GOVERNMENT POLICY (Debate by Singaporeans on merits)

Assoc. Prof. Walter Woon asked the Prime Minister, with reference to the letters written by his Press Secretary published in the local press recently, whether the Government encourages Singaporeans to actively debate the merits of Government policy.

The Prime Minister (Mr Goh Chok Tong): Mr Speaker, Sir, the Government encourages Singaporeans to actively debate the merits of Government policy. My position on this question is fully set out in my Press Secretary's two letters to the Straits Times in December 1994. These letters reflect the Government's view on how the debate should be conducted: the limits to openness, the need for the Government at times to respond robustly to criticisms and why Singaporeans who seek to set out the political agenda should enter the political arena to do so.

Assoc. Prof. Walter Woon (Nominated Member): Sir, would the Prime Minister agree that it is a mark of a good citizen that he should keep himself informed of what is going on to contribute constructive criticisms when he can?

The Prime Minister: Mr Speaker, Sir, yes, I agree fully.

Assoc. Prof. Walter Woon: Would the Prime Minister say whether it is Government policy to try and silence people whose views do not agree with theirs?

The Prime Minister: Mr Speaker, Sir, I have said many times that I welcome dissenting views from members of the public. I am also on record as saying that the Government does not believe that it has got a monopoly of ideas and I do welcome debate of a constructive nature on Government policy so that we are in a position to distil the best contributions to a particular question for us to make a decision.

Assoc. Prof. Walter Woon: Will it be fair to say that any Singaporean can express his views freely without fear of retribution or persecution?

The Prime Minister: Mr Speaker, Sir, yes, every Singaporean is welcomed to make his viewpoint known. But if a viewpoint is against what we believe in, the Government must have the right to rebut. Because if we do not rebut a particular viewpoint which we believe will lead the country to no good, then that viewpoint will catch hold of the population, and the country will be influenced by a wrong viewpoint to our adverse interest.

Dr Lee Tsao Yuan (Nominated Member): Can I ask the Prime Minister whether he has noticed any increase in reluctance on the part of concerned Singaporeans to publicly express their views after the recent series of exchanges in the newspapers and, if so, whether this is desirable?

The Prime Minister: Mr Speaker, Sir, I am in no way able to conclude that there has been a decrease in interest in contributing to the debate on Government policy. There is no measure for me to come to that conclusion.

Mr Chiam See Tong: Is the Government adopting double standards? When journalists are very critical of the Opposition, they can take part in politics. But anyone writing in the papers against the Government, he or she will have to answer very serious questions from the Government side and being accused of taking part in politics or not joining an Opposition party to take part in politics. Is there a double standard?

The Prime Minister: Mr Speaker, Sir, there is no double standard. If the Opposition Members of Parliament or Opposition parties are criticised by journalists and others, it is for the Opposition Members of Parliament or parties to rebut the criticisms. When the Government is criticised, we reserve the right to rebut and it depends on the nature of the discussion. There are occasions when we rebut gently. But there must be occasions when we have to rebut robustly. It depends on the particular policy which is being debated and the motive of the person making the criticism of the Government policy.

As for joining politics or getting them to be in the political arena, again, the position is very clear. The agenda must be set by the Government, and anybody who wants to set the agenda for the country must enter the political fray. Then we are on level ground. You can criticise us, and we would treat you as though you have entered the political arena. If you do not wish to do so, you want to hide in sanctuaries to criticise the Government, to attack the Government, we say, even though you do not want to join a party, we would treat you as though you have entered the political arena. I think that is fair. Because you cannot just criticise without expecting us to reply to you in the same manner which you have attacked us. If you land a blow on our jaw, you must expect a counter-blow on the solar plexus.

Mr Low Thia Khiang: Sir, how does the Prime Minister determine the motive of a writer who has published a certain article in the press and decide what sort of rebuttal, whether it is gentle or something else?

The Prime Minister: You will know when the blow lands on you, whether it is gentle or robust. But there are many people who write to the press and many of these do not attract our attention. We do not spend our time trying to give reply to every point of view in the newspapers. We have to give priority to certain matters. There are times when letters to the press or criticisms deserve reply, and they will get the reply; and not all replies need to be of an adversarial nature. Very often, it can be a constructive debate, and we do want to involve Singaporeans in a constructive debate in order to yield facts and information to allow us to make the right decision for Singapore.

Mr Chiam See Tong: Can I have a clarification from the Prime Minister? I think Singaporeans would like to have this matter clarified.

Does he say that one must be in a political party before one can take part in political comments or criticisms of Government policy? Is that the position? No well-known person in Singapore can criticise Government policies?

The Prime Minister: Mr Speaker, Sir, Mr Chiam has misunderstood me. You do not have to be a member of a political party before you let your viewpoint be known. You can make commentary occasionally or regularly. But if you wish to change a particular policy in Government and you do take a position, you make criticisms regularly, then, of course, you must expect us to regard you as wanting to influence the political agenda of the country. And if it is a simple matter of constructive debate, you will get a constructive reply. But if you try to undermine the authority of the Government through snide remarks, by mocking the Government, you must expect a very, very hard blow from the Government in return. We return the compliment.

Dr Kanwaljit Soin: Sir, how would concerned citizens know what are the out-of-bound markers? And the second question is, because of not knowing the limits, would some concerned citizens then be reluctant to speak up if these limits are not well known?

The Prime Minister: Mr Speaker, Sir, it is not possible to demarcate the boundary clearly. Use your commonsense. On Government policy, ministerial salaries, COEs, and so on, you are free to debate that. No problem, whatsoever. If you are to venture into, say, areas which touch on religious sensitivity, on race, then we would pull you back very early before you cause problem for the ground or for the communities. So, generally, I would say, use your commonsense. And the manner in which you put forward your viewpoint is important. You disagree with us, you put forward your viewpoint in such a way that we know that you are not up to any mischief but merely expressing a different viewpoint. We welcome a debate with you. But if the tone is sarcastic, it aims at undermining respect for the Government, as I said just now, we will return the compliment.

Mr Chiam See Tong: Does the Government not realise that there are people or groups of fairly well-known people who do not want to join any political party, but they are concerned Singaporeans and they want to take part in the political process of the country? There are these groups of people. I do not think that they want to undermine the country, but they want to put their views across, maybe fairly strongly. Are these people not shut out from the political process of the country?

The Prime Minister: Mr Speaker, Sir, the answer is no. If there are such people who do not want to join a political party but, nevertheless, they want to try and get us to move away from certain positions, as I said just now, we will regard them as wanting to change the agenda of the country and we will treat them as though they have joined a political party. They do not have to join a political party. But if you want to change policies, we will treat you as though you have joined a political party. And, again, the nature of the debate, the manner in which we debate with you will depend very much on the tone in which you conduct your criticism. So well-meaning people who put forward their views in a very well-meaning way will receive a very gentle and very well-meaning reply.

Mr Chiam See Tong: Some of these well-meaning people have volunteered themselves to be selected as NMPs. What is the position of the NMPs? Are they allowed to criticise the Government outside this House?

The Prime Minister: Yes, of course. They could criticise in the House or outside the House. But I would certainly welcome a debate in the House, because then we can join issues face to face and get the matter cleared.

Mr Low Thia Khiang: The Prime Minister has said that the type of reply will depend on the motive and the tone. Does he agree that these are very subjective?

The Prime Minister: Yes, I think in many cases they are subjective. We will be in the best position to judge, because when a blow has been landed, we know. We would then have to defend ourselves and rebut the criticism. But more importantly, it is the arguments which are important. From our own experience and from our study of experiences elsewhere, if we find that certain arguments are wrong, they are negative, they are going to lead Singapore to ruin, we are going to challenge that viewpoint. Because if we do not do so, we are abdicating our responsibility in governing Singapore. We are allowing somebody else to actually determine where Singapore should go. We cannot allow that, and we would rebut the criticism. But, as I said, if your worry is the robustness of our reply, then I think most people do not have to worry. We do not normally want to reply robustly unless we have to.

Mr Chiam See Tong: Isn't the stand taken by the Government rather regressive? Because this assumes that the Government is always right and all others are wrong. There are times in which the Government policies may be wrong, and these people who speak up may be right. So they should be allowed to air their views in line with what they think, rather than to come down on them with a sledgehammer.

The Prime Minister: Mr Speaker, Sir, Mr Chiam has got me wrong. They are encouraged to speak up, as I said in my very first sentence in reply to NMP Walter Woon. There are times when valid points have been made by members of the public and we do give due recognition to the points and we do modify policies or our position, if we think that they are right in their point of view. But if we think they are wrong and we are right, then we have to correct that mistaken viewpoint. And they are free to make their viewpoints known. There is no repression of their viewpoints whatsoever. That is the question which Walter Woon has asked and I have replied that I encourage active constructive debate.

Mr Chiam See Tong: Even with the assurance of the Prime Minister, there are many intellectuals in Singapore who do not think so. They have points of view to make but for fear of retribution, they have not made these points. How can the Government assure them that they can take part in the political debate without joining a political party and yet the Government will not victimise them? There are occasions where we can think of many policies which the Government has gone wrong.

The Prime Minister: Mr Speaker, Sir, I can assure all these intellectuals that they need not fear retribution. They must expect a rebuttal where we disagree with them. A rebuttal is not a retribution.