NATION BUILDING AND TOTAL DEFENCE

Mr Goh Choon Kang (Braddell Heights): ( In Mandarin): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I would like to begin my speech with this one sentence, namely, ours is a country, a state but we are still not a nation yet. In other words, we are not yet a complete nation but a state. More than 20 years ago when we achieved independence, our society was made up of the various races of different cultures, different religions and different languages. These people did not have national consciousness or a common culture. In such a society, internal unity was very weak. Therefore, after our country came into being, one of our prime tasks was to gradually integrate all the races and to develop a common national consciousness and a common identity; otherwise, if our different races were suspicious of one another, then the society and the country would not be stable and in peace and could not develop and because of that there would be conflicts and even bloodshed. For instance, Lebanon in the past had been called the Swiss of the Arab world, but today it has become a rubble. This is a case in point.

After over 20 years of effort, we have gradually evolved from a society of disparate self-serving races into a society where the people have a common sense of identity as Singaporeans. The Singaporeans today have a deep national consciousness and feel proud as Singaporeans with a sense of patriotism. I think we could see this from the following instances. First, all our youth of the right age for national service at the age of 18, irrespective of their races, are willing to accept national service and are taking national service and military training seriously. That shows their patriotism to our country and they know the truism that the survival of the country is the duty of everybody. They are courageous enough to take up the duty of protecting their country.

Second, when our Singapore citizens go abroad, usually they will introduce themselves as, "we are Singaporeans", and they do not say they belong to certain race. This also goes to show that we have a kind of pride and sense of identity as Singaporeans.

The third instance is also very important. In facing external provocation and interference, Singaporeans of different races are able to show solidarity with common front in confronting the outsiders, upholding our national dignity, sovereignty and integrity. These few points could be said to be the important results that we have achieved, and the process of mental build-up and nation building over the past two decades can also show that our policy and measures in integrating the different races step by step have been correct.

Recently certain foreign politicians have tried to make use of racial issues to incite dissension and sow discord among our people. The reaction by the people of the various races in Singapore demonstrates very well that we have a common national consciousness. Our reaction was almost unanimous. In the recent issues I referred to - the Israeli President's visit to Singapore and the Second Defence Minister's talk on Malay participation in our armed forces - the response of our people on the whole to the challenges demonstrates our achievement in social defence and psychological defence has been very encouraging. It shows that they are able to withstand the test. More than 20 years ago if the same incidents were to happen, I am afraid our various races at that time would not be able to stand the test. If the same incidents were to happen more than 20 years ago, possibly there would be racial bloodshed and conflict. But today, facts have proved that we have certain degree of internal cohesiveness and we can withstand the test. But there are small groups of people who show some wavering and uncertainty when confronted with such test. When faced with external challenge of instigation and divisive forces, we have been able to keep our rational mind and our unity and to stand firm. This shows that our society is more mature now. However, we must also realize that ours is not yet a society where all the races are completely integrated and cohesive. Therefore, there are loopholes for foreign politicians with ulterior motives to await the opportunity to fan the fire with their divisive forces and create trouble so that they may from the other shore watch us in hot fire and deep waters, and fish in the troubled waters of Singapore. This reminds us that we should not forget that we must not relax but strive harder to unite our various races in Singapore. Perhaps it will take a long time. I remember the Minister for Community Development mentioning that to make our society to be a cohesive one with all the races integrated, it might take one or two more generations.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, other than continuing with our effort in uniting all the races, we must on the other hand also strengthen our total defence because racial issues affect national security. When you talk about national security or safety, then you must talk about national defence or total defence in the same breath. Only when we can strengthen our unity and total defence, will we then be able to seek progress and stability and ensure that our security will not be threatened by foreign challenge and instigation and that our task towards inter-racial cohesion and unity may not be thwarted or ruined.

In the past few years in this House, we all know that there was one lone voice which was persistently against national defence, against a build-up of armed forces, against purchase of military hardware, defence or mobilization exercise, and so on. This voice has disappeared. But strangely enough, recently another voice has appeared to replace it. This voice even raised its tune in the same breath and in consonance with the tune of some foreigners who tried to incite dissension among us, accusing us of discriminating against our Malay countrymen and demanding to reduce defence expenditure and accusing our national defence as being an over-reaction.

Mr Chiam See Tong: Mr Deputy Speaker, I have to intervene. The hon. Member said that there was a lone voice ---

Mr Deputy Speaker: On what point are you rising? What is your intervention about?

Mr Chiam See Tong: Well, I am objecting to the line of accusation he is making of the other lone voice.

Mr Deputy Speaker: It is not a point of order. Please sit down.

Mr Chiam See Tong: Unless he can verify what he says.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Resume your seat, please. Continue, Mr Goh.

Mr Chiam See Tong resumed his seat.

Mr Goh Choon Kang: ( In Mandarin): Yes, this lone voice even said that our national service should be reduced from 2 1/2 years or 2 years to only 19 weeks. This voice sounds like from beyond the Causeway. It does not sound like from a Singaporean. In this House, on the question of Malay participation in SAF, from all those Members who have spoken on this subject and from my observation from the readers' letters in the various newspapers of various languages, there has been only one righteous and stern voice telling the meddling foreign politicians not to interfere in our internal affairs which we could deal with ourselves. But this odd voice persistently holds out its anti-tune arguing that for other people to hold such opinions against us there must be certain understandable reasons. Does it mean that the malicious incitement and accusations by those foreigners against us must be reasonable and we are wrong? This voice goes further and argues that all around us there is peace and tranquility, we cannot see any enemy, therefore we must reduce our defence expenditure, we must not arm ourselves. In other words, we must relax in our national defence. The tone of such tune, I think, can be likened to somebody suggesting to a hive of bees that since there is no enemy, you must pluck out the sting from your body! The sudden appearance of this foreign consonant tune has surprised many people. What is its motive? Is it to serve foreign interests? Or is it meant to scoop some political capital out of racial issues? These are the series of questions which have emerged in many people's minds. Although in politics today we are quite mature, we are able to openly discuss certain issues which in the past were considered to be sensitive racial issues, but we still should not allow anybody to make use of any racial issue to achieve his personal purpose.

I remember this voice in the past claimed himself to be a Singapore citizen and that he loved Singapore. But now, will the people suspect him? Will the people trust him, believe him to be really loyal to our country? I think this is the question in the minds of the people. On what stand is he talking - on the stand of a Singaporean or on the stand of a foreigner, or on the stand of a stateless person? I think this is not only my own question, possibly many Singaporeans will also have the same question in them. For instance, from the Forum page of the Straits Times of the 19th March, there was such a letter from a reader. To save time, I would read out the original text:

In English

'I have always been under the impression that Mr Chiam See Tong was elected by Singapore citizens in Potong Pasir. But having read Mr Chiam's spirited speech on Malays and National Service, is it possible that there is also a Potong Pasir on the other side of the Causeway?

Not only am I puzzled but so is Malaysia's New Straits Times. It noted in its report of Tuesday's debate in Parliament: "Except for the lone opposition MP Chiam See Tong, all the ruling People's Action Party MPs who spoke on the issue called on foreign politicians not to interfere with the domestic affairs of Singapore".

Now if there is a Potong Pasir further up north how come its MP gatecrashed into our Parliamentary Chamber? Furthermore, where is our genuine MP for Singapore's Potong Pasir?

I suspect he is being held hostage in Lebanon.'

In Mandarin

The tone of the text is very humorous but the subject matter is very serious. The various suggestions raised by him such as reducing defence expenditure and period of national service and so one are very dangerous suggestions. If we do as what he has suggested or if he should become a Defence Minister or form the government and implement such policies, I wonder whether Singaporeans have any confidence on national defence and whether foreign investors will have any confidence in our security and defence. I would like to ask the Minister whether he would assure us that the Government would not recklessly or haphazardly accept such suggestions. At the same time, assuming that we accept the suggestion to reduce the national service period to 19 weeks, can the soldiers trained in such a short period really take up their responsibility in defending our country and for the defence of our homes? I would like the Minister to answer these questions.

Mr Leong Horn Kee: Sir, may I take a few minutes to make a few points?

Mr Deputy Speaker: Yes, there are only a few minutes left.

Mr Leong Horn Kee: I just want to make a remark that I am fearful of the proposal to cut down national service to 19 weeks. It is because I have gone through national service for 2 1/2 years and I have been a reservist for almost 10 years. I think if we cut down national service to 19 weeks, we will be sending our soldiers like young lambs to the slaughter. Will they be able to take on an aggressor? Is the aggressor going to take us seriously? Instead of being treated like chili padi, hot and hard to swallow, we will be taken like marshmellows, sweet and soft, easy to eat.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Yes, Mr Chiam. There are only two minutes left.

Mr Chiam See Tong: Mr Deputy Speaker, the topic was supposed to be Nation Building and Total Defence. I came in and in the few minutes that I sat there, it actually turned out to be an attack on me.

As regards this letter of 19th March, in fact, I promised the Prime Minister I would reply. I read it over again and had a good look at it. I think this letter is defamatory of me and I am taking my opinion. And if the Member would like to repeat all those things outside the House - he accused me of being disloyal to Singapore. I am an MP, representative of the people. I think I have contributed towards democracy in Singapore to a very large extent. I am the only Opposition in the whole of Singapore, one out of 2 1/2 million people. It is quite an exception. I am not boasting in this House. But I am doing the country a big service. If I were not here, it would be a one-party state. What is a one-party state? It is tyranny on the people. That is what I am saying. If the Member dares contest that I am not doing my work as a citizen, then let him say it outside this House. Let the people judge whether or not I am doing a service to Singapore. What do you think I went through these 10 years of struggle to get into this House? How did the hon. Member get into this House? Did he have to go around the market places and canvass for 10 years as I have done? He was picked up. He was inducted into this House. And who is he to say that I am not loyal to Singapore? Please, let the people judge for themselves.

Mr Goh Choon Kang: People are questioning.

Mr Chiam See Tong: I am doing more national service for Singapore than any of our national serviceman. They only have to do 2 1/2 years. I have already done 10 years of service to this country to get into this House. And I intend to show the people of Singapore that democracy can survive. There will be more to come after me.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Order. The time allotted for the Backbench has expired. General Lee.

The Second Minister for Defence (Services) (BG Lee Hsien Loong): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, this has turned out to be an unexpectedly lively adjournment motion. If any Backbencher or Opposition Member should feel that the time allotted is inadequate for a full airing of the important issues, I would encourage them to move a motion. And if the Opposition Member wishes to move a motion, one PAP MP will second it, and we can debate the subject further.

It is not necessary for the Minister to defend the Members for Thomson and Braddell Heights. They can look after themselves. But it is important to note that what the Member for Braddell Heights said was merely a quotation of what was said in this House not so very long ago, namely, that if some foreign country should raise questions about Singapore's policy, then it stands to reason that there must be something wrong with Singapore's policy. That is why they are attacking us.

Mr Chiam See Tong: Of course.

BG Lee Hsien Loong: Not the other way round. If we are being attacked, let us see what is the matter not with us but with them. That is one. Secondly, the reminder of a point made in answer to a question as to what the Opposition Member would do were he a Minister. That his answer was, well, it depends, doesn't it, on whether you are a Chinese or non-Chinese; that would decide the policy. Any Government Minister who takes that line, any government which allows a Minister to take that line, will soon be ruined, but before that will have ruined Singapore.

And, of course, third reminder that not so long ago, the same MP who had volunteered should the need arise to sacrifice himself, even his life for the defence of the nation, should now, barely two years later, raise a question of why we are doing national service so seriously and whether 19 weeks might not be enough. I do not want to enter into the discussion in detail because I think there will be time for further elaborate debate. I want to state some basic principles.

The Government's policies may change from time to time. As the situations change, policies change. Tax rates go up, go down. Population policies, two children, three children. But certain cardinal principles never change. And two of these cardinal principles are a responsible approach to multi-racial politics and, secondly, a strong Total Defence of Singapore. These are axioms of faith. We believe them fundamentally but we must never take them for granted. And maybe it is useful from time to time that doubting Thomases should appear to challenge these fundamental assumptions so that in the process of defending them and rejustifying them, we can sharpen our awareness of them and strengthen our faith in them.

What is nation building? It is to make one national identity out of a disparate, a diverse, multi-racial, multi-religious society. It is to create a generation of Singaporeans who feel, first and foremost, that we are Singaporeans and then, only secondarily, that our ancestors came from China, from India or the Malay Archipelago. That is nation building. And what Singapore politicians say and do - particularly prominent Singapore politicians who may be the only Opposition Member in the whole Parliament, the only person upholding democracy in the whole of Singapore - what they say and do have a decisive effect on whether nation building is fostered or hindered.

For a generation, these fundamental assumptions have not been questioned because the PAP has dominated the political process and the PAP's responsible policies have prevailed. So much so that people have come to take these two aspects for granted. Sometimes I think we are in danger of forgetting the disastrous consequences of playing racial politics in Singapore. It would have been easy for the PAP itself to take a Chinese chauvinistic line, collect Chinese votes, win a majority. It would have been disastrous for Singapore. But I think Members are aware that in the last elections, there were signs that some Opposition parties, particularly where they were campaigning against non-Chinese PAP candidates, were using chauvinistic lines in order to collect Chinese votes.

Mr Chiam See Tong: Are you referring to the 1984 general elections?

Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Chiam, please do not interrupt. Please continue, General Lee.

BG Lee Hsien Loong: Ministers in Singapore must decide for all Singaporeans, whether Chinese, Malays or Indians. They make policies on behalf of all Singaporeans. What they decide on they must be prepared to defend, no matter whom they are speaking to, whether they are defending it to a Chinese audience, a Malay audience, an Indian audience or a Eurasian audience. That is what we have always done and that is what I hope all other political parties will do. Those who dabble in the politics of race can be sure that the PAP will expose them and destroy them. There is too much at stake for us not to do that.

Total Defence. This is an old question. The ex-MP for Anson took this line, found it politically unprofitable, dropped it. Now, somewhat to our surprise, the same old questions come up again. Why do we need a strong defence? Who is our enemy? Why are we building up our strength in peace time? And a new one - why not reduce national service from 2� years to 19 weeks?

Mr Chiam See Tong: Why not?

BG Lee Hsien Loong: We have answered these questions many times before. We make no enemies. We want no enemies. We have no enemies. But if you want peace, be prepared for war; because danger can come suddenly. 19 weeks? Mindef has a responsibility to the parents of the national servicemen. Today, to take a fresh recruit, put him in an infantry battalion, train him - individual skills, section skills, platoon skills - make him begin to be operationally ready to take on standby duties and enter the SAF order of battle, takes us 34 weeks. If we reduce NS to 19 weeks, as was so casually suggested by the Member for Potong Pasir, if we do this in response to irresponsible rabble rousers, then if one day half-trained SAF recruits are slaughtered on a battle field, we will have the blood of innocent servicemen on our conscience. Who will answer to the parents of those sons who have been needlessly sacrificed? Will the Member for Potong Pasir bring your son back? Does he have a son who will do national service?

Mr Chiam See Tong: Lift the Standing Orders and let us have a debate.

BG Lee Hsien Loong: We should ponder carefully before making any rash moves. Our sons' lives and the future of Singapore are at stake.

Question put, and agreed to.

Resolved,

That Parliament do now adjourn.

Adjourned accordingly at Thirty minutes past Three o'clock pm to a date to be fixed.