PARLIAMENTARY OPPOSITION (Motion)

Mr Deputy Speaker: This motion is subject to signification of support by at least one Member. Does the motion have the support of any other hon. Member?

Mr Chiam See Tong: Yes.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir. This motion in my name seeks to examine the intentions of this Government towards the political progress of this country.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Point of order. Mr Jeyaretnam, will you move your motion first?

Mr Jeyaretnam: All right, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir. I beg to move,

'That this House regrets the obstructionist attitude of this Government to the growth of a genuine Parliamentary Opposition in Singapore in accordance with the will of the electorate.'

Sir, as I said, this motion seeks to examine the Government's intentions towards the political progress in this country. Whether we are to progress towards a viable democracy founded on the rule of law and on the supremacy of Parliament or whether we are to progress to some other kind of democracy a'la People's Action Party.

Sir, it concerns the constitutional rights and the liberties and the freedoms of our people. And it is as well to remind ourselves in this House this afternoon that this is not the first time that this question has been raised. This question was raised in 1956, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, when we did not have a Parliament, we had a Legislative Assembly. And there was a Member in the Assembly, who was not sitting on the Government Benches, who was sitting where we are now sitting (my colleague from Potong Pasir and 1) on the Opposition Bench. And he was raising the very questions that I am raising now in this House. May I read, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, what he then said in 1956, and I read from Part I of the Official Report of the First Legislative Assembly, Second Session, for the sitting on the 4th October 1956. This is what he said:

'You take over the organisation [he is referring to the Government that had taken over from the colonial powers) of the colonial power, the government machinery, the instruments of policy- the administration,the police, broadcasting and all the "gimmicks" of a modern colonial State. Then you use this machinery with the connivance and concurrence of your colonial masters against rival organisations. It is easier than building up an organisation of your own. All you have to do is to dissolve organisations and societies and banish or detain the key political workers in these societies. Then miraculously everything is tranquil and quiet - on the surface. Then an intimidated Press and some sections of the Press here do not need intimidation because they have very friendly owners - the Press and the Government-controlled radio together can regularly sing your praises and slowly and steadily the people are made to forget the evil things that have already been done. Or if these things are referred to again, they are conveniently distorted, and distorted with impunity, because there will be no opposition to contradict it. It has happened before in Asia. It happened in China and lndo-China. First, you knock out your opponents who compete with you, peacefully and constitutionally, because they are more vigorous, because you cannot compete with them, because they are better organised than you are. When everything becomes peaceful and tranquil, complacency sets in, and degeneration begins.' [Vol. 2, col. 3231

Before he sat down, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, he ended with these words:

'But if we say that we believe in democracy, if we say that the fabric of a democratic society is one which allows the free play of ideas, which avoids revolution by violence because revolution by peaceful methods of persuasion is allowed, then, in the name of all the gods that we have in this country, give that free play a chance to work within the constitutional framework. If you do not, then you will face outright opposition, an armed revolt, and eventually an armed victory. Then the whole social fabric of this society will collapse.' [Vol. 2, col. 3281

Those words, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, were uttered in 1956 and, if the new Members of this House are wondering who the Member was, let me tell them that in less than three years after he uttered those words, he found himself the Prime Minister of this country. And he has continued to remain as the Prime Minister to this day. You may well ow has he done this?" The answer is quite simple. There he outlined the steps that should be taken. The difference is that this Government did it far more ruthlessly and efficiently than the colonial government did it, to silence its critics and to do away with any constitutional opposition to it.

An hon Member: How come you are here?

Mr Jeyaretnam: Yes, in spite of all that, I am here because of one thing, may I remind Members of the House, because of the spirit of the people, and the spirit of the voters in Anson. I have paid tribute to them and I will pay tribute again to those voters in Anson.

The Minister for Foreign Affairs and Minister for Community Development (Mr S. Dhanabalan): It is because we have an honest system.

Mr Jeyaretnam: That was not the only protest that the Member was making in those days. He was loud with his protests against all the restrictions that were placed on the constitutional rights, on the freedoms and liberties of the people. He was the quintessence of the champion of the liberties of the people.

Sir, on the 24th November, 1955, in the Legislative Assembly, he was complaining about thought control at the University. On the 21st April 1955, he was complaining about the Police refusing him to allow public meetings after 7.00 pm at night. The Police had no objections to him having his public meetings in the day time. But they said, "No meetings after 7.00 pm." And so he was raising a big protest about that. I am sorry he is not here. I had hoped he would be here to reply to this motion.

In 1966, in an interview that he gave to correspondents of three foreign newspapers, he said this:

'One of the basic ingredients of democracy was the ability to change governments and policy without revolution. If we succeed, we must eventually create a situation in which there is a viable, intelligent, noncommunist alternative.'

I come now to the operative words, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir.

'This is the real test of whether my colleagues and I succeed or fail, not economically, but politically, in creating a viable democracy.'

There, in 1966, the Prime Minister was outlining what was the real test for him and his colleagues, the creation of a viable democracy. And it is sad, Mr Deputy Speaker, to have to say today that in this, this Government has abysmally failed, the test that the Prime Minister set for himself and his colleagues in 1966. It is ironic, Sir, that after 25 years of rule by this Government, there is still a question mark about the succession to this Government and about where the leadership is going to come from. Does that not speak volumes that this Government which took over in 1959, and which was going to prepare the people for a viable democracy had not prepared them? All they produced were people who could only say yes. They stamped out Opposition. They stamped out anybody who dared to stand up and question them. And so we are in this state today, without an alternative leadership because of the policies of this Government. Sir, I could go on and on, regaling Members of this House of what the Member said in those days.

I have raised this motion this afternoon, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, because the time has now come for this Government to declare its stand. What is its stand towards the political direction of this country? I say this, Sir, in all sincerity because of the convolutions and the somersaults and the twistings we have had from this Government, from the time it took power in 1959, on the whole question of the political direction of this country.

There, in 1956, 1966, it was quite clear as to what was the desirable state for Singapore to pursue, but things changed. Obviously, the Member thought otherwise after he became the Prime Minister of Singapore, after we came out of Malaysia. After 1966, this Government lost no time in suppressing all forms of constitutional Opposition. And as he said in 1956, he knew exactly what to do, what was necessary to see that he would retain power.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, have we seen the classic illustration of the aphorism by that celebrated historian Lord Acton that, "Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely." No thoughts of democracy, no thoughts of rights of the people, once you find yourself in power and you begin to enjoy the feeling of power that you have. This Government did the very thing which they sought to condemn in the colonial government and in the government that succeeded the colonial government in 1955, the first partially elected legislature and partially elected government. But as I said, they did it very much more efficiently and totally.

The press were soon brought under their control. The trade unions were stood on their heads, as Hitler did when he came to power. The Government organizations, the Police, the Special Branch, the ISD, were made to work to further the aims of this Party in power. And so whilst there was on the registration book of the Registrar of Societies something like 14 regis- tered political Parties, the political Parties were not given any opportunity or chance to build up a consensus of views from Singaporeans that might be in any way critical of the Government or might pose a different view from the Government.

Sir, I could tell you about the difficulties that the Opposition Parties have suffered. I have said this outside. Whilst the People's Action Party had no problems about premises, about funds, the Opposition Parties were left without any opportunities to build themselves up, to represent another point of view, and all this was done subtly through the use of force and intimidation by this Government. We could not get any premises for ourselves because people were frightened. They were frightened about the consequences of being identified with an Opposition Party or seen to be helping an Opposition Party. We could not get any funds because nobody would dare give any money. "Oh, the Government will come down on us if we so much as gave you one cent."

This fear was also brought about by the numbering on the ballot papers, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir. I know that the ballot papers are numbered because of the British practice. But was it in 1977 or so, it was pointed out by our present Ambassador to the United States, Prof. Tommy Koh, that there was a real irrational fear among our population that if they should vote against the People's Action Party, they would be found out and they would be victimized. A government which was sincerely interested in building up a viable democracy would have done away with the numbering of the ballot papers, because the numbering of the ballot papers was not going to help anybody. But not this Government. For one good reason, because the numbering of the ballot papers helped the PAP to maintain itself in power. I do not know who started the rumour, but there was the rumour that the Government which was thought to be omniscient, omnipotent, would know how people had voted.

An hon. Member: You believe them?

Mr Jeyaretnam: So this rumour served the PAP very well. It was even resorted to, may I remind Members, in the last election in Anson by people who wanted to see the PAP returned to power in Anson. A whispering campaign was going on. "Don't forget, my friend, that the ballot paper is numbered."

In the 1972 elections, the first time that I stood as a candidate for the Workers' Party, there seemed a possibility that there might be some serious challenge to this Government. A monstrous lie was put out through a PAP candidate in the general elections that the Workers' Party had got $600,000 from Malaysia. This was a monstrous lie, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, and it was broadcast over radio and carried in the press. Then we had all the statements about Opposition Parties being proxies of foreign powers. All this was done whilst lip service was being paid to the idea of a parliamentary democracy, a viable democracy with an Opposition. I remember, and I have said this once in this House some time ago, in 1972 on polling night, the Prime Minister came over TV and he was almost tearful that there was no one elected from the Opposition. And he said he was going to create University Seats because he thought an Opposition was essential if we were going to have a viable democracy. So while you had lip service on the one hand, you had action on the other. "Stamp them out," that was the order to the ISD, to the Police, to everybody.

Then we had statements about what would happen if the Opposition were to get in, even if one Opposition Member were to be elected into Parliament. We had fanciful statements. There was the statement made by our ex-President when he was a candidate, I think, for the PAP about Vietnamese troops marching down the length of Malaysia if one Opposition Member were to be elected into Parliament.

Then in spite of all this, as I said, in 1981, 31st October 1981, in the by-election, the Anson voters decided that things had gone far enough, that they had to call a halt at whatever cost to them and they decided that for the sake of Singapore's future, there had to be an Opposition Member in Parliament, And so they elected an Opposition Member into Parliament.

How did this Government react? This Government which had paid lip service to the idea of a parliamentary Opposition. It went into tantrums. The Prime Minister said that Opposition was irrelevant for good government. "We did not need an Opposition in Singapore." His then Second Deputy Prime Minister made similar statements and said, "We are going to get Anson back." Some hope they had!

One of the rules of democracy, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, is that you respect the choice of the electors. That is democracy. You have an election and the people elect a person of their own choice. Then you accept that election and you respect the decision of the electors. Did this Government, with its statements about wanting a democracy, respect the choice of Anson voters after 1981? No. It behaved like a child whose toy had been snatched away from it. Overnight, the rules for residents' committees were changed so that -

An hon. Member: Rubbish!

Mr Jeyaretnam: Rubbish? Well, I will prove it to you. You ask the officer in the Prime Minister's Office whether it was not changed overnight. It was changed so as to keep the Opposition Member out of the Residents' Committees, not that I wanted to, but the rules were changed. Then the members of the Management Committees of the Community Centres and the Citizens' Consultative Committees were told, "You are not to have anything to do with the Opposition MP."

I had to wait eight months before I could get my office in the Constituency. Before my election, the PAP Member of Parliament had his office. And as I said it once before, I was told, "No, you can't have that. We have given it to somebody else." I understand from my colleague, the Member for Potong Pasir, that he is still waiting for his office.

There was the National Day Dinner that was organized in my Constituency in 1982 or was it 1983. One would have thought that the people's representative from Anson would have been invited. No. As an insult to the people of Anson, the then Second Deputy Prime Minister - I see he was opening an animal hospital yesterday, I was glad to see that he is well - was the Guest-of-Honour. And he talked to the people present, people who were more or less forced to attend the dinner, because the Anson residents were not going to have anything to do with it. He gave them a lecture on what the PAP was going to do about recapturing Anson. So this went on. Not only was the Opposition MP denied outside but in Parliament, an attempt was made to try and get him off the rails. When all this failed, when they saw that all this was not going to get them anywhere, the Government decided that perhaps it was time to change, not because of any genuine change of heart but because they felt that the policy that they were carrying out was not going to help them in any way.

We were told by the Prime Minister that there was a conversion, that he and his Senior Ministers decided that perhaps - this was 18 months or so after the Anson voters elected the first Opposition MP into Parliament - it was a good thing for Singapore to have an Opposition. But what was he saying in 1956? What was he saying in 1966? But at least he was truthful enough to say that he decided, 18 months after 31st October 1981, to change his mind about the Opposition. But was it a genuine change? Was this Government really interested in building up a constitutional Opposition so that Singapore may become a viable democracy? Or was it further intrigue, further play-acting by this Government to somehow hold on to power? I ask this because the Government came up with this ingenuous idea, first for Singapore, of having non-constituency MPs elected into Parliament. If anything was hypocritical, I say this is, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir. It was quite clear that the Government was not interested in the emergence of a constitutional Opposition. What the Government was interested in was in a form of Opposition which could be managed and controlled by the Government. But very luckily for Singapore, the people of Singapore saw through this intrigue, saw that this was a phoney Opposition that the PAP Government was planning for them and they rejected it. They returned two Opposition Members into Parliament, not through the non- constituency method, but through direct elections.

There is so much talk, Sir, about the present Opposition in Singapore not accepting the fundamentals of our society, about the need to defend Singapore. All this is a sort of smokescreen. I am asking the Government now: do you accept the fundamentals of a truly democratic state in Singapore? I would ask the Government to declare its stand now, whether or not it is for a truly democratic state in Singapore.

Along with the non-constituency MP idea, the Prime Minister said in this House that his Government was considering amending the Constitution to give the President certain executive powers because of an imaginary fear that if another government got into office they might spend all the reserves. I asked him then whether any proposed change would be referred to the people in a referendum and he said he might consider it. Well, I would like an answer now without any equivocation, whether the Government intends to go ahead with its move to amend the Constitution to give the President powers, limited though they may be. Let us not have any shilly-shallying on this. Let us have clear answers, direct answers. If that is the intention, may I ask whether it will be referred to the people in a referendum or is it the Government's intention to introduce a Bill in this House without a referendum?

Then, at the end of the elections in 1984, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, when the Government realized that all that it had done to try and keep off Opposition Members had failed, when all its intrigues and all its devices to keep off Opposition Members from Parliament had failed, we had the Prime Minister going into a rage after the polling results were declared, saying that it was time that the one-man-one-vote system was looked at for us to consider whether there should be any change. I ask now of this Government to say here and now without any further hesitation: are you going to do anything to tinker with this one-man-one-vote system? I would ask the Government to come out into the open. You cannot keep these things to yourself. And if that is the intention, would it be referred also to the people in a referendum?

I see that the Prime Minister went abroad to announce that he had persuaded his Cabinet Ministers to accept an amendment to the Constitution to give the President some powers. May I know if that is true, if that is the case, that the Cabinet has accepted this?

Then after the 1984 elections, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, we had many statements from the Government Ministers that I have found it very difficult to follow them in this maze of statements that have been uttered. There was the President's hope at the swearing-in of the Cabinet Ministers that the Government and the Opposition would engage in a meaningful dialogue. I have not seen any evidence of this from the Government benches.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the First Deputy Prime Minister speaking to community leaders on 8th February, 1985, said this - I am quoting from a letter written by his Senior Parliamentary Secretary to me on 20th April 1985:

'Our attitude towards the Opposition will depend on the Opposition themselves. If an Opposition sets out to topple the Government through instigations, agitations, distortions, half-truths, unfounded rumours, then surely we cannot be expected to stand by with folded arms. We have got to react and to come down very hard on them. But if the Opposition is constructive and challenges us with constructive ideas, policies, then we must give them a chance, We must listen to them because they might have some ideas which we can borrow and implement. Let us contest on ideas, on policies. [I say Amen to that.] Who have better ideas and who have better people in implementing good ideas?

The contest of ideas must take place not only in Parliament but also in the constituencies. If an MP preaches a certain policy, for example, if he is against our fining people for littering, for inconsiderate parking and driving, then we should perhaps waive the implementation of such rules in his constituency, He believes in that. The people have voted him. Let us take an enlightened approach. Let us implement what he wants to do in his constituency. If an MP, whether he is a PAP MP or Opposition MP, argues for a race circuit for hell-drivers, well, let us put the race track in the MP's constituency. He wants it. No other MPs want it. Put it in his constituency and let it go round and round his particular constituency.'

These were the words spoken by the First Deputy Prime Minister. As I have said before, I do not want a racing circuit in Anson. What I want, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, are classrooms for conducting classes for students from poor families, not classrooms for students to be taught revolutionary songs or Communist songs. I say this, Sir, because from time to time we have heard from the Government an insinuation that in those days somehow Parties, other than the PAP, were responsible for the riots in 1955 and 1956. There was talk about wild men in those days and do we want to go back to those wild years. But let me lay that ghost to rest here. I see there was a full-scale debate in the Legislative Assembly following the riots and there, the PAP was accused of being at the back of all the riots, not the Prime Minister personally, but that Members of his Party were behind it. So I hope we shall not hear any more about wild men in 1955, 1956, creating trouble. And we do not want to go back to those days.

Now, as I said, I have asked for classrooms and do I get them? In spite of the First Deputy Prime Minister saying, "Well, if they have got something constructive, we will help them. We will let them do what they want." I get a reply from the People's Association to say, "You can't have the classrooms. You can't have the conference rooms for meetings." I asked for the rooms for the Anson Council that I had formed. I then wrote again to the First Deputy Prime Minister asking him for clarification of the statement made by his Parliamentary Secretary that community centres are Government properties and no MP can do what he likes with them. Well, I have not had a reply to that yet, except to say that the People's Association would be replying to me.

The question is this: are you going to put obstacles in the way of the Opposition MPs attempting to do anything in their own constituencies? If you are, then what does one make of the First Deputy Prime Minister's statement on the 8th February 1985 to community leaders? Was that all mere mumbo jumbo, not intended to be carried out? This is why I have raised this question, not as an academic exercise, because I am almost desperate in trying to understand what the Government's policy is towards a constitutional Opposition. So, I repeat, please declare your stand now, unequivocally. What is it that you stand for? Are you saying that all Opposition Parties are instigators and agitators? Are you making that allegation against the present Opposition Parties? If so, come out with it, and bring the evidence.

I must carry on, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, because I see time is running on. On the 1st of May at a meeting for trade unions, attended by about 1,000 people, the First Deputy Prime Minister was thinking aloud about the social unrest in Singapore that had been noted by an American company, the Business Environment Risk Information. The First Deputy Prime Minister tried to explain what was the cause of this social unrest that was noted by this company. And he said, "Could it be the loss of Anson in a by-election to the Workers' Party in 1981?" May I ask the First Deputy Prime Minister to say in this House what is it that he is trying to say in that? Because I do not understand it. Neither do the people of Singapore understand it. Is the First Deputy Prime Minister saying that there is social unrest in Singapore because Anson voters elected an Opposition Member into Parliament in 1981? Are you saying that there is social unrest in Singapore because in 1984, the voters in Anson and Potong Pasir elected Opposition Members? Because if you are saying that, Mr First Deputy Prime Minister, I am saying to you that you are completely out of touch with reality. So will you please explain your stand?

It should be quite clear to the Government and this motion assumes that - that the people of Singapore want to see the growth of a genuine constitutional Opposition in Singapore. That is quite evident. It is quite evident that the people of Singapore have grown up, as was noted by a foreign observer commenting on the 1984 Election results. The question is this: has this Government grown up? Is this Government mature enough to accept a constitutional Opposition? Or is it so insecure? I ask you, are you so insecure that you are afraid of any Opposition? It is as plain as that, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir.

One more utterance of the First Deputy Prime Minister, and this was only yesterday. In an interview with Business Week, Miss Cheryl Debes, he was quoted having said that:

'Political self-renewal in the People's Action Party is proceeding well and this is one of the three key factors which will ensure stability and progress in Singapore after Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew retires.'

Sir, may I say that that is a piece of arrogance because it assumes that only the People's Action Party can continue to look after Singapore. If anybody is to look after Singapore, it will be the people of Singapore, not the People's Action Party. And one of the key factors which will ensure stability and progress in Singapore is not political self-renewal in the People's Action Party. The key factor is whether you allow the free play of ideas that the Prime Minister was advocating in 1956, whether you allow the expression of constitutional rights by the citizens. That, Mr First Deputy Prime Minister, is what will make for political stability. If you do not, as the Prime Minister then said, the alternative would be an armed struggle. I should have thought that the PAP would welcome our efforts in the Opposition because we are here to see that an armed conflict does not come about. We want constitutional progress in this country, not throwing of bombs, of going round beating up people. We want to see constitutional progress through the ballot box. And I should have thought that any sane, sensible government would welcome that from the Opposition Parties. But no, not from this Government.

So, before I sit down, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, may I spell out what I would like to hear this afternoon from the First Deputy Prime Minister. As I have said, I am sorry that the Prime Minister is not here. He should be here to answer these questions. At least, he was battling with this way back in 1956. The questions that I would like answered are: does this Government believe in a parliamentary democracy for Singapore? And may I say that parliamentary democracy can only come about if you have constitutional Opposition in the House, in Parliament, if you afford opportunities to the people to elect their representatives who can then make their representations known to you. So the question is this: do you believe in a parliamentary democracy for Singapore? Secondly, are you committed to that? It is one thing to believe, but are you committed to that? Third, if you are committed, what steps does the Government propose to take to encourage the growth of parliamentary democracy? I have said in this House that one of the things that we can do is to remove the restriction on the freedom of speech.

Time does not permit me, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, but I will refer to the public meetings we have asked for, which have been denied time and time again. We asked for a meeting on the 1st of May, not to sing Communist songs or subversive songs, but to explain to the people what we meant by parliamentary democracy and constitutional Opposition. That was denied to us, even though the First Deputy Prime Minister then said that he would support it. And we had, I am sorry to say, a specious reply from the Minister for Home Affairs to May Day is only for trade unions." He was sitting here next to the First Deputy Prime Minister when he said he would support it.

We have asked for another meeting on the 25th May. We have been told that we would be granted a permit. But we are still waiting to hear from the Singapore Sports Council whether they would give us the Toa Payoh Athletic Stadium. What is the Government's attitude to this? Because we know that the Toa Payoh Athletic Stadium will be available on the 25th May. It is not being used. Will the Government tell the Singapore Sports Council to grant us the Stadium, that they would have no objections if they gave it? Or am I going to be told tomorrow by the Singapore Sports Council, "You can't have it."

When we come down to specifics, are you going to obstruct the Opposition MPs from discharing their duties to serve the voters in their constituencies? To get down to more specifics, are you going to allow the Anson Community Centre classrooms for classes for children of residents in that constituency? Or are you going to shut them out? Why, if you are going to shut them out? Are you going to allow the use of the Conference Room for residents?

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I am not the only one who want the answers to these questions. It does not matter if I am the only one who want the answers. The Government can ignore me. It can even ignore them if it was only the voters of Anson who want the answers to these questions. But, unfortunately for the Government, the people of Singapore want the answers to these questions. And so I trust the Government will answer these questions this afternoon. The people of Singapore demonstrated, in no uncertain way, their preference for a constitutional Opposition when 13% of the voters swung over to the Opposition.

Sir, I beg to move.

Question proposed.

Mr Chiam See Tong: Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of the motion.

Sir, sometimes the obvious has to be stated. My colleague, the Member for Anson, and myself are parliamentary Opposition. We are not an Opposition from the underground. Neither are we an Opposition in an Opposition Party outside Parliament. We are parliamentary Opposition. We have been duly elected by the people in a properly conducted election under the Constitution of Singapore to represent them and we have come in by the front door. We have certainly not come in by the grace of the PAP or by their patronage. Therefore, we are representatives of the people and it is only right that the Opposition should be treated as Members of Parliament, equal to those in the Government. But as it turned out, there appears to be two standards practised by Government departments and statutory boards, one for the PAP MPs and the other for the Opposition MPs. I have found this out in the last four or five months.

What happens at the constituency level? An MP cannot perform without an MP's office. I have written three letters but todate the HDB is still dragging its feet about the MP's office. I have heard that in other PAP constituencies, the HDB has built offices in extra quick time at the void decks for the use of the People's Association.

What about the so-called grassroots organizations, the CCMCs? I have written to the People's Association and they said, "No permission is given to you to assist in the community centres. "What about other so-called grassroots organizations, the Residents' Committees? I have written not once, but twice, volunteering to help in these grassroots organizations. What was the reply? "You wait for another year. You have to prove yourself." Why should I prove myself? I have been elected by nearly 60% of the voters at Potong Pasir. They think I am suitable, but not the Secretariat of the Residents' Committees.

What about other areas? I certainly would like to know what is going on in the schools. Can I visit the schools? "No, you can't." i think education is very important. Can I give my point of view at the School's Council or at least sit in at the meetings? 'No, you can't." I think it would be better to have a different point of view. You have to look at matters from different angles. This has been pointed out by the Minister of State for Defence. The PAP is not infallible. You do make mistakes. So why not get a different point of view from the Opposition? If you had, you probably would not have gone along with the priority scheme for graduate mothers. And now you have admitted your mistake in the third year of streaming in the schools. You have altered it. The HDB says, "We will come out with a new accounting system." Although they have threatened to increase Ministers' salaries, nothing has come out of it. So the Opposition has succeeded to a certain extent in pointing out some of the issues at the last elections and the PAP Government has taken cognizance of these issues.

I was surprised to learn that a beautiful community centre at the Sennen Estate has been taken over. I have been told that this community centre was built by money raised by the residents and it was specifically designed, planned and built for a recreational and social centre. It has beautiful basket-ball courts, badminton courts and there are rooms for activities. I am sure the Minister for National Development would tell Members that it is unjustified, if you look at it from any point of view, from planning permission, to change it into an administrative office. How can a beautiful community centre be changed into an administrative office of the Residents' Committee Secretariat? I believe it is still not in use. It has been closed down. Why is this step necessary?

Another small point. One gentleman came to see me and he i have got this very rare, exotic plant, called Sterculia Nobilis. It has been brought from China and it has got medicinal value." His father brought it but he did not want to propagate and give it around. Later on when the father became old, the son took over and began to propagate the plant. I believe he gave the plant as a gift to the Prime Minister and to the President. I was happy that he came to me and he said, "i am willing to give you this plant in commemoration of the opening of your MP's office." So what did I do? I wrote to the HDB - "We want to plant this particular tree near the MP's office in commemoration when it is built." What do you think the reply was? "No", of course, I said, "All right, since it is such a rare plant, I am sure it will benefit constituents of that constituency. Can I plant it anywhere else?" Again, no, of course. The letter says, "With regard to your request to plant a Sterculia Nobilis in front of the MP's office, since sufficient trees have already been planted in accordance with the Parks and Recreation Department's guidelines, no further planting is necessary." So I wrote to the Parks and Recreation Department to find out what is the planting plan or guidelines. This is the reply I got: "As you did not define the boundary of Potong Pasir Estate, I take it to include Potong Pasir Avenues 1, 2 and 3. The planting proposals for these three roads are put up by the Housing and Development Board. As these are HDB estate roads, you are requested to contact them for the tree planting plan."

Mr Jeyaretnam: Merry go round!

Mr Chiam See Tong: I do not know where to go next. I asked the HDB and they said, "We have already planted sufficient trees in accordance with the guidelines given by the Parks and Recreation Department." I go to the Parks and Recreation Department and they said, "No, you go back to the HDB."

An hon. Member: Plant it in your garden.

Mr Chiam See Tong: I could plant it in my garden but I do not think it would benefit the constituents. The point is this. Potong Pasir Avenue, if you have been there, is a big estate, and it has not been fully developed. There are still vacant lands. Flats are still coming up. There are still places which are undeveloped and I am sure there is enough space for one tree. So if this is not an obstructionist attitude of the HDB, I do not know what is. We just want to plant a simple tree and no permission can be obtained.

Of course, even with this obstructionist attitude, we will still go on. We have approached the RCs. We have approached them and we cannot be blamed if we started grassroots organizations of our own. We have tried to fit in but we have been rejected, as if we are persons to be shunned.

The more important question is: is this obstructionist attitude of the Government good for national unity? This morning we talked of total defence. Defence does not mean only the logistics, the armament, but another more important aspect is the morale of the people. I think this is a very important aspect. Therefore, if the Government is going to segregate those who are in the Opposition from those who are in the Government, this is certainly not good for national unity. This is only the beginning and if there were more Opposition Members, the gulf between those who support the Opposition and those who support the Government would even be greater. Therefore, I call on the Government to show their intention, whether they support national unity, whether they support a truly democratic way of life in Singapore.

You may ask what can be done to promote democracy? Perhaps we could follow the example of Germany. Germany suffered under a period of tyranny when it was ruled by Hitler. And, of course, you know, it was disastrous. The country was divided into two. After the war, they had a constitution worked out by the Germans and the Americans. And to ensure that democracy survived in that country, they took the step of teaching the subject of democracy in their schools. That is what they have done for the last 20 years. They taught about Parliament from their point of view, the separation of powers, the Judiciary, the Executive, the Legislature, their rights, their duties. That is the step they have taken to ensure that democracy survives. If the PAP is sincere in wanting to ensure that democracy survives in Singapore, will the PAP take that big step?

I am much obliged, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir.

Dr Ow Chin Hock (Leng Kee): ( In Mandarin): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I strongly oppose the motion of the Member for Anson. Hearing him for one hour, talking verbosely and redundantly in trite sophistry, I thought we could expect something new from him. But in the end it was just a repeat of a lengthy and rotting piece of his idolum, a refrying of the cold rice. If his speech on 24th July last year when debating on non-constituency Members were to be re-run, it would be found that his speech today is just a replay of what he had made on the previous occasion, reciting copiously with added exhibitory verbiage about the Government obstructing in every way the growth of Opposition or the free play of democracy.

He also tried to deceive himself by wanting our people to believe that since he entered Parliament, the whole scene of Singapore has changed as though whenever the cock crowed, the sun would rise, and hence, it concluded that because of its crowing that the sun has risen. He wants the people to believe that without his crowing, the sun would not have risen in the East. This is "old cock's theory".

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the presence of the two Opposition Members in this House is a testimony of our democracy in play, without which they would not have been here. The Member for Anson's allegation is that the Government is obstructing a genuine Opposition Party's growth but, in fact, the true obstruction is done by the opposition members themselves. Their actions and speeches outside and inside the House have caused some intending youths not to come forward to be true loyal oppositions because they do not want to associate with the opposition members( ) and thus spoil their own image and reputation. That is how opposition members have themselves actually obstructed the growth of a true democractic opposition.

Let me talk about how genuine opposition members can contribute towards true democractic opposition and towards the interests of our country. First, they must accept and believe in the fundamental principles of nation building and they must be able to uphold the long-term basic interests of our people and our nation. These principles and interests include national sovereignty, territorial integrity, national dignity and prestige and the importance of national defence, and also harmony and mutual tolerance and respect among our different races, cultures, religions and languages.

I am also of the view that in the interest of the nation, true Opposition Parties must be able to contribute constructive and sincere criticisms of the Government and government policies. The true Opposition must also be able to make suggestions and counter suggestions to help the Government solve certain intractable problems. These problems include those affecting the livelihood of our people, and those threatening our national safety, security and survival. So far, what have Opposition members done?

We do not need such Opposition who question and are against the quintessence of the principles of our national existence and survival. For instance, an Opposition Member once said in this House that when the Russian warship was steaming towards Singapore with a banner hanging over the ship saying, "Singapore, here we come, what can you do?" Who said this? We do not want such Opposition, as this is damaging to our national dignity. This is defeatism. In the U.S. Congress, there are Doves and Hawks, pro- or anti-war factions. Despite arguments over defence and arms between the two, no self-respecting Congressman had ever said, "If the Russian missiles fly towards us, what could we do?"

We do not want the kind of Opposition Parties which are bent on smearing, distorting and insinuating. I would like to ask which Opposition Member has made insinuation in this House to hurt an innocent family outside? Which political Party whose candidate has smeared and hurt the children of one of our Party candidates? We do not want an Opposition Party which is dishonest, untruthful and rumour mongering. Who said that the CPF Board has not enough money to pay back its members? And who said that the CPF is a time-bomb that the Government has to extend the withdrawal age in order to defuse it so that it will not explode in time? Who has been saying that HDB is building flats in order to reap huge profits out of their sales, yet would not dare to take up the challenge to prove by facts and deeds what he has said? Who has been saying that the recent changes in policies by the Government have been due entirely to the Opposition Members? On the one hand, the Opposition Members criticized and ridiculed our grassroots leaders calling RC members as Rubbish Collectors. The Member for Anson referred to these grassroots leaders as government agents, running dogs, or something like that. But on the other hand, they hope these grassroots leaders would cooperate with them.

Mr Jeyaretnam rose -

Mr Deputy Speaker: Are you giving way, Dr Ow?

Dr Ow Chin Hock: No, I am not giving way.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Please resume your seat, Mr Jeyaretnam.

Mr Jeyaretnam: He is misquoting. He is misleading.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Jeyaretnam, will you resume your seat?

Mr Jeyaretnam: It is a point of order.

Dr Ow Chin Hock: ( In Mandarin): On the other hand, they hope that these grassroots leaders would cooperate with them. Do these two Opposition Members know that community centres are built out of the contributions of the people, through the efforts of these grassroots leaders? Now they want to make use of these centres to achieve their political end. There is no such thing ( ) in this world! Let me tell a small story. It concerns - [Interruption]

Mr Deputy Speaker: Will Members please refrain from unnecessary interruptions?

Dr Ow Chin Hock: ( In Mandarin): Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir. When he was talking, nobody interrupted him.

Let me tell a small story. It is about the result of the general election. The purpose is to let the two Opposition Members know that they should not be too elated about the 51 to 60% votes that they got. There was a university final year under-graduate, a student of mine. He voted for the first time in the last election in 1984. After the results of the general elections were announced, he came to see me with a green and distraught face. I thought something must be wrong with him. He said he had to talk to somebody. I asked him what was the matter. He confided in me that he voted for the Opposition and said that he had contributed to the near 13% swing in votes. He regretted very much what he had done. I asked him why he voted for the Opposition. He said he was not happy about certain Government policies, particularly about the Government's policy on priority given to graduate mothers for admission of their children to schools. This student typifies his generation who now realizes the risk of such voting and that without a strong and capable government, the good number of years they invest in education would come to nought.

Lastly, let me advise the Member for Potong Pasir because I live in Potong Pasir and because I still have a little hope for him. He has said in Parliament that he would be a loyal Opposition Member. I hope he would keep to his promise by his deeds and not follow the example of the Member for Anson. I hope he can really contribute this little bit to the fostering of a true Opposition in the interest of our nation.

Mr Lai Tha Chai (Henderson): ( In Mandarin): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, on this big topic, I would like to give a little opinion of mine. I hope we could all consider this matter with a cool mind and in a calm and peaceful manner. Let me give an example. Last month, when Sabah held its state election there was one political party which won only six out of the 48 seats in the State Legislature. Yet this party wanted to form the Government. Fortunately, the then Acting Premier Musa Hitam made a very wise decision. Otherwise, I believe the state of Sabah would have some trouble and there might even be a bloodshed.

Sir, this brings me to think about our situation in Singapore. If at any particular general election in future one political Party should happen to win only 10 to 20 seats and the leader of this political Party says that only he represents the people of Singapore and he wants to be the government ruling the country. Then, what kind of Singapore will it be? Perhaps, some may say it is unnecessary worry. But the great English philosopher, Russell, having studied some political events in the world, once said,

'Some incidental event in the world that could have happened just by chance, but it could have significantly changed the whole situation of the world.'

From his saying I have this in my mind. If in 1945, when the Japanese had lost in the Second World War and the British were still outside Singapore, had the then leader of the Malayan Communist Party, Chin Peng, made the declaration that Singapore and Malaya had broken away from the U.K. and become independent and sovereign entities, then I believe the histories of Singapore and Malaya Peninsular would have been quite different now. Our situation would be quite different. If, for example, some 20 years later, in 1965, the leader of the Indonesian Communist Party, Aidit, had been successful in the coup, then I believe Indonesia would not be what it is today. Today, the Indonesian Government does not completely follow the parliamentary democracy system of Holland. Singapore and Malaysia do not completely follow the democratic system of the United Kingdom. Likewise, the Philippines does not completely follow the American representative system. Similarly, Thailand is also different. However basically, the countries in the ASEAN region have been quite successful with their own democratic systems. ASEAN has been a stable region. Is this not a good thing? Do we want the world to be in a messy turmoil?

We have been successful. We can see this very clearly. It is because in the past 20 years, since 1965, we have been holding General Elections as required by the Constitution that we hold one election once every five years. In the past 20 years, we have held five General Elections and on each General Election, the people voted to decide the Party they want to form the Government.

The Member for Anson has stated that he has been taking part in General Elections since 1972. This is the success of our democracy. At this juncture, I would like to reminisce on an episode in the history of China. In the Sung Dynasty, there was one person by the name of Shima Kuan. From my study of the Chinese history, he was one of the great leaders of the opposition in pursuit of democracy. He vehemently criticized the then Wan Ang Shig administration. What he did was levelling criticisms at something factual and not making groundless allegations. What he said was meant to unite the people to build the nation, but not to divide the people and to destroy the country.

In Volume 1 of the voluminous Chronicles that he wrote, he said: "For those higher to rule the people lower, it is like the mind and heart ruling the limbs, as the roots supporting the branches and leaves. And for the people lower to service those higher, it is like the limbs guarding the mind and heart, as the branches and leaves sheltering the roots. Then there will be mutual protection between the two and the country will be secure and peaceful."

Of course, the world of Shima Kuan was very different from what it is today. His thoughts had limitations. Although he relentlessly criticized the Wan Ang Shig government, in the end he still emphasized mutual protection of each other for the security and peace of the country. This spirit is something which merits our emulating, and which our Opposition Parties ought to consider well. In 1963, the late President Kennedy of the United States said:

'We stress not the individual liberty of one, but the indivisible liberty of all.'

He was emphasizing the freedom of the greater universal self but not of the smaller individual self. It is something which we Singaporeans should learn, particularly our Opposition Members ought to consider well. I am raising these examples of Shima Kuan and John Kennedy to show that even in Singapore, with differing political views coupled with Party contentions, sometimes it may be of benefit to our people but sometimes it would be harmful. This depends on the motivation of Party leaders. John Kennedy was a great leader, yet he ended up by being assassinated by his political rivals. To the people of the United State and to the world, this is of no good. There could only be harm.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, on this major question of national survival and the future of Singapore, I hope both the Government and the people will be able to learn from past episodes in the political history of the world so that our small nation in this corner of the world may be able to survive and enjoy security and peace and a better life.

Encik Yatiman Yusof: ( In Malay): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, when the Member for Anson moved a motion to express regret at the obstructionist measures adopted by the Government towards what he alleged to be the growth of genuine parliamentary Opposition, I thought that he was raising a very important issue which would determine the future course of political development in the Republic. Regrettably, Sir, I am compelled to oppose the motion not because I am sitting on this side of the House, but because the matter which is beautifully packaged, in fact, exposes nothing.

Let us ponder why the hon. Member for Anson has moved his motion. The important point that he wishes to raise in the motion centres around his inability to have access to facilities. Complaints of difficulty in getting permits, I consider to be the travail experienced by any Opposition political party in Parliament. In the past, the People's Action Party had experienced similar difficulties. In fact, in the 5O's, opposition to the PAP was very much more intense. The Member for Anson recalled that in the 5O's, the Prime Minis- ter, Mr Lee Kuan Yew, had expressed his views. This had been made in the confidence that the Opposition in Parliament should be capable of presenting credible alternative views, which should be laid before the people for acceptance or rejection.

In 1959, three years after the contest of ideas, the PAP obviously had better ideas. Since the Member for Anson had been elected in the by-election, having been defeated for many years, and again re-elected in the last general elections, has he offered credible alternative views that can convince the people that the Opposition can offer better views to the people of Singapore? I do not think so. So let us examine the arguments advanced by the Member for Anson. First, he says that the PAP Government is determined to crush or to muzzle any form of criticism put up by the Opposition Parties. He says, "to silence the critics". It was under such conditions that the Members of the Workers' Party and the Singapore Democratic Party had been elected. Where then is the justification that there is no freedom of choice, no freedom of voicing opinions, no freedom to conduct campaigns? If these freedoms are really absent, it certainly follows that the two hon. Members would not be in this Chamber.

The second point is that he demands that the Government declare its stand. He asks, what is the political direction that Singapore will take in the future? I feel that the reply has already been given to the Member for Anson to the effect that every four or five years the PAP Government return to the people for its mandate, through clean and open general elections without the necessity of inviting observers from the United Nations to corroborate this state of affairs. We return to the people in order to get a fresh mandate. That is the quintessence of the democratic process which has been enjoyed by the Opposition Parties.

What is the course of the future democratic development that he wants? We accept the verdict of the people in the general elections. If the general elections held recently showed that 13% did not approve Government policies, we have demonstrated our sensitivity by reassessing several policies and it shows that as a Party elected by the people, we are sensitive to the needs of the people and are ready to adjust accordingly.

The Member further alleges that the PAP Government employs several threats including the numbering of ballot papers. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, to me this is absurd because throughout the campaign in the last general elections, the Member never raised this point of numbered ballot papers as a threat because he was aware that by that time it was no longer a valid issue. Why then did he again harp on this point today?

So if we scrutinize carefully the debate and the points put forth by the Member for Anson, in truth, I am amazed at the confused state of his mind in moving this motion. What is most regrettable to me is that the Member for Potong Pasir who has hitherto earned my respect as being a reasonable man has also fallen into this abyss by supporting the motion. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, once again, may I ask, has the alleged restriction on the freedom of speech, freedom of choice, resulted in his garnering less votes? Is the question of obtaining the use of classes in community centres a matter that will determine the democratic pattern of Singapore in the future?

On that note, Sir, I oppose the motion. 4.29 pm

Mr Deputy Speaker: It is approaching the Moment of Interruption. Resumption of debate on what day, Mr Jeyaretnam?

Mr Jeyaretnam: Tomorrow, Sir.

Mr Deputy Speaker: So be it.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, with your permission, may I ask whether the House could sit tomorrow in the afternoon because I have an application in the High Court tomorrow morning at 10.30 am?

Mr Deputy Speaker: The adjournment motion will have to be moved by the Leader of the House.

Mr S. Dhanabalan: Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, we will have to sit at 11 o'clock, as I moved a motion sometime ago for the change of times of Parliamentary sittings.