STATEMENT OF FIRST DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER (Offence taken by Malaysian Government)

Mr J.B. Jeyaretnam asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs whether it would not have been better in the interest of furthering closer relations with Malaysia if the government had apologised for the statement of the First Deputy Prime Minister to which offence was taken by the Malaysian government.

The Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr S. Dhanabalan): Mr Speaker, Sir, the Government is always conscious of maintaining close relations with Malaysia, both at the official and personal levels. We therefore explained the context of the First Deputy Prime Minister's remarks and stressed that there was no intention to cause offence. An explanation, not an apology, was the proper response to the Malaysian Third Party Note. The Malaysian Government has accepted the Singapore Government's reply and the matter is closed.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Mr Speaker, Sir, may I put all my supplementary questions to the Minister, instead of popping up every time? First of all, may I ask the Foreign Minister whether he realizes that the reply by the Singapore Government, as reported in the Straits Times, would appear to be a misunderstanding of the whole thing? Does he realize that the report says that the First Deputy Prime Minister never intended to offend the Malaysian Chinese Association? Did the Minister realize that the protest came from the Malaysian Government, that the Malaysian Government took that statement as being offensive to the Government and not to the Malaysian Chinese Association? There is a clear distinction between the Malaysian Government and the Malaysian Chinese Association. So does he realize that the reply makes nonsense of the protest by the Malaysian Government?

Secondly, does he realize that the explanation that the First Deputy Prime Minister never intended to offend anybody by his remarks is the weakest excuse that can be offered? Does he realize that every man is held to intend what he says, and it is a lame excuse to come later and say, "I never intended what I said"? Does not the Government think that it would have been far more gracious if the Singapore Government, even if it thought that it was not giving any offence, to have apologized?

And finally, will the Minister tell us whether an official reply was received from the Malaysian Government to this note? Does he realize that according to the reports the Malaysian Government decided not to reply to that note?

Mr Ng Kah Ting: Mr Speaker, Sir, can I ask the hon. Member for Anson whether it is not true to conclude that he seems to act as a spokesman for a foreign country?

Mr Jeyaretnam: Mr Speaker, Sir, this is out of order.

Mr Ng Kah Ting: I am asking a supplementary question, Sir. Does he not speak like a spokesman for a foreign country?

Mr Jeyaretnam: You should ask the Minister and not ask a Member of the House.

Mr Chiam See Tong: This is Question time.

Mr Ng Kah Ting: This is Question time.

Mr Jeyaretnam: You are wasting time.

Mr Ng Kah Ting: I am not wasting time.

Mr Speaker: Order.

Mr Dhanabalan: Mr Speaker, Sir, there have been many reports in the news- papers. It is not my function to reply to newspaper reports or to address the contents of newspaper reports. As far as the Government is concerned, we received a Third Party Note, and the Third Party Note received by the Singapore Government from Malaysia the Government as well as our reply are communications between two governments. We have not made them public, although the newspapers have been reporting on some of the contents of this Third Party Note.

Whether the reply from the Singapore Government is acceptable or not is entirely for the person who originated the communication to decide and not for anybody else. It is not the practice, when a note is sent from one government to another and a reply made, that the reply should also be responded to. If replies are to be responded to, then the first recipient has to again respond, and there will be no end to the matter.

As far as the two governments involved in this issue are concerned, ie, the Malaysian Government and the Singapore Government, the matter has been put to rest. I do not therefore understand why there are still people, like the Member for Anson, who want to continue to stir the pot and create problems for our people.

Dr Lau Teik Soon (Serangoon Gardens): Sir, may I ask the Minister to comment on the Member for Anson's questions. Are they not an inclination to score points against Singapore by playing up to critics of Singapore in neighbouring countries?

Mr Dhanabalan: Mr Speaker, Sir, on this point, I think Singaporeans can make their own judgment. It is not necessary for me to comment.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Will the Minister please give a specific answer to a specific question or a direct answer to a direct question? Did the Singapore Government receive an official reply to the protest?

Mr Dhanabalan: Mr Speaker, Sir, I thought I made it clear. We sent a letter and that was the end of the matter. There was no reply and no reply is expected.

Mr Speaker: Let us go to the next question.