Wong Lin Ken
Singapore
“The Minister is also empowered to exempt any person or class of persons from all or any of the provisions of the Bill, whether absolutely or subject to such conditions as the Minister may see fit to impose. Section 6 of the Minor Offences Act will be repealed. Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move. Question put, and agreed to.”
“Mr Speaker. Sir, if I understood the Member for Tiong Bahru correctly, he wants to centralise the issue of birth certificates at Empress Place. With that clarification, I will proceed. Sir, the present practice is for births which occur in Government hospitals to be registered at the hospitals.”
“We do not want to discourage them. It has been suggested that we are in relatively good times, and therefore why should we not be generous. True, our economy has picked up far beyond expectations in the last two or three years.”
“First, with regard to unanswered letters, I would ask the Member to pass them over to me. With regard to long hair, I think the Member is concerned with our policy that the cutting of long hair will affect the number of tourists coming in to Singapore.”
“Part IX of the Police Force Act relating to the Guard and Escort Unit is repealed. Sir, I beg to move. Question put, and agreed to. Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House. The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. - [Prof. Wong Lin Ken].”
“I understand the point made by the Member for Tiong Bahru. I will look into the matter and see whether administratively it is feasible. As regards the point raised by the Member for Mountbatten, I agree with him that it takes a long time before a search can be completed.”
The complete record
Every one of 112 lines we hold for Wong Lin Ken, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 3 of 3.
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, in recent years, the question of liberalising abortion laws i; a familiar one in progressive societies. Many other nations, both within and without the non-Communist bloc, have faced the question. In a very broad sense, the pros and cons for liberalisation of abortion have become classical arguments, having been developed with increasing sophistication with the passage of time. The significant point to note is that the protagonists of liberal reforms have, as a whole, won the day, as can be testified by the increasing number of nations that have legalized abortion, with varying degrees of liberalism, and by not one nation that has liberalized abortion taking retrogressive steps into the past. In a rough sense, the controversy on the liberalization of abortion laws parallels that on birth control. Regarding the latter, at least it can be said that those who stood in the way of the principle of voluntary parenthood are being consigned relentlessly into the dustbin of history, although the lid is occasionally lifted. The rough analogy with contraception is of interest, as early opposition to this was fierce, often expressing itself in prediction of moral decay, the collapse of stable society, and even the killing of life itself. Today, contraception is accented and respectable in many narts of the world, and it is a tribute to the healthy pragmatism of the people of Sinzapore that they have come to take contraception as a normal way of life. One cannot foresee such a future for abortion, and, in any case, it has been stressed time and time again, and it has been ignored time and time again, that the purpose of the Abortion Bill under discussion is not to substitute abortion for contraceptive planned parenthood.”
“Let me commend to my parliamentary colleagues the practical wisdom of a great poet who wrote in a language this nation has the common sense to accept as one of its official languages: "On such a full sea are we now afloat, And we must take the current when it serves, Or lose our ventures." (Shakespeare, Julius Caesar, Act 4, Scene III). 6.01 p.m.”
“As we change the face of Singapore, as we inevitably must, we should also leave some things of an exotic character for the tourists so that they will have more to see than just how a determined and resourceful population, with application and ambition, has brought about a modern thriving Asian city-state into the world of science and technology. It is in the light of these considerations that I regard with a critical eye the efforts at urban renewal. A National Historical Commission, with the authority to identify the historical aspect of our past that is relevant to our evolution towards multi-racial nationhood, should be seriously considered as a desirable creation to advise the Government in its urban renewal programmes and its plan to re-organise the National Museum into a national educational exhibition centre. I believe we have qualified people for such a Commission, and some have organised themselves recently into a History Association of Singapore. Mr Speaker, Sir, I began on a note about the political desirability and inevitability of the return of an Opposition in this Parliament. I also stressed the desirability of a bona fide democratic Opposition. What is even more desirable and relevant is that the return of such an Opposition will take the shape of political parties that subscribe to the fundamental philosophy of multi-racialism. We have now a Parliament that reflects unanimity on this concept. We should not miss this opportunity to consolidate the institutional arrangements that make for the perpetuation of this political philosophy as the national order of life.”
“I would like to recommend for the consideration of this Government the erection of a monument in memory of our nameless and, often, penniless immigrant ancestors whose sweat and toil turned the swamps of Singapore into the solid foundation that has made it possible for us to build a better future for ourselves and our children. We have cenotaphs to remember our dead, named or nameless, in the two World Wars. Other countries remember their Unknown Soldiers. So why should we not set up, with public donations and governmental encouragement, some appropriate national monument for the Unknown Immigrants to remind this and future generations of our immigrant origins and the progress we have made, and will continue to make, in nationhood? We have a passion for progress, probably the most intense and most purposeful in this part of the world. We fill up swamps to put up factories and the sea to increase the size of our country, and we knock down old buildings to make way for tall impressive residential and commercial ones. But this passion for progress should not be allowed to erase completely the past. In a country with a long colonial history and no monuments of ancient civilisation to remind us of our past in Singapore, it will serve a national purpose to preserve some old sections of our city, historical buildings, churches, mosques, and temples, as abiding reminders of the immigrant origins of our nation, and as a visual measure of the progress we have made, and will continue to make in the modernisation and consolidation of our nation. There are even substantial monetary gains to be derived in preserving something of the past.”
“Yet it is well to remember that the main burden of preserving, refining, and developing the cultural life of a nation falls on the shoulders of the non-technological and non-scientific members of the intelligentsia. We have need to continue to develop the arts and social sciences, and, what is even more relevant, to nurture a self-perpetuating generation of bilingual intelligentsia capable of sustaining our society and having the broader perspective of viewing our problems on the broader base of a multi-racial community. I would like now to touch on a specific topic of interest to all Singaporeans. This is the National Museum. Its re-organisation is long overdue. The proposal to transform it (to quote the Addendum to the Presidential Speech) into "an educational centre displaying in vivid manner the rich political, social, and economic history not only of Singapore but of the whole region of which we are the fulcrum" is, I think, an imaginative step. In developing the historical sections of the National Museum, the role of the various communities, their leaders, and Sir Stamford Raffles should not be forgotten. For the colonial past is as much a part of our national history as the eventful future will be. But what is required is more than a transformation of the National Museum in the manner proposed. A section devoted to the portrayal of the development of science and technology will contribute in a significant way towards encouraging the growth of minds more receptive to the perquisites of an industrialising society. Next year, Mr Speaker, we will be celebrating the 150th anniversary of Singapore. Doubtless there will be many national celebrations.”
“It is to be hoped, and I am both hopeful and optimistic, that the present unusual appointment, the product of extraordinary circumstances, shall be a passing phase in the history of higher education in Singapore. For if such a practice were to develop into a permanent feature, it will be a reflection of the continuing failure of the University to get itself identified, and, what is even more important, accepted as part of our national life. The imminent recognition of Nanyang University degrees reminds us of how much progress this institution has made in educational and other terms within the framework of our national community. It is to be hoped that at some point of its evolution, it will achieve the same measure of institutional recognition as the University of Singapore in the international community of learning. If our polyglot society is to achieve national cohesion, the linguistic cleavages, born out of colonial times and now in the process of being bridged in our school system, should not be allowed to persist longer than is educationally feasible in the institutions of higher learning. Mr Speaker, Sir, perhaps the designation of the Minister for Science and Technology is the result of the necessity to emphasize the national need to develop a hitherto neglected aspect of our education rather than a reflection of a fundamental change in attitude on the part of Government towards higher education in the arts and social sciences. The urgent national need to develop a technological and scientific class indispensable to an industrialising society is beyond question and requires constant public reiteration.”
“The-desirability of a Minister of Science and Technology, who is also simultaneously the Vice-Chancellor of the University of Singapore, may disturb the intellectual equilibrium of those who hold an inflexible doctrinal view of what constitutes academic freedom and university autonomy. Yet, if one were to undertake serious research into the subject one would discover that there has never been a relationship between the State and the university which has not undergone changes in response to environmental changes. An examination of the constitutional and conventional relations between State and universities brings forth the fact that friction between them is at a minimum where there is a common consensus of basic fundamental values and loyalties to society. Issues are defined, discussed, and disposed of from the focal point of what is best for the community as a whole. The present position of the University of Singapore reflects in the last analysis the failure of the academic community as a whole to adapt itself to the radical changes that have come to pass in Singapore in the last decade. The appointment of a Vice-Chancellor who-is also a Senior Cabinet Minister, notwithstanding his reputation as an academic man, is an indictment. Yet, in extenuation, perhaps it must be admitted that many of the academic community are not our nationals and cannot be expected to concern themselves with our affairs. It will be a tragedy for the development of our intellectual life if there is no room in the University for foreign professors and teachers to provide the necessary stimuli. But, in the main, the direction of the University must be in the hands of nationals.”
“My eldest boy is in the equivalent of a Primary 1 class in Washington. One day, after about six months in this school, he came home to explain to me why George Washington's birthday was being observed. Can we say for certain that our school systems are so developed that, in a similar period of time, a child in his first year of education can, with earnest enthusiasm, explain to his parents why our National Day should be celebrated? No definitive answer can be expected without a proper systematic evaluation involving the whole field of education. Perhaps in the proposed effort to improve the qualitative character of our educational system consideration can be given to the inclusion of an investigation and recommendation of what can be done to inspire a teacher to give his students more than just the format substance of their education. Perhaps; it is time that serious thought should be given to a comprehensive evaluation of almost one decade of effort that has been put in the field of education towards the objective of a multi-racial society, with the object of determining both the factors that have promoted or retarded progress, so that further development can be set into motion. A multi-racial society can only be nurtured and sustained by a multi-racial intelligentsia, reflecting the character of the population. So it is a logical development of our educational policy that the universities and other institutions of higher learning-should become an integral and vital part of the national community.”
“Singapore will not endure solely on the foundations of multi-storeyed flats, factories, and; all the tangible evidence of a prosperous economy. A rise in the Gross National Product, so essential for our national survival and the objective of good government, is helpful for its cushioning effects in the competition for jobs between the communities, but it is not the long-term answer to bring about a cohesive society out of our diverse races. The answer lies in continued efforts to create the kind of society that will be able to cope with the stresses and strains of life in Asia. To ensure this, the basic multi-racial philosophy of our society must become the framework on which our people rationalise their daily and national existence. And so, if our multi-racial society is to endure, it cannot be only because of the words and actions of 58 P.A.P. Members of Parliament. It must be the result of the collective will of every single man and woman in Singapore who believes that multi-racialism is the only rational way of life in the kind of society we have. We have, Mr Speaker, Sir, gone a long way to institutionalise multi-racialism as a way of life. We have rightly placed our emphasis on youth and education, based on the integration of the four language streams and the production of bilingual students. But languages are just media of communication, and by themselves do not serve to unite unless the content of education is infused with the values of our society. This involves more than just a change in the curricula to bring about a re-orientation of attitudes. Equally important, those who teach the curricula must understand and believe in the grand design. Please permit me, Mr Speaker, Sir, to cite a personal experience to illustrate my point.”
“For this will be the tangible verdict of the failure of this Parliament to cope adequately and effectively with the major problems outlined in precise and concise terms by the President of Singapore in his Speech on 6th May this year. Singapore, indeed all of Southeast Asia, is in a state of change so rapid as to awe even the historian. We live in a region where dramatic changes have been the order of the day since the last World War. There are powers which must, in the nature of things, calculate the direction which Singapore politics will take, within the context of their rivalry in Southeast Asia. Some of these not only have an interest in us but also possess both the will and the capacity to influence, in overt or, as is more likely, in subtle but tangible ways, the development of the region. What is required of this Parliament then is more than good and effective government which any electorate rightfully expects of its elected representatives. It has also to demonstrate in no uncertain manner to those at home and abroad, who wish us well or ill, that this Government and the people of Singapore have the determination and the ability to create a stable and enduring multi-racial nation in a troublous part of the Pacific Basin. Nine years of imaginative and constructive efforts have gone into the building of our prosperous multi-racial society. But economic prosperity cannot be our only goal. Singapore has throughout its history enjoyed high levels of prosperity, despite occasional setbacks. In the past, Singapore flourished even though the various races had relatively little to do with each other and certainly did not feel as the people of one nation.”
“The defeat of the communal parties would have demonstrated the futility of politics based on the narrow appeals of race and culture. The defeat of the Right-wing parties would have driven home the point that they have alienated themselves from the people of Singapore and have emasculated themselves by their own inadequacies. Finally, the defeat of the Communist front Barisan Sosialis would have revealed its degeneration as a political force due to rigid adherence to policies which have no relevance in the context of the present political situation. However, there are some people who feel that it seems somehow not right that the P.A.P. have all 58 seats. Under the system of parliamentary democracy such as we have inherited, it is possible for a political party to contest the elections and to lose every single seat, and equally for it to win every single seat. In 1963, we saw the Singapore People's Alliance lose every single seat it contested. Now, in 1968, we see the P.A.P. win every seat. It is not very likely that there will be another such Parliament, and the return of a political Opposition, preferably a bona fide democratic one, will be for the political welfare of Singapore. It will make Parliament a more lively and, certainly, a more abrasive place for its Members. But more important, it will ensure the institutionalisation of parliamentary democracy as a form of government. If the return of an Opposition is almost wholly or wholly a resurrection of Communist front parties, whether in the form of the Barisan Sosialis or other organisations guided by other variants of Communism, then Singapore will be moving into more difficult times.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, you preside over a Parliament that has seen major milestones in the political history of Singapore after every election. There have been many elections in Singapore beginning from 1948, when they were introduced to provide for the election of six Members to the Legislative Council. In 1955, general elections were held to provide for a partial transfer of power to the local people. In 1959, we had advanced sufficiently to have elections that provided for a substantial transfer of power to a wholly elected Legislative Assembly. The result of that general elections was a victory for the PAP. In September 1963, we as a party had already made Singapore history by being the only party ever to be returned to power twice. Recently, we created yet more records in being returned to power for a third term and in forming the first elected Government of a totally independent and sovereign Singapore. However, Mr Speaker, it is the current record that I wish to dwell upon for a few minutes, and this is the unique situation, both for Singapore and, indeed, for the practice of parliamentary democracy, that we the P.A.P. occupy every single seat in this Parliament. Nowhere else in the world where parliamentary democracy is practised has such a situation arisen. That this is the case is less the result of a choice by the electorate than the failure of opposition parties to provide a credible alternative to the P.A.P. It would have been in the national interest if we had had widely contested elections in which the support of the communal, Right-wing and pro-Communist parties could have been measured in quantitative terms. Perhaps they would not have lost every single seat, but I have no doubt that they would have suffered a decisive defeat.”