by the Members will not be answered. The Member for Chong Boon and the Member for Potong Pasir said that long ago we changed from a no-time limit to one hour and that now we change it to half an hour, and in future it will be much less. Maybe, I am saying this in jest, and with hindsight, we should have changed it to half an hour right from the beginning. Then they could have seen the effect and usefulness of a half-hour debate. There is really no need for Government to worry about wasting time. When we are here in the House, we are serious about business in the House and we want to make sure that all views are canvassed. There is no question of denying any Member the right to speak. One must not mix freedom of speech with the length of the speech. Freedom means you can say anything, and there is nothing here in these House Rules to stop any Member from speaking. He can either move a substantive motion or an adjournment motion. Outside the House, he can make a press statement.”
“Point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir. I do not want to curb his freedom of speech. But how is this related to the motion in hand?”
“As a result, the time allotted for each Head of Expenditure was often not enough to allow all Members who had moved cuts to speak. Those Members who moved an amendment which appeared at a latter part of the Head, often had no chance to speak. The delineation of policy matters and details of expenditure in a debate will allow a smoother flow of debate. The sub-guillotine times within each Head of Expenditure will also give Members who move amendments at the latter part of the Head a chance to speak. In the Indian Lok Sabha, that is the Lower House, cut motions are divided into disapproval of policy cut, economy cut to save money, and token cut to ventilate grievances. Members who move cuts are required to state precisely what is to be debated and confine his speech to that matter. The idea of separating debates on policy matters from details of expenditure is adapted from the Indian Lok Sabha. Finally, Sir, I hope Members will appreciate that all these amendments are made for a more efficient and effective use of time in this House and, therefore, I urge all of you to support them. Thank you, Sir. Question proposed.”
“It takes about 10 minutes during which time debates come to a standstill. It is also not meaningful if fewer than five Members wish to seek a division. The practice of requiring a minimum number of Members' support before a division can be called is again not new. In the Malaysian Parliament of 177 members, at least 15 members must support the call for a division before one is called. In the UK, I am told, 40 members out of 650 in the House of Commons must give their support for a division to be called. This is about 6%. In India, 1/10 of the membership in the Lower House (presently 544) is required for a division to be called. (3) Procedure for debates of the Main Estimates: The amendments are found in paragraphs 18, 19 and 21. First of all, again let me correct the press report which gave the wrong impression that Members must now give at least three clear days' notice before the first allotted day if he wishes to move an amendment to reduce any Head of Expenditure. This is the existing practice and there is no change to it. What is changed in the procedure, however, is that the Members who wish to speak on a policy matter will now move a token cut of $100. He will indicate the policy he wishes to discuss and confine his speech to that policy matter. Members who wish to speak on details of expenditure, for example, operational matters, will move a token cut of $10 and indicate the detail of expenditure he wishes to discuss and confine his speech to that matter. There will also be sub-guillotine times within each Head of Expenditure. Members have experienced from previous debates of the Main and Development Estimates that policy matters were often mixed up with implementation details.”
“The Straits Times report on 21 August on this matter stated that "it also limits any MP wanting to address a committee of the whole Parliament to no more than 15 minutes at any one time" gave the wrong impression that this is a change. I would like to emphasize that there is no change to this practice. But if a Member wishes to speak on any question, the time allowed will now be reduced from one hour to half an hour. This is in paragraph 9. Your Committee feels that 30 minutes is more than sufficient for any Member to express his views. From experience, very very few Members take up more than half an hour in their speeches. The reduction in time will also allow time for more Members to speak on any matter. The half hour allowed is favourably compared to the time given to members of other Commonwealth Parliaments, for example, Australia, New Zealand, Canada and India. Half an hour is indeed a very long time. If you were to type your speeches into foolscap pages, that will be about 20 pages of foolscap paper. A lot of substance can go into 20 pages, unless of course you filibuster or waffle. If a Member wishes to have more time because the matter he wishes to raise is of great public importance, he can move a motion for which he will have one hour for his opening speech and another hour for reply. If there is an amendment to his motion, then he will have extra time again. (2) Collection of Voices and Procedure on Division: These amendments are found in paragraphs 10 and 11. These changes will save time for Parliament and yet not deprive a Member's right to have his dissent recorded in the Votes and Proceedings and the Official Reports of this House. Calling for a division is a very time-consuming affair.”
“The difference between these changes proposed and the resolution passed on 1 March 1985 is that the lunch time has now been reduced from 1(r) hours to one hour. Generally, Members found that the one-hour lunch time is more than adequate. The other three formalisations refer to the Deputy Speaker performing the duty of the Speaker in the latter's absence, the days allocated for the Annual Budget Statement, and taking the Heads of Expenditure in the Main Estimates according to the seniority of the Minister. These amendments are in paragraphs 5, 15, 20 and 22. Minor Changes There are four. Firstly, paragraph 25 of the Report is a consequential change arising from the amendment to the Parliament (Privileges, Immunities and Powers) Act 1986, to empower the Speaker to deal summarily with any breach of privilege in Parliament. Secondly, the amendment in paragraph 26 is made to admit strangers to a Select Committee by majority agreement. Thirdly, the present practice of providing for five days of debate for the Main Estimates and two days for the Development Estimates debate remains, but the Speaker will be given the flexibility and discretion to extend the number of days if he thinks fit. This is referred to in paragraphs 17 and 23. Fourthly, in paragraphs 12, 13 and 14, the procedure in Committee of the whole House or Whole Parliament on a Bill is changed to expedite the consideration of clauses without affecting the Member's right to speak on any clause. Significant Changes There are three. (1) Time allowed for Members to speak: There is no change to the 15 minutes allowed for a Member to address a Committee of the whole House.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, That this Parliament resolves that the amendments set out in Appendix I to the Report of the Standing Orders Committee as contained in Paper Parl. 11 of 1987 be and are hereby made to the Standing Orders of Parliament and that the resolution relating to revision of times of sittings passed on 1st March, 1985 and the resolution relating to questions for oral answer passed on 4th March, 1985 be hereby rescinded. Sir, Members will recall that at the sitting of Parliament on 4th March this year, Parliament passed a resolution empowering the Standing Orders Committee to consider and report on any amendments to the Standing Orders of Parliament which the Committee may deem necessary. I am happy to report that the Committee has submitted its Report and has recommended that the amendments set out in Appendix I of the Report be made to the present Standing Orders of Parliament. The main objective, Sir, of these amendments is to make the functioning of Parliament more effective and efficient. With these changes, we will be more focussed in our deliberations and debates. The net result is to improve the quality of debate in this House. Your Committee has proposed 26 amendments. I shall group them into three categories: (1) Formalisation of existing practices; (2) Minor changes; and (3) Significant changes. Formalisation of existing practices There are four practices that need to be formalised. One, is the sitting time of Parliament. The amendments in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 16 and 24 of the Report refer to the sitting time of Parliament. Parliament sitting time was changed by resolution on 1 March 1985.”
“So do not judge people just by their looks. And by knowing just one person alone, it is not enough to generalize. Let me just reiterate the point that the Government does have a vision and this amendment is not a variation of the Minister's detention order.”
“On the other hand, they can be released as soon as the Government is satisfied that they are rehabilitated. So there is no variation to the detention order. None at all. He says he has not seen a shred of evidence and that what Vincent Cheng said was only conjecture. Not quite! If he heard Vincent Cheng on television or if he read what was published about what Vincent Cheng said on television he will find the evidence. These are Vincent Cheng's words: 'I would foresee that the building up of pressure groups would develop to a stage where they would come into open confrontation with the Government. This confrontation with the Government would start off with peaceful protests, public mass petitions, which could lead further to more mass events like mass rallies, mass demonstrations, strikes, where more people are mobilised. And leading to public disorder and maybe even rioting, bloodshed and violence.' These are Vincent Cheng's own words. Nobody put them in his mouth. Nobody forced him to say this. He is at liberty not to say this. But he spoke, and he spoke his mind. The Member asked the Minister to confirm the continuous interrogation. But the Minister has answered the question. He was not listening. The Minister said that there was a doctor on standby to make sure that the person was fit to be interrogated. He cannot see the comparison between Ieng Sary and these 15 people. Well, there is an idiom which says, "Don't judge a book by its cover." The reason why the First DPM used the example of Ieng Sary is that he is such a nice gentleman in the international arena when he attends meetings. Nobody could suspect or know that he and his people, the clique of Pol Pot, committed genocide. If you look at Chin Peng, nobody would know that he is the head of the CPM.”
“When he asks that whether the PAP has a vision for the people and if it has, then should it have the ISA to suppress or detain people unnecessarily? Of course, the PAP has a vision. And for that reason we are in power for the last 28 years. Without that kind of vision, if we just move from election to election, from year to year, or being pushed from pillar to post by all kinds of unpopular issues, we would not be here that long. We will continue to remain here for a long time because we have a vision. Our vision, of course, is that we must have a stable society that stresses on economic growth, that will provide job opportunities for our people, freedom for them to do what they want to satisfy themselves, to fulfill themselves in materialistic and non-materialistic ways. But the underpinning of this freedom to do all these things is that we must be free from threats, both internally and externally. And one of these instruments that will allow us to continue to live freely is the Internal Security Act. We have found it necessary to use it on this occasion to nip the problem in the bud. Of course, the Member for Potong Pasir would have us release or not detain any of such people at all costs, as he said. But I do not think Singaporeans will agree that we should allow a security situation to threaten us until we are overwhelmed, until we are consumed by riots and havoc. We want to continue to live peacefully. The amendment moved by the Member for Clementi is not a variation of the detention order of the Minister. Definitely not. The detention order says that Vincent Cheng would be detained for two years; the other 14 for one year. The order can be extended if the Government is not satisfied that they have been rehabilitated.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, Mr Chiam, the Member for Potong Pasir, recounted how he agreed to move this motion. But let him not go away with the impression that we tried to trap him into this situation. That is definitely not the case. When I was told that he wanted to move a motion for the adjournment - I think it was the 23rd before the closing date of 25th - we thought that this is a very important subject. And since he has passed the closing date for moving a private member's motion on the 18th, we thought that perhaps we can find a way to help him raise this important subject and allow a full debate of the subject before this House. If not, he would only have 20 minutes. Of course, the Minister has 10 minutes, but the Minister can also make a Ministerial statement to counter all those points that he wants to raise. But if he just have 20 minutes, he would not be able to make full use of the one hour that he took when he first started and another 30 - 40 minutes before he sat down to express his views. So he was given the full opportunity to say all that he wanted to say on behalf of these 15 individuals who are detained. Certainly, it is not true that he is the only champion of these 15 people. Among many PAP MPs, they also asked and expressed the same concern and they also have made their views known at various occasions. And this subject was also fully discussed at one of our PAP Youth Wing's seminars on one weekend at Meridien Hotel. So it is not he alone that is concerned about this issue. And it is because this issue is so important that we decided and he cooperated, many thanks to him, that we are able to fully debate the subject.”
“The amount of public assistance paid out in 1986 was $3,513,000. In addition, another sum of $554,000 was paid out from other charitable funds managed by the Ministry. list - COMPOSITION OF THE BUILDING CONTROL WORKING COMMITTEE (Cols. 1315 - 1316) Members - Letters from Workers' Party Executive Council Members (Cols. 1317 - 1326)”
“I must reiterate that this right is in no way abolished by the legislation. Every Singaporean retains his right to decide whether he wishes to donate his kidneys or not. No objector need fear that he will be counselled and coerced into changing his mind. My Ministry will continue in its efforts to educate the public on the continuing needs and problems of kidney failure patients. These health and public education efforts will, however, be directed to Singaporeans in general and not at specific individuals. Sir, I beg to move. Question proposed.”
“36 pm The Acting Minister for Health (Mr Yeo Cheow Tong): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Third time." Sir, the Select Committee on the Human Organ Transplant Bill received seven written submissions. The Committee heard oral representations from nine persons in respect of four of the written submissions. The Committee's Report has been circulated to Members of the House. Sir, most of the points raised in the submissions are already catered for within the Bill as it stands. These include safeguards for the proper certification of death and arrangements for the participation of Muslims in kidney donation through the existing Medical (Therapy, Education and Research) Act. One representation proposed the removal of lower priority for transplant for those who have registered their objection to the donation of their kidneys. The main concern was that the priority consideration will over-ride all medical considerations. This might result in a kidney being transplanted into a recipient whose tissues are not compatible with the donor's. In such a case, the end result would be subsequent organ rejection and a wasted kidney. I must therefore clarify that medical criteria are the most important criteria in the selection of a kidney recipient. The tissues of potential recipients are first matched with the donor kidneys. The recipient must also not be suffering from any other medical complications. It is only then that priority is given to the non-objectors from the identified pool of potential recipients. The priority system is fair and will remain unchanged. The question of the right of a person to decide on the disposal of his own body was addressed in one submission to the Select Committee.”
“Mr Jeyaretnam has made a definition. We disagreed with that. The whole Committee together with the Chairman disagreed with that. It is only you who disagreed with our view. The Member for Potong Pasir also said that we should treat the three members on the same footing as the printer. Surely not. Surely as a lawyer he knows the difference between those with collective responsibility as a publisher and the responsibility of a printer. Besides the printer categorically right from the beginning said that he was very sorry for what he did and even when he was called upon before the Committee he also tendered his apologies unreservedly. And for his contrition the Committee decided that he be given a warning and a reprimand, instead of fining him. We have argued about this point. But since the Member for Potong Pasir raised this, I would just bring it up again. When we were voting on the reprimand for the printer, Mr Teo Sing Lim, the Member for Potong Pasir abstained and yet he voted against the first two punishments for the Editor and the Workers' Party Executive Council. That is indeed curious. Question put, and agreed to. Resolved, That this Parliament doth agree with the Committee of Privileges in their Fifth Report contained in Paper Parl. 9 of 1987 and resolves - (1) that Parliament impose on the Editor of "The Hammer", Mr J B Jeyaretnam, a fine of $10,000; (2) that Parliament impose on the Publisher of "The Hammer", the Workers' Party Executive Council, a fine of $5,000; and (3) that the Printer of "The Hammer", Mr Teo Sing Lim, be reprimanded and warned by the Speaker in writing. HUMAN ORGAN TRANSPLANT BILL (As reported from Select Committee) Order for Third Reading read. 4.”
“I must also say that it is with the Speaker's indulgence and his kindness that the Clerk of Parliament wrote to the remaining members of the Executive Council. There is no need for Mr Speaker to do that because earlier on on 10th April Mr Jeyaretnam on behalf of the Executive Council stated very clearly that he together with his Chairman, Mr Wong Hong Toy, would appear on behalf of the Executive Council. In other words, they, Mr Wong Hong Toy and Mr Jeyaretnam, represented that group. Whether they internally discussed what was to be brought up at the Committee of Privileges or not, that is the internal workings of the Workers' Party which I have no business to interfere. But I would assume that they would have done so. If they did not and they just went on and represented the whole Executive Council without consulting them, then of course they would form their own conclusions. Surely Mr Jeyaretnam is not the last word in the law when he defined what is "gross" misrepresentation. Because if he were ---”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I think one point I would like to make quite clear to the Members here as well as to those who are going to sit in future Committee of Privileges is that when we sit as Members of the Committee of Privileges, we are there to do a job. There is a duty for us to make sure that the standards of parliamentary conduct are not abused. That is why we are there in the Committee of Privileges. We are not there to represent a particular party, PAP, SDP or whatever. We are there to ensure that Parliament must have the highest standard of conduct. Then we can make the parliamentary system work, then we can be proud representatives of the people. Earlier on I referred to the curious arguments of Mr Chiam. I do not want to belabour the point, but I cannot avoid saying that when he tried to plead for the three so-called ignorant, illiterate and innocent members of the Executive Council of the Workers' Party, he was actually saying that the Workers' Party Executive Council comprised a group of stupid people. I hope they are not. I hope they are, like the People's Action Party Executive Council, Executive Committee, comprised people who know what they are doing. Similarly with the SDP. But it is not my job to warn these people or to tell them what they should do. When they applied for the permit to print "The Hammer" they signed the application which clearly states that they are "jointly and severally liable together with the principal applicant". That is what they have committed to do. Therefore, they cannot subsequently say, "Oh, I am sorry, I do not know all these things. I am not responsible." But at least they have the courage to say they accept the decision collectively. They accept collective responsibility.”
“It does not include the whole proceedings, the other four days of the proceedings were not included in that report. And he has said so. So how can you find him guilty? I would urge Members not just to vote blindly but know exactly what they are voting. I am afraid under the PAP-type of voting, everybody just votes according to what he has been told to do. If we can have a show of hands, how many of you have read all this and know exactly what the issues are, before you commit this man to pay huge sums of money. I think you must have conscience because this is something which a man will suffer and I do not know how the Committee arrived at such a big sum of money.”
“It will have omissions because if you look at the article - and I roughly estimate the number of words in that article is about 550 - I think newspaper publishers and editors in this House would know that for a whole day's hearing comprising probably a few thousand words, you cannot have everything in one article alone. There will be omissions, and he has said so. Mr Jeyaretnam has said so. It is not a verbatim report. The other thing is this: has he committed a gross distortion? The definition of "gross", according to Mr Jeyaretnam, is a completely wrong picture of the proceedings on that day. It is the same. "Gross" means the whole. The whole thing is wrong. The whole report is wrong. Can you find that of this article in the January/February issue of this Hammer? Can you say that - that it was completely wrong? If this House can say that, then he is guilty. If you cannot say that, he should not be found guilty. He should be let off. So you are going after him just because of one headline. That is all. Just because he published one headline, "Jeya denied fair hearing", all right, he is guilty. But what about the other contents in the article? Nothing was mentioned. It should be brought and read together with the headline. You cannot just see the headline alone. I think any reasonable person would want to read what is in that article and not just read the headline alone. You cannot convict a person just because he has published a headline that was misleading. You have to look at the article as a whole. And there will be omissions. He was being hauled up to the Committee of Privileges because he had left out certain things. And Mr Jeyaretnam has said so - this report of his comprised only of one day's proceedings, 18th December.”
“Probably they did not even know it was published, and they are completely innocent. The reason why they were put in together with the other members of the Central Committee as publishers was, as it is given in the Report, that they have not tendered their apology unreservedly. They have done that now. There is a new situation, a new circumstance has arisen. Therefore, I would urge this House that they should be treated on the same standing as the printer, Mr Teo. If you treat them otherwise, I think it would be very unfair to them. There will be an injustice perpetrated because they have done exactly what Mr Teo has done - apologize unreservedly, in print. We have got it here in the House and also they are completely innocent parties. They had no knowledge of the article. They had not been informed. It was done very quickly and I think they are even in a better position than the printer because the printer knew that that article had been printed but these three Central Executive Committee members did not even know that that article was printed at that point of time. Therefore, I think this House should treat them on the same standing as the printer, Mr Teo. We have in this House convicted Mr Jeyaretnam of making allegedly false reports and found him guilty. Probably he will be found guilty again. Now, we are going to set a precedent for all newspapers - I would say they have to publish almost verbatim reports. Because you will note that, in the second charge, he was guilty mainly of omissions.”
“Anyway, the question now is, on this occasion, would the Member for Potong Pasir again think the $10,000 fine recommended by the Privileges Committee too heavy, or would he give a comparison that is the same as the one used by him at one of the last Parliament sittings, that is, using a big hammer to kill a fly? Mr Chiam See Tong: I am obliged to you, Mr Deputy Speaker. Most of the speakers on these matters concerning the Committee of Privileges do not seem to go into the issues. They go on a rambling speech, talking about smearing. I wonder where does the Member for Braddell Heights get his evidence from in regard to the former Member for Anson about smearing Parliament. We are here to see whether or not he is guilty of gross distortion and of false and perverted reporting. They do not seem to go to the main issues but go off the tangent and hit at a person who is not present and is unable to defend himself. If we are here setting this kind of a standard, I think it is not going to speak very well for Singapore. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I was shown copies of these letters received from several of these members of the Executive Committee of the Workers' Party. I notice that three of them - Mr Chiang Seok Keong, Seow Yong Chew and Madam Wee Kia Eng - have tendered their apologies unreservedly. So they are on par with the printer, Mr Teo. Their status as regards this particular item that was printed in The Hammer is exactly the same as that of the printer. So if this House agrees with the Report of the Select Committee which I am dissenting (and I am sure they will), then these three members of the Council should suffer the same penalty as Mr Teo, just a reprimand, because they have no knowledge whatsoever of the contents of that article. They do not read English.”
“Therefore, this constitutes an act of smirching and contempt of Parliament. Sir, we should stress that the dignity, integrity and the credibility of Parliament should not be allowed to be smirched and tarnished. If anybody should commit the act of contempt or smearing the image and credibility of Parliament, then such a person should be punished. It would be an inexcusable action, if it is done knowingly and deliberately. What should be pointed out is that it is not the first time that Mr Jeyaretnam had committed this kind of contempt or smirching of Parliament. It is a second time and repeated action. He repeatedly committed contempt of Parliament. What is his motive? Some people could say that his intention has been too obvious to mention. He has repeated records of contempt of Parliament. Therefore, on this occasion, the punishment on him should be re-doubled. So I agree to the recommendation of the Privileges Committee to impose on him a sum of $10,000; in other words double the sum of $5,000 last imposed on him. I remember that this year on 27th January when we were debating on the Second Report of the Privileges Committee, the Member for Potong Pasir had argued that the fine imposed on the former MP by the Privileges Committee was too high. On every count, the fine was $5,000. Added together, it would be $25,000, a very heavy fine; too punitive a deterrent. And at that time he also argued that Mr Jeyaretnam was no longer in Parliament so he could not imagine that Mr Jeyaretnam could commit the same act again. But, unfortunately, his judgment has now been proved to be wrong.”
“His reason given was that the heading to this article should be in inverted commas, namely, it was quoted from him but in the printing process the quotation marks were omitted; so that was a mistake unintentionally done and not on any purpose. This argument is hard to accept, just as the Fifth Report of the Privileges Committee has pointed out that the typesetting, laying out and headlining, etc were done by the Editor and the publishers concerned, and not by the Printer. So people could not believe that it was done inadvertently or unintentionally by a lawyer who is also the leader of a political party. In fact, whether there was quotation or no quotation, the heading or caption would give a wrong image or message to the readers that Parliament or the Privileges Committee has been unfair. Other than the heading of this article, there are also other imbalanced and untruthful reports in the article. The Report has clearly enumerated them in detail. Therefore, I would not like to repeat here. Even though the Editor and Publisher argued in their defence about the omission of the inverted commas, they still did not admit the intention to express contempt of Parliament or the Privileges Committee. In other words they did not express remorse. Mr J B Jeyaretnam himself even insisted by his argument that he had not been given a fair hearing by the Committee, against all evidence to the contrary. Mr Jeyaretnam himself was not only given ample opportunity to question the Prime Minister, the Chief Justice, the Attorney-General and other witnesses but also had ample time to give his concluding arguments. Therefore, to sum up, Mr Jeyaretnam's claim and allegation that he was not given a fair hearing is entirely without factual foundation.”
“I am of the opinion that any reader when reading this kind of big character caption would not have mistaken the real meaning the caption intended to convey as the meaning of the caption is very clear and direct. Any reader after reading this caption would have a clear impression that the Committee of Privileges had not given Mr Jeyaretnam a fair hearing. This kind of heading, to Parliament and to the Privileges Committee, is a kind of attack. If this attack were based on facts or through evidence, then we could say that the Privileges Committee and even the Parliament itself would then lose its honour, image and credibility because it had not been able to deal with the matters like this fairly. Then it would lose the confidence of the people. If Parliament lost the confidence of the people then the foundation of democracy would be shaken. Therefore, any attack or allegation against Parliament or its Committees should be regarded as a serious matter to be dealt with with all seriousness in order to find out the facts and truth of the matter so as to ensure the confidence of the people on the Parliament. If there is no truth or factual ground to the attack or allegation or if it is a distortion of facts then it would become a malicious attack or slander causing harm and damages. Then the matter should be pursued and dealt with with all seriousness. When a person has attacked or inflicted such harm to another person he can say that it was done unintentionally. Mr Jeyaretnam was trying to make use of this argument as defence to justify himself and his party organ.”
“Just barely a few months ago, he was fined by this Parliament $5,000 each for writing and publishing five newsletters which distorted the proceedings of the Privileges Committee. For this second contempt for a similar offence, the Committee recommend that he be fined $10,000. The Workers' Party Executive Council should also be severely punished as they know or ought to know that the Committee take a serious view of contempt of their proceedings. As Publisher, the Workers' Party Executive Council members are jointly and severally liable for the action of its Editor. The Committee recommend that the Publisher be fined $5,000. As for the Printer, Mr Teo Sing Lim, the Committee are of the view that he can print anything for anybody, including opposition parties. However, he is liable for what he prints. He should ensure that his action does not violate any law, including the Parliament (Privileges, Immunities and Powers) Act. The Committee are satisfied, however, that he did not intend to commit contempt of Parliament and that he had deeply apologized for his error. Taking into account his unreserved apologies and the fact that this is his first offence, the Committee recommend that he be reprimanded and warned by the Speaker in writing. Sir, I urge this House to accept the recommendations of the Committee. Question proposed. Mr Goh Choon Kang (Braddell Heights)( In Mandarin): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, when we read a piece of news or an article, the most important thing that catches our eye is its caption or heading. About this article, the heading is "Committee of Privilege hearing/Jeya denied fair hearing".”