PRESIDENT'S ADDRESS Debate on the Address

Debate resumed.

Mr Goh Chok Tong: Thank you, Mr Speaker, Sir. Let me give another example to illustrate why this idea of thought-control is ridiculous. 500,000 Singaporeans travel overseas and this excludes those who go to Malaysia. When they come back they must have seen different values or they must see different things. This is an open society. We do not control access to information. Anybody who wants to read the Far Eastern Economic Review or the Asian Wall Street Journal can do so. There is no control on access to information. What we are doing is to make it difficult for protagonists in our domestic politics to dabble in our affairs. If they want to do so, we fight them and we make it painful for them and we make sure that we emerge on top. If you want to read any magazine, you can get them in Singapore. There are thousands of foreign magazines in Singapore.

I want now to deal with the mission of Members of Parliament your mission and my mission. During this debate, some Members seem to think that an MP's duty is to attack the Government and to repeat the criticisms which they have heard others made. When they hear someone criticizing the Government they come here to repeat it. I think that is a serious mistake because you are now multiplying just one distorted point of view to the whole of Singapore. In other words, I sense that the MPs feel that they should be humble towards the public but truculent towards the Government. If this were so, then we should have no difficulty getting MPs.

To be an MP you must have judgment, intelligence, character and conviction and courage. Reflecting public sentiments, yes, it is part of an MP's role. I think we should all reflect public sentiments but it is only a small part. As a Member of Parliament, an MP is a key digit in our political structure. Parliament has the sole power to make or unmake the Government because in our system of government the Prime Minister can only remain as Prime Minister so long as he enjoys the confidence of the majority of the Members of Parliament. An MP is there not just as a petition writer for his constituents or a maker of speeches against motions and Bills. He is a powerful person. In a crisis, whether he stands firm or rallies to a common cause or whether he turns tail and shows his lack of conviction, can make all the difference to the fate of the nation. The public knows this and therefore an MP is an influential person. What he says counts. People look up to him. His words do not just reflect public opinion but influence and shape it. He is elected not just to repeat what others say but to exercise his judgment, to think and act as he considers wise on behalf of his constituents, on behalf of Singapore.

Dr Hong Hai got it right when he said:

'Singapore has chosen the form of democracy in which the people have relinquished the right to rule themselves, but have placed their trust on their elected representatives to make these decisions for them.' We are the elected representatives. We have got to make decisions for them. Our system is not government by direct rule. It is government through indirect rule. If it were so easy, just consulting people, getting them to decide for us, then I think you can have any government in the world. Each time you face a difficult policy, put it to a vote, and go by majority vote. But that is not our system of government. It will not work.

You are the elected representatives. I therefore urge you, both PAP and the Opposition, to remember this speak up for what you believe in, fight against what you know to be wrong, but do so out of conviction and never out of convenience. If a policy is right, argue it, and argue for it even if it will cost you some votes. If the voters overwhelmingly want something which you know in your heart to be unwise, have the courage and integrity to speak up against it, and the leadership to persuade the voters to follow you. Everyone in this House, whether they belong to the Frontbench or the Backbench, is a leader. Make sure you lead from the front and not from the rear. Your mission and mine is to make sure that Singapore survives and flourishes.

We are now the successor Parliament to the original Parliament. We have a new Speaker, we have a new generation of Members of Parliament. Only the Prime Minister is from the 1955 batch. I do not know when Dr Lee Siew-Choh first came into Parliament but he now wears a new badge, so he is a new MP. Only five MPs remain from the 1960s Ng Kah Ting (batch of 1963), Ho Kah Leong (1966), Ch'ng Jit Koon, Chua Sian Chin, Lawrence Sia (batch of 1968). Out of the 80 PAP MPs, 56 came in in 1980 or after. So we are the successor Parliament to the earlier Parliament. We have to make Singapore work just as the MPs before us did.

The Prime Minister will retire in two years' time. I settled for two years because I want him to complete some unfinished business like negotiations with Malaysia on water and gas. I also want him to look after the external problems or external situation concering Singapore so that I can concentrate on domestic problems and programmes. Two years is a good time. It will allow me to put in place a political programme which will ensure durable leadership for Singapore. But to succeed, to carry on from where the Prime Minister is leaving off, we have to continue to recruit good men and women into Parliament. Not just competent people but people with the strength of character to see Singapore through in any crisis. This is the way I see for Singapore to succeed. Thank you, Mr Speaker. [Applause.]

Encik Wan Hussin bin Haji Zoohri (Aljunied GRC): ( In Malay): Mr Speaker, Sir, I have prepared a text for my speech today but having heard the speech by the First Deputy Prime Minister, I would not say what I was going to say as it has been touched on by a number of Members before me and I need not repeat them. But I think I would like to make two responses, firstly, to what has been said by the First Deputy Prime Minister; and secondly, in response to a comment made by the Member for Kebun Baru, Mr Lim Boon Heng.

Firstly, a response to the speech we have just heard. When the First Deputy Prime Minister quoted the Prime Minister's speech in 1977 about how he, the Prime Minister, often contemplated what would happen to Singapore and that he had expressed his thoughts to the First Deputy Prime Minister and Mr Lim Chee Onn, it reminded me of what a union activist once said to me. This activist, I suppose, could have had the opportunity to chat with or meet the Prime Minister. He told me that the Prime Minister often asked how many Singaporeans there were who were always concerned about Singapore's affairs and its future and, the Prime Minister also asked, how many hours per day did Singaporeans spend in thinking about Singapore and its future. This gave me the impression that since the Prime Minister had asked these questions, then pondering over Singapore's affairs and its future must have been a perennial concern in his mind ever since he got involved in politics. But what I would like to say in response is that if the Prime Minister and the few Cabinet Ministers alone are concerned about Singapore and its future, I think this is not enough. We want this concern to be shared by the people. The people need to apply their minds, along the same line of thinking as his, to the question of how Singapore could continue to exist, forever if possible. And if the people of Singapore would not ponder over these basic problems, fundamental problems the problem of survival of Singapore that the First Deputy Prime Minister spoke of, problems like our water supply, our security, the problem of how we can hold together this multi-racial society with its constant potential for danger then this should leave us with very alarmed thoughts about what could happen to us.

So, Mr Speaker, I would like to remind the people of Singapore that while we enjoy the prosperity we are now having, while we are comfortable with the life that we are now enjoying, we must remember that they have not come about by themselves. They are the results of years of sweat and mental efforts of the Prime Minister and his colleagues. And I believe the Ministerial team that is taking over from the Prime Minister now would maintain, would continue the tradition of concern for Singapore and its future, not for their own sake but for the prosperity and well-being of ourselves and our children. That is my response to the speech of the First Deputy Prime Minister.

Secondly, this is in response to the comments made by the Member for Kebun Baru, Mr Lim Boon Heng. He said, and I quote from the Berita Harian the references he made to a Mendaki advertisement which discriminated on racial or religious grounds:

'I would prefer if employers would specify the skills required, rather than specifying religion or race.'

As Mendaki's Executive Secretary, I would like to make some clarification here. I do not deny that there was this advertisement but, lest it mislead the public into thinking that that is the only kind of advertisement issued by Mendaki, I would like to give here four examples to the contrary. First example, an advertisement in the Straits Times in January 1986: Mendaki advertised the post of a clerk - no mention of religion or race. Second, on 7th May 1986, an advertisement for the post of a research assistant. Qualifications required, I quote from the advertisement in English in the Straits Times: "Yayasan Mendaki."

(In English)

'Post vacant: Research Assistant.

Qualifications: Tertiary level with experience in research work. Proficient in English and Malay.' (In Malay) No mention of race or religion. Third example, 8th August 1986 when the post of a Computer Lecturer was advertised. I quote again from the Straits Times:

(In English)

'Mendaki Computer Centre requires Computer Lecturer. Candidates must have experience in teaching computer subjects such as Basic, dBase II/III and Lotus 1-2-3.' (In Malay) Next, an advertisement of 1st August 1987 the post of Executive Officer (Finance). The qualifications, I quote from the advertisement: "Yayasan Mendaki."

(In English)

'Post vacant: Executive Officer (Finance)

Qualifications: Diploma in Business Studies or ACCA/ ICMA with knowledge in Lotus 1-2-3 and dBase III, preferably bilingual in Malay and English.' (In Malay) And in response to this advertisement, several non-Malay applicants applied. And for general information, I would like to state here that the first officer ever to head the Mendaki Computer Centre in 1985 was a Sikh.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I think that is all I would say in response and since what I wanted to say on the National Ideology and core values have been touched on by the other Members, I would not repeat them.

Mr Speaker: Mr Abdullah, would you like to wind up the debate? 5.00 pm

Mr Abdullah Tarmugi (Siglap): Mr Speaker, Sir, over these past five days, more than half the Members of this House spoke on the motion which I had the privilege of moving on Monday. All but one supported the Motion of Thanks to the President for his Address. I wish to thank Members for their contributions and I would like to particularly acknowledge the contributions of the new Members of the House. I now know why they call "maiden speeches" thus. For they have been, as the adjective implies, fresh, often scintillating, sometimes even provocative. And we can certainly look forward to more exciting debate in this Chamber in future.

Sir, it will be very difficult for me to do justice to all the speeches in my summing up and I hope certainly I will be forgiven if I fail to refer to Members individually their signal contributions to the debate. The inadequacy, of course, Sir, is entirely mine.

The debate on my motion centred on three main areas: the National Ideology, which is a new topic: multi-racial, multi-religious harmony, an evergreen subject, and our style of government, an increasingly favourite and fashionable theme. The National Ideology drew the most enthusiastic response from Members and Ministers too. I suspect this is not merely because it is new but more so because it is still an elusive subject, both exciting in what it purports to serve for us and in the questions and reservations on what it should indeed be. To be sure, the final word has yet to be said on this subject.

Perhaps it is opportune for me at this juncture to put the National Ideology in its proper perspective and context, if at all to clear the mist that has surrounded it when we started on Monday. I certainly cannot and do not want to pre-empt what it would be. But I can perhaps narrow the ground by asserting what it is not. Firstly, as has been indicated by the Minister for Trade and Industry and Second Minister for Defence, it will not have the force of law. And indeed, Sir, it should not be. For how does one compel citizens to imbue something as abstract as values and ethos through fines and jail terms? Rather it should be likened to a doctor's prescription which the patient is not legally bound to follow but nevertheless ignored at the risk of his health and even his survival.

Second, it will not be a mechanism to impose the values of the majority community on the minorities, a fear often voiced by many Members in this House.

Third, it is not intended to stifle individual freedom, initiative and creativity through the introduction of more communitarian values. And certainly, it is not meant to bury democracy in this country. The Minister of State for Finance and Foreign Affairs had argued eloquently yesterday why it should not and he saw no reason why it should not enhance democratic principles in our society.

Neither, Sir, is the National Ideology anti-West, or a total denial of everything western, even those elements which are good for us and for all human beings. Rather it is to insulate us against what the Minister of State also aptly described "as the elevation of self over all societal considerations". Indeed, we should not sell ourselves short by shutting ourselves to good, wholesome values, regardless of where they hail from, so long as everyone here can be comfortable with them.

These last two aspects should especially be made clear to, and understood, by younger Singaporeans. We should be mindful of the fears expressed by the Member for Toa Payoh GRC, Mr Davinder Singh, on the impact of the National Ideology on our youths. For unless they too accept the National Ideology, it will run the risk of rising and falling within just one generation.

There is much to be done. Already Members who spoke had come out with a multitude of values which they deem worthy of inclusion in the National Ideology. Apart from the four proposed by the President in his speech, many more were put forward that I had really lost count. Among them were parliamentary democracy, honesty, community welfare, concern for the poor, the list goes on. There were suggestions for the National Ideology to include values for workers, values in the workplaces, values in the home, values in the family, community, nation. And, Sir, this is just the tip of the iceberg. It occurred to me that we will not be short of suggestions on what values should be entrenched in the National Ideology. On the contrary, our job will be to choose from the array of suggestions, some of which may even conflict with each other, digest and distill them, those which are necessary and sufficient for us. As asserted by the Member for Bedok GRC, the National Ideology should be simple, relevant and practical. And according to the 1DPM just now, it has to be no less fundamental.

On multi-racial, multi-religious, harmony, Sir, the clear and unanimous message from Members is that they are crucial to our country. Not only must we retain our record of harmony and co-existence, it will also be beneficial for us to improve such harmony and stability. Understandably, the strongest and most articulate proponents of this harmony are Members from the minority communities. Sir, this is not to imply that Chinese Members are less committed but that it is natural for the former to wish, to reiterate, to restate, these principles. For it is more comforting if these principles are indeed subscribed to by the whole society.

So tolerance, understanding, sensitivity, these were the three ingredients mentioned and necessary for us to be able to live peacefully together, no matter what our heritage. Each of us will therefore have to reach out to the other, trust each other more. In the long run, I am of the conviction that we will need to desensitize racial issues and concerns.

Sir, there was a suggestion by the Member for Potong Pasir whether it would not be better for us to adopt the melting pot approach rather than for us to aim for an integrated society with each community keeping its own identity but remaining Singaporean in its perception of the country's goals, challenges, priorities and the sharing of a common destiny. To be fair to the Member, the melting pot may well be the utensil which this society ends up in, albeit not by design but by the natural run of things. But then again, the reality indicates that each community wishes to retain its own identity and uniqueness. Our job will be to ensure that this is met and this does not jeopardize the harmony, progress and stability of this nation.

Let me now sum up the views on Government's style. The debate on this issue evoked a wide range of responses and stance, from plaintive pleas to more pointed and vociferous demands for people and MPs to have more say in running the country, for less Government control and for alternative, even dissenting views, to be heard without harassment. The civil service too was not spared and this was not the first time; neither will it be the last too. The Minister of State for Foreign Affairs and also the Member for Changi especially devoted virtually their whole speeches on what should and what should not be done by the civil service. For after all, it was seen by the people as synonymous with government. And rather ominously, the Minister of State for Communications and Information and Trade and Industry declared that there were indications that all was not well in this country; when more and more of our citizens, especially the more educated and talented ones, uproot themselves to settle in more congenial and preferred atmospheres in other countries. The challenge, as he put it, was how individuals could realize their personal aspirations within the constraints that we have. I agree that this will be one of the issues we have to seriously address ourselves to.

Sir, the unanimous view was that our population has changed and so too have their aspirations and expectations. We will have to be, according to the Member for Bedok GRC, Dr Hong, "spiritually and psychologically in tune with the people" and that perhaps our macho image needed a bit of restyling.

I am glad that the Minister for Communications and Information has assured us that he and his Cabinet colleagues were committed to the spirit of consultation. What we would need to do now is to clearly demonstrate to the public that this commitment will be practised. This is especially important for younger Singaporeans. Again, as the Member for Toa Payoh GRC stated, we must continue to assure younger Singaporeans that we are sincere in wanting more openness and participation from the public. In his own words, there must be a visible interplay of contending forces. In other words, openness, flexibility, a more softer approach to govern should not rest only in commitment but should also be visible to the population.

Apart from these three main issues, Sir, Members also brought up many other concerns but impossible for me to mention one by one. There was, however, a continuous thread weaving in and out of the fabric of the debate during these last five days and that is the concern for the low income, less fortunate, the poor of our society. There were calls for attention and help to be extended to them and to ensure that the goods and services that they would have to consume would be available to them and affordable to them, especially in the fields of education, health and housing.

Sir, the proceedings in the debate will give us many things to mull over and many will, I am sure, surface again during the Budget debate in March. The President has indeed given us valuable food for thought. All that leaves me now is to close this debate by again thanking Members for their valuable contributions and the effort that they have taken in preparing for this debate. As for me, I cannot forgive myself if I leave this table without thanking you, Sir, for bearing with us and our ubiquitous text of speeches from your side of the Chamber. I know how you must feel and the restraint you must subject yourself to. Sir, you have presided over this 5-day debate with dignity, with firmness and with fairness.

Much obliged, Sir. [Applause]

Question put, and agreed to.

Resolved,

That the following Address in reply to the Speech of the President be agreed to:-

"We, the Parliament of the Republic of Singapore, express our thanks to the President for the Speech which he delivered on behalf of the Government at the Opening of the First Session of this Parliament."