25 YEARS OF NATION BUILDING CELEBRATIONS

6.01 pm

Mr J.B. Jeyaretnam (Anson): Mr Speaker, Sir, I have claimed this right to speak on the Adjournment of today's sitting on a matter upon which there has been a lot of publicity, and that is, the celebrations for the so-called 25 years of nation building. A lot of euphoria has been created outside this House by the media, not only by the newspapers but also through TV, of the evolution of our society over the 25 years. But inside this House, there has been no debate at all as to the society that we have become as a result of these 25 years. I should have thought that somebody in the Government might have moved a motion that this House approved the evolution of the society that we have come into after 25 years of this so-called nation building. I think it is important that we here should take a hard look at the society that we are today after these 25 years of nation building before we get carried away by the euphoria that is being created outside this House. So I propose to spend the time that is available to me in this House to look at our society today.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I would rather speak of the society than of the nation because it is the society that we are concerned with. Nation is after all only a political unit of the human society, and society by its very term imports association or grouping of persons, individuals. So I would like to talk about the society that we are today rather than the nation that we are today.

We were, Mr Speaker, Sir - I need not remind you or the other Members of the House - before 1959 a colonial society. The question is: After 25 years of nation building, are we much better than we were in 1959 when we were a colonial society?

The Minister for Foreign Affairs and Minister for Culture (Mr S. Dhanabalan): Of course!

Mr Jeyaretnam: I hear Members saying it is obvious. But let us look at it. What is the society we have today, Mr Speaker, Sir? As I see it, we have a society which is becoming increasingly polarized and divided. We have not only the division created by wealth between the rich and the poor but there are other divisions. There is a greater gap now, as I see it and as others see it, between the rich and the poor in our society.

Mr Speaker, Sir, when I came into this House at the beginning of 1982, a number of Members in this House took umbrage at the statement that I had made to a foreign journalist about some people who may be starving in Singapore. But today in 1984, I see that the Government itself acknowledges the existence of a poverty trap in Singapore. There are families who are caught in this poverty trap and in the stories that were carried, following the announcement of the offer of $10,000 as an inducement to families to stop having any family beyond two children, there was the story of a family whose parents remarked that there were days when they merely drank water to appease their hunger because they just could not afford to have a square meal every day of the week. So there you have it, that there are families who go without meals in Singapore because there is not enough income to provide for themselves adequately, to maintain themselves and their children. There is this poverty trap. There is a substantial section of our population who are caught by this poverty trap. Have we done anything to ameliorate their condition or lift them up?

Quite apart from that, Mr Speaker, Sir, there is by the policies of this Government other divisions creeping in. We have now, or building up, a social hierarchy of class in this society of ours where none existed before. Now, Mr Speaker, Sir, it would appear that we have first-class citizens and we have second-class citizens. We are told that if you are a graduate you may be entitled to greater privileges than those who are not. So we are creating, by our very policies, this social hierarchy of a class system. And is that the society we want, a society that is going to be torn by class divisions, quite apart from a society where there is great inequality of wealth? This is coming about as a result of the social engineering that has been embarked upon by this Government which has been in power since 1959, and it is the achievements of this Government that our citizens have been asked to applaud and celebrate in the 25 years of nation building.

The social engineering has been explained as an economic necessity by the Prime Minister when he spoke in 1969, and I quote, Mr Speaker, Sir, what he said in this House at the passing of the Abortion Bill. He said [Hansard, Vol. 29i Col. 322]:

'Our problem is how to devise a system of disincentives, so that the irresponsible, the social delinquents, do not believe that all they have to do is to produce their children and the Government then owes them and their children sufficient food, medicine, housing, education and jobs. Until such time when moral inhibitions disappear and legislative or administrative measures can be taken to regulate the size of families, we must try to induce people to limit their families and give their children a better chance.'

This is social engineering of the highest degree, Mr Speaker, Sir. This is, as has been said, nothing unique. It has been tried before. We all know that something very much on these lines was said by Adolf Hitler in 1939. May I say what he said, and this is what he said:

'Since the inferior is always numerically superior to the best, the worst would multiply itself so much faster . . . given the same opportunity to survive and procreate . . . that the best would necessarily be pushed to the background. Therefore, a correction in favour of the better must be undertaken.'

This is what we are undertaking in this school admission policy programme that we have just implemented - a correction in favour of the better to correct this unbalanced pattern of procreation.

Mr Speaker, Sir, we all know from history what that "correction" mentioned by the gentleman that I have just read involved - the mass genocide of millions of people not of supposed Aryan stock and even of Aryan dissidents, Is that the road that we intend for our society in Singapore?

The Minister of State for Culture (Maj Fong Sip Chee): Mr Speaker, Sir, on a point of order. Would the hon. Member please quote the book from which he is reading? I cannot tell whether he is quoting from the book or it is his speech. Could he please quote the author?

Mr Jeyaretnam: I am quoting from a book published by INSAN - Institute for Social Analysis.

Maj Fong Sip Chee: Malaysian book?

Mr Jeyaretnam: Malaysian book, yes.

'if the notion that intelligence is primarily genetically determined is accepted, it then becomes only natural for some people to be more intelligent and therefore economically wealthier and politically more powerful than others, thus justifying the social hierarchy of class society. [This is the justification for the policy that we are pursuing.] This kind of argument also provides justification for the existence of inequality, poverty and a myriad other social problems.'

Maj Fong Sip Chee: Mr Speaker, Sir, I am thoroughly confused. Is the Member still quoting, or is it part of his speech?

Mr Jeyaretnam: Yes, don't worry. Yes.

'. . . then blamed on the people themselves rather than seen as the result of an inequitable and unjust social order.'

It is clearly applicable to us today, Mr Speaker, Sir. I read years ago a letter in the Time magazine by someone who had lived in Singapore for some years, and he said in that letter that the social engineering that has been carried out in Singapore is seldom seen outside the Communist countries. How do we go about this? Not only do we try to provide disincentives for some people whilst providing incentives for others, polarizing the society into different camps or groups, but we also hit at the children. We have streaming in primary schools, condemning our children at a very early age. Some, as we have been told, are late developers and it is difficult to determine whether a child will be able to advance or not at that tender age. But we must decide this at a very tender age at the Primary 3 stage. And what is the result of that? Those left out provide more fodder for our factories and for our building industries.

Quite apart from this social engineering and creation of a social hierarchy, there are the other attributes in our society today, or rather discerning marks of our society, which are very much questionable. We have become a society where the first rule would appear to be unquestioning obedience of Government and authority. I see that the Second Deputy Prime Minister (Foreign Affairs), Mr Rajaratnam, talking at the pre-university seminar not very long ago was lamenting the fact that people were protesting in Singapore at the proposal to raise the age for withdrawal of CPF savings from 55 to 60 or 65, and he was also lamenting that people were not happy about what they had been given. So what sort of a society do we want? We want a society that is divided into different camps. We want a society that will accept without any question. Is that the son of society that we are going to be proud of?

If I may mention, Sir, there is a growing helplessness of our citizens against the powers of the Government and the authorities. We are, Mr Speaker, Sir, a much abused people - I say this quite seriously - by our rulers who have taken over from our colonial masters. In what other society, Mr Speaker, Sir, do you find the Government acquiring properties from its citizens at 1973 prices and then, if the citizen tries to buy from the Government and he says, "What about selling it to me at the 1973 price?", he is told, "You go and tell that to the Marines. You buy it from us at today's price." Where do we find that except in a society where the needs of the people are completely ignored?

Everything in Singapore is organized. It would appear that there is no room for spontaneity. Is that the sort of people we want, people who are unable to do anything for themselves? Everything must be organized for them. It would appear that we cannot even have a football league without a Minister being in charge.

Mr Speaker, Sir, there is a new unit in the Government, which is the Social Development Unit. We have not seen much of the creation of this unit in our papers but it has found its way into the foreign press. It would appear that this unit has been set up by the Government to act as a marriage broker ---

Mr S. Dhanabalan: What is wrong with that?

Mr Jeyaretnam: --- to bring graduate men and women together. Why is it necessary in a society for the Government to interfere, to invade purely personal relations of its people?

Mr Speaker: Mr Jeyaretnam, your 20 minutes are up, Mr Ong Teng Cheong.

The Minister without Portfolio (Mr Ong Teng Cheong): Mr Speaker, Sir, I think the Member for Anson has just wasted 20 minutes of our time. I thought the Member was going to talk about 25 Years of Nation Building Celebrations. Except for the first one or two minutes of his speech, he has strayed away to other topics of his choice. He is confused. That is his choice. I have only 10 minutes. I shall stick to the subject of 25 Years of Nation Building Celebrations.

Singapore, under the rule of the PAP, has made much progress in many fields in the last 25 years. The people of Singapore, the workers of Singapore, have every reason to look to the past with pride because they have contributed to Singapore's success. Every Singaporean knows that all these are the achievements of the people of Singapore under the leadership of the PAP since 1959. It is, therefore, fitting that Singaporeans celebrate 25 years of nation building. Singaporeans are proud of the achievements. We are proud to be Singaporeans. Obviously, the Member for Anson is not proud of what Singaporeans have achieved. He is not proud of Singaporeans. He sees no cause for celebration. Of course, he is entitled to his view and he need not have to take part in the celebrations if he does not feel inclined to do so.

The 25 Years of Nation Building Celebrations began with an SBC show at the City Hall on 2nd June, 1984. It was a night of the people. More than 40,000 assembled on the Padang to join in the Celebration. Some members of the crowd were interviewed after the show, and this is what they have to say, as reported in the Sunday Times on 3rd June, 1984. From a Mr Perumal Nagesan. I quote:

'Singapore is such a small country but we have achieved so much. We are proud to be citizens and be able to contribute and be part of this nation building.'

From a Mrs Kartar Kaur, she said:

'25 years is a short time for a country to achieve so much. At least sitting at the padang and celebrating with the thousands make us feel more a part of this show.'

And from a Mr William Ng, he said:

'Every cent that has been spent on this show is worth it. What we have achieved is our nation's pride. Just look around you, and you will see the progress we have made. It certainly calls for celebration.'

Sir, these are just samples of what the people of Singapore have to say about the 25 Years of Nation Building Celebrations.

Singapore lacks many natural attributes connected with nationhood: one race, more or less; one language, one culture, one religion, like the Japanese, British, German, French and so on. Their people have shared the past. They are sharing the present and they are expected to share the future. They have, what historians call, the "social glue" which makes many a people a nation, a people who share that sense of common destiny.

Singaporeans have no shared past. We have only a brief shared presence, a quarter of a century of nation building. We are building one people out of a heterogeneous race brought about by the accident of our colonial past. Despite adverse circumstances and lack of natural attributes, we have succeeded. Our shared success has arisen because of our shared commitment in Singapore. Our future success depends on our continuing to share this commitment. We love Singapore. Singapore is our homeland. This is where we belong.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Do they?

Mr Ong Teng Cheong: We will defend Singapore. This is our responsibility. No one else is responsible for our security. We will not be cowed by bullies.

Sir, during the last Budget debate, the Member for Anson asked; 'If the Russian navy came in full steam ahead, saying across its bow, "Singapore, here we come", what could we do?' He said that one has to be realistic. It is not difficult to guess what he means. Surrender. Kowtow. He also advised that if there is someone in front of you who is very strong, who is a giant, we should keep off his path and try to be friendly. It is all in the Hansard. If this is the way Singaporeans respond to challenges, then we will not be celebrating Singapore's nation building or National Day in the future. Is this what the Member for Anson is hoping to achieve?

Sir, despite our small size, we have made life in Singapore pleasant and attractive. We have converted Singapore from a scruffy town into a litter-free Garden City. Our cultural diversity enables us to enjoy a wide range of cuisine, a variety not found in many countries. We have also enjoyed an essentially crime-free environment where our women-folk can go out or return home late at night without fear. We have excellent port facilities. We have a beautiful airport. We are constructing the MRT. We have an efficient and honest Government and a hard-working people. Besides land transport, our coastline gives excellent opportunities for water sports and recreation, and so on. These achievements and attributes are what make Singaporeans happy and proud to be Singaporeans. Therefore, Singapore is worth defending. We want to keep our heritage and our way of life, not to surrender and kow tow.

Our success in nation building is based on multi-racial harmony, meritocracy, social conscience, fair sharing, efficient Government and willingness to stand up for ourselves. Singapore will continue to progress and succeed and will achieve greater heights if more Singaporeans are willing to spend time to look after not only their personal and family interests but also national and community affairs. The 25 Years of Nation Building Celebrations is much more than just a series of festivities. It is a call to all Singaporeans to come forward and serve the nation. It is a time to celebrate. It is also a time to stand up for Singapore.

Question put, and agreed to.

Resolved,

That Parliament do now adjourn,

Adjourned accordingly at Half-past Six o'clock pm to Monday, 2nd July, 1984.