SEARCH FOR SOCIETAL VALUES FOR SINGAPORE

4.30 pm

Mr Jeyaretnam: Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I make no apology for detaining Members for another half an hour after a long and arduous sitting of this House. I say I make no apology, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, because of the importance of the matter that I wish to raise, and that is, of course, the first objective outlined in the President's Address to this House on the 25th February.

The first objective set out in the President's Address was "to reach an accord on the character of the society people desire, and involve the young in working towards its achievement".

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, we have had two weeks of debate in this House where we have examined various programmes of this Government. But superimposed and standing over all programmes and policies of the Government is the one important question, and that is, the character of the society people desire. Put in other words, Sir, the values we cherish for our society in Singapore. It is on the values that we hold as a society in Singapore that we then decide on the various programmes and policies. So the values for us as a society must come first. There must be agreement on the values of our society. What are these values to be? Are they to be Asian values or are they to be Western values? I shall be referring to the Prime Minister's speech in reply to the amendment I moved to the President's Address. He seemed to see it as a contest between Asian values and Western values. It will be my endeavour to show that he is wrong in seeing like that.

The question remains, what are to be our values for us as a society? So I bring this up this evening, Sir, to urge that we devote our attention to finding for our society the values that we cherish for our people. We have heard from the First Deputy Prime Minister, after the elections, of the machinery that will be set up to provide feedback to the Government and to provide dialogue.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, we have had two weeks in this House but we have not had very much time to examine the values, and my fear is that, after this debate, we will perhaps abandon the search for values. If past experience is anything to go by, Sir, after the Budget session, Parliament does not meet again for the next three or four months. But debate cannot just be centred in Parliament. Debate must take place outside Parliament, and this is where I want an assurance from the First Deputy Prime Minister. I am sorry that the Prime Minister is not here to reply to this because he has brought this starkly into focus, when he replied to my amendment. I want to know whether enough opportunities will be provided for this dialogue in our search for the values for our society.

It is because of the importance of determining what values we cherish for our society that 1, in my speech on the Address of Thanks to the President, dwelt not on any particular programme or policy of the Government, but directed my thoughts to spelling out what I thought should be the values for our society. The Prime Minister replied to that at length. I am afraid, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I do not have the Hansard with me, but I have with me the Straits Times for the 2nd March which reported his speech at some length. On the front page, the Straits Times says "The young face crucial choice". And then it quoted:

'I am asking the younger generation to ask themselves what makes Singapore work. Are you wise in tossing overboard fixed, settled values which are part of our culture, of our ethos, for principles and theories of government espoused in the West which are not part of our culture, not part of our system?,

It is perhaps unfortunate that the Prime Minister, after exhorting the generation to decide wisely, did not go on to spell out, in that one hour that he had, what were the values that his Government was advocating for our people as a society. As I said, he seems to see it as a choice between Asian values and Western values. Well, I do not see it like that. The Prime Minister went on to say that the battle was on for the minds of the younger generations. The Prime Minister was right that this is a question of great importance, of great magnitude, at the moment. What are the values that we wish to adopt as a society?

Because the Prime Minister did not go on to ask the questions and to give the answers in his speech, I called a press conference after that, and I posed a number of questions. The press did not carry my questions when they reported my press conference. So I wrote to the Straits Times a letter on the 4th March 1985 asking what I thought were pertinent questions, asking the Prime Minister if he would answer them. That letter never saw the light of day in the Straits Times. Instead, I had a letter to say, "We are very sorry. We can't publish your letter but please keep writing", or something like that. May I say, in passing, that I have another letter which has gone to the Straits Times and which has not yet seen the light of day. Probably, tomorrow I will have another letter saying, "We cannot publish your letter but please keep writing."

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the questions that I asked in this press conference were as follows:

(1) What theory of government do we now have and which was accepted in 1958 when the Prime Minister was part of the political scene?

(2) What system of law do we now have in Singapore?

(3) What is his ideal of justice if he rejects the ideal of justice of the Common law, which is justice based on the Rule of Law?

(4) Does he think that our present system of government and system of law are not suitable for us as a society? If they are not suitable, with what theory of government and system of law does he propose to replace them?

I asked these questions, Sir, because, as I read out, the Prime Minister was saying, "Are you wise in tossing overboard fixed, settled values which are pan of our culture, of our ethos, for principles and theories of government espoused in the West which are not part of our culture, not part of our system?" The burden of the Prime Minister's speech was that I was advocating something which is quite alien to us, and that we should stick to Asian values, and he referred to 4,000 years of history.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the values that I have been trying to advocate are values that recognize the dignity of the human being, that do not treat the human being as a unit, a numeral unit, but as a human being endowed by his creator with qualities, god-like qualities if I may say so. And it is around that I say that we should build up our idea of man and the society that we should have for us in Singapore. And so, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, it is important that our people do know, it must be put quite clearly to them, what kind of society does the Prime Minister and the Government have for us in Singapore. What is their idea of society? What is their understanding of man as a human being?

The Prime Minister, before the elections, in this House talked about amending the Constitution to provide for certain executive powers to the President. I said that we would oppose it, and we would oppose it if it was ever brought about. Well, we have not heard anything after the elections about this proposal. But on polling day, the Prime Minister again mentioned about the need, as he saw it, to consider changing the system by which we elected Members into Parliament, the first-past-the-post system. After that, we have not heard anything. I would urge the Government that they should not remain silent on all these issues now. But that all these issues be brought out now openly to the public, for public discussion.

I would like to know what opportunities will be provided for our people to engage in this search for common values for us as a society. It must be values that are accepted by all of us in Singapore, not values dictated to us by a minority, but values that are understood and cherished by every single member of this society that we make in Singapore. So my appeal is that we should not let it rest after making these pronouncements but that the Government should now set about immediately on the task of reaching in the words of the first objective in the President's Address, "an accord on the character of the society people desire."

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, since there was no response to my appeal at the press conference for a public debate on the values for us as a society, we have decided to take the lead ourselves. We propose to call a public meeting on the 1st of May, Labour Day, at the Foochow Association Hall in Tyrwhitt Road. We have applied to the - now I think it comes under the Police - Public Entertainments Unit for a permit to hold this meeting. I want to know from the Minister for Home Affairs whether this permit will be granted because we would like our Singaporeans to come and engage in debate on the kind of society they would like to see in Singapore. So I hope we will have no difficulty whatsoever in obtaining this permit for this meeting on the 1st of May.

More important than that, I do ask the Government to provide the opportunities for this debate so that everyone can take part and we can reach agreement and then we can all work towards this common goal.

We have heard about visions of societies and we have been told that it can only be a vision if it is a vision that is shared by everybody. We in the Workers' Party want every citizen in Singapore to share in this vision, to feel that he has a part in it and that it is his own vision and not a vision that is imposed on him. I do not want to impose my idea of a society, my vision of a society, on the people of Singapore. All I want to do, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, is to engage all our people in this common search.

The First Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Defence (Mr Goh Chok Tong): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the Member for Anson has spent about 20 minutes. I expected him to talk about his values of the society which he would like us to have. Instead he has gone on and on without elaborating on the kind of society which he would like to have. And I think the whole purpose of his long speech was simply to ask whether we would grant him a permit to hold a rally. I have not consulted the Minister for Home Affairs to check whether there is any security objections. But I can tell the Member for Anson that since this is a topic which he wants to discuss with his members and with members of the public, I would support the application for a permit to discuss the values of our society.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, we may be a young nation, 25 years if we measure It from 1959, 19 years from 1965, but we are not a nation born out of nothing. We brought with us when we became independent values from where we came from. The Chinese had their values from China the Indians from India, and the Malays from Malaya. We did not start from a barren desert. There are values in our society. But our worry is whether the values which our parents cherish, which we cherish, will be there in the future.

It is not just the divorce rates which concern us, which is a manifestation of whether we are able to retain our traditional values, or whether we are now opting for undesirable Western values. I think the more important rate which we have got to examine closely is the one which is close to the heart of many Members over here, the rate of abortion. If the rate of abortion is high amongst our young, what kind of future do you think our young will live in? Will they cherish the basic unit which is the family unit, which we all know is the basic building block for our society? If the young, the teenagers, go in for abortions and repeated abortions, I think we have got to fear for their future. Would the family unit remain intact? If the family unit does not remain intact and there is no close relationship between son, daughter, parents, brothers, sisters, friends, then would we have the kind of society we want? So these are concerns, not just of the Prime Minister, these are concerns of the Members of Parliament, the leaders of Singapore.

Mr Jeyaretnam: And every citizen.

Mr Goh Chok Tong: And every citizen, as the Member for Anson says. It is a matter which concerns every citizen.

Mr Jeyaretnam: That is what I am saying.

Mr Goh Chok Tong: The Member for Anson talked about dignity of human beings. Never in the last three or four years since December 1981 have I heard him talk about the duty and responsibility of the individual. A human being has got certain rights but he also brings with him certain duties and responsibilities to society. In other words, the emphasis is not just on the individual. It is on the larger unit, the individual's obligations to society. If the Member places so much emphasis on the dignity of the individual, so much respect for the individual, as a Member of Parliament, he should set a prime example as all of us should do. He should, for example, not use innuendoes to smear innocent people outside this House - Mr Howe Yoon Chong and a Howe family.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I thought this would come up, without the Minister attempting to answer or reply to the points that I made. I do not know when Ministers of this Government will learn that they have a responsibility and a duty to lay bare all facts on any decision made by the Government and which is questioned in this House. There is no question of any smear or innuendo, unless the Minister has a guilty conscience about it. All we have to do is to ask him a question and he has got to lay bare all facts. There is no question of any smear or innuendoes.

Mr Goh Chok Tong: Sir, I do not think we should be side-tracked into this.

Mr Jeyaretnam: You started it.

Mr Goh Chok Tong: All I want to say is, if the Member for Anson does not believe that he has smeared innocent people -

Mr Jeyaretnam: I have not smeared. I am asking questions.

Mr Goh Chok Tong: If it is not defamatory or libellous, then he should repeat such innuendoes outside this House.

An hon. Member: Repeat it outside.

Another hon. Member: Yes, repeat it outside.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Repeat it outside! Repeat it outside!

Mr Goh Chok Tong: Coming back to values, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the choice is not between eastern values and western values.

Mr Jeyaretnam: That is what the Prime Minister said.

Mr Goh Chok Tong: Again I am afraid Members of the Opposition, as manifested by the Member for Anson now, tend to distort and misinterpret the Prime Minister's words.

Mr Jeyaretnam: What did he say here?

Mr Goh Chok Tong: It is not a stark choice between eastern values and western values. It is a rejection of western values or eastern values which are undesirable.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Thank you.

Mr Goh Chok Tong: I can quote examples to the Member for Anson of western values which we must check, which we must toss overboard. And these values are the emphasis on self: me first, you last; me first, society second; the trend towards promiscuity, fun loving, free loving, kind of society. Those are values which we do not want to have. The values which we want to have are traditional values, values which bind us together as a cohesive society. We started off as a multi-racial society. Each one has got his own culture, his own language, his own religion. So what values do we want to have to ensure that we remain as such? These are values of tolerance, respect for each other's religion, respect for each other's language. We do not force Malays to speak Mandarin at home, neither do we force Chinese to speak Tamil at home. These are values of respect and tolerance for one another which we must continue to uphold in Singapore. They are part of the characteristics of our society. They are part of our character, a tolerant, disciplined, individual in a tolerant disciplined society. These are the values which we talk about.

The Member for Anson wants to have a discussion on this. I am not sure whether we welcome that. But we certainly welcome a discussion with members of the public.

Mr Jeyaretnam: You cannot argue with me.

Mr Goh Chok Tong: I doubt whether it is wise for us to sit down and discuss with him because based on the experience over here, I have found the exchange not worth while. But the important point is that we want to create the opportunities to discuss this matter, to strike an accord with citizens, with Singaporeans. I think this is what we must do.

What are the avenues? Besides the RCs, CCCs, we could have formal or informal exchanges. If Members like, and I am here addressing myself at Members other than Opposition Members, we can have a dicussion on TV. In fact, if the Member for Anson insists on having a debate, as he is insisting now, I think we can have Members here who may enjoy sitting down with him on a panel and discuss values over television. The Member for Queenstown is shaking his head. He does not want to be seen discussing with the Member for Anson. But it is a serious point. We want to reach out and discuss with all citizens on this.

The Question having been proposed at half-past Four o'clock pm and the Debate having continued for half an hour, Mr Deputy Speaker adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned accordingly at Five o'clock pm to a date to be fixed.