Minister George Yeo’s comments that the PAP should transform
itself reminded me of what I said at the Presidential Address
Debate on 1 March
1985. I said that there will be “no more
blank cheque” for the PAP.
Read what I said in Parliament on 1 March
1985 below:
Title: DEBATE ON PRESIDENT’S ADDRESS
MPs Speaking: BG Lee Hsien
Loong (Minister of State for Defence and Minister of State for
Trade and Industry); Encik Wan Hussin Bin Haji Zoohri
(Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Communications and
Information); Mr Lee Kuan Yew (Prime Minister); Dr Augustine H. H.
Tan; Dr Dixie Tan; Dr Ow Chin Hock; Dr Tan Cheng Bock; Encik Othman
Bin Haron Eusofe; Maj Fong Sip Chee; Mr Bernard Chen; Mr J. B.
Jeyaretnam; Mr Yeo Choo Kok; Mr Yeo Toon Chia; Dr Yeoh Ghim Seng
(Mr Speaker);
PRESIDENT’S ADDRESS -Debate on the Address
(First Allotted Day) 11.04 a.m.
Dr Tan Cheng Bock (Ayer Rajah): Mr Speaker, Sir, I am greatly
honoured to be given this rare opportunity to move this Motion of
Thanks to the President.
Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move,
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.".
Mr Speaker, Sir, in his opening remarks, the President said:
‘The political leadership of Singapore has passed on to a new
team of younger leaders.’
Our younger leaders are now plotting the new stage of
development for Singapore. They have set out certain goals to be
achieved within the next five years. However, whatever they plan,
whatever they do, they must not forget that it was the common man,
the man in the street, who voted the PAP into power.
Since 1963, the people have given this Government a blank
cheque. They went with us all the way, accepting our policies
readily because they believed in us. They had faith in us and,
above all, they trusted us. Our Prime Minister and his able men led
them through the first stage of our development – the construction
phase of our development. The changes they produced were
remarkable. They were very visible – from squatter huts, zinc and
plank shops to tall skyscrapers of Housing and Development Board
flats and offices, from stand-pipes to individual taps at home and
from mud tracks to metalled roads. These changes were not only
visible but impressive and it was dramatic. The people saw this
with admiration and placed more faith in our Government.
But today, after 25 years of nation-building, there is an
erosion in this faith and trust in the Government and this was
translated into a 12.5% swing in the last general election. The
reasons for the erosion have been aired many times after the
elections. The most frequently whispered comment is that the PAP no
longer cares for the common man as many Singaporeans perceived the
numerous policies as elitist, in particular, the priority scheme
for graduate mothers and the streaming of our children in the
schools, the emphasis on special and gifted schools, the publicity
given to scholars and their achievements and, of course, the
unpublicized but much-talked about special social development
programmes for unmarried graduates. All these and many more,
including the controversial CPF issue, made the people suspect the
intentions of the Government. While these policies have always been
defended as not significantly depriving the majority of their
rights, the fact remains that they benefited so few alienates the
majority.
Is this then the ordinary people’s government, or is it a
government for a special breed of men? The ordinary men in the
street are prepared to let the able ones to lead but in turn they
expect these able men to have empathy. But, alas, our hard-headed
and statistical approach to problems have given the impression that
we are beginning to care less for the people and more for those who
can achieve. In the eyes of many, we are beginning to shed our
image as an ordinary man’s party.
But have we really stopped caring for the ordinary people? The
answer is no. We are still the ordinary man’s party. We still build
flats for them, we still build roads, hospitals, improve utilities
and we provide social and recreational facilities for all. Why are
the people then less aware and conscious of these achievements than
in. the past? Have they forgotten that these achievements are only
possible because this Government has remained honest, efficient and
non-corrupt?
One possible reason why people do not appreciate these
achievements is that the rapid change of policies within the last
two to three years have confused our people so much that they have
missed the forest for the trees. The ordinary people were not able
to follow the rapid changes in our education policy, the
controversial proposals on the CPF, the special tax concessions to
highly qualified women, the high increases in cost of houses and
car taxes, PUB increases and the restructuring of our economy.
Mr Speaker, Sir, the angry mood of the people did not go
unnoticed. It was picked up by PAP Members of Parliament in this
House and they brought up all these issues in this House. The
Member for Moulmein, for example, has brought up many issues
concerning education and streaming. Then we have the Member for
Rochore who has also brought up very controversial Issues in this
House. And of course our Backbench economist, the Member for
Whampoa, has cautioned and advised the Government on economic
policies. We also have the Members for Leng Kee, Punggol, Toa Payoh
and our newly elected Deputy Speaker who sRoke very strongly in
this House on many issues concerning our policies. In spite of what
they have said in this House, somehow our Ministers did not pay
much attention to these issues. Maybe they did pay much attention
but they did not perceive the feedback correctly, or they took for
granted that the people will understand and are with them because
of the good past track record.
Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to relate an incident involving my
son. I took him to the Botanic Gardens one day, when he was very
young. I was eager to see the Orchids section, and so I walked very
very fast. He shouted to me to wait for him. I turned around, only
to urge him on. I had presumed he was able to follow me but
suddenly he stopped calling. I turned back and found him seated on
a stone at the far end of the road. I walked to him. I saw that he
was angry and in tears and, with arms folded, he burst out, "Why
didn’t you wait for me?" He refused to move in spite of my
apologies. He was hurt. He interpreted my fast pace as not caring,
and this is how the people view the PAP.
Many Singaporeans felt left behind because they could not follow
the pace of change, and they resented this. We have to be honest
with the people that we misread them, but they should not misread
our intentions which are always in the interests of Singapore.
At this point, Mr Speaker, Sir, let me reiterate that it is not
good enough for the Government to have good intentions when
introducing new policies. The Government must also ensure that the
people understand these good intentions and thereby enjoy their
support. A policy supported by the people would be less traumatic
when implemented. Mr Speaker, Sir, there is no more blank
cheque.
Running a country is not like running a company. We cannot
"sack" our people if they are less effective. Our responsibilities
go beyond that. We must help them. It is therefore good to find
that one of the Government’s new goals will be to pay particular
attention to the 15-20% lower income group and the aged. This works
out to approximately half a million Singaporeans. The fact that
Government has singled out these two target groups for special
mention shows the concern of the new leaders. It is no easy
task.
For a start, we must identify the impediments that have
prevented the lower income group from moving up. One of their basic
needs is better housing, and it is gratifying to note that the
Cabinet has plans to help this group achieve home ownership.
Another need is better education for their children so that they
will be able to get better jobs and break out of this poverty
cycle. In this context I hope to see the Ministry of Education draw
up positive programmes to help these children overcome the
linguistic and learning disadvantages that their home background
imposes on them.
However, we must not give them handouts. Do not entice them with
our $10,000 in order to stop them from producing more babies. They
have pride. We should not insult them. Educate them.
Mr Speaker, Sir, the new leaders have a very difficult task of
improving upon what the old leadership has built. Many have
commented that it is easier to take off with the infrastructure
built for them, but this is not necessarily true. It is easier to
please the past generation. Their needs are simple. But times have
changed and problems are different today. Expectations are high.
Thus the people may not realize that the new leadership will have
to put in a great deal more effort to produce very marginal visible
change. Let me illustrate. Moving from a rental flat to a purchase
flat, upgrading from a 3-room flat to a 4-room flat, improving a
one-lane traffic to a dual carriage way, do not create such
dramatic impact as moving from an attap house with well water
facilities to a HDB flat with all its associated amenities.
It is, therefore, right, Mr Speaker, that we should get the
people to be more involved in the important decisions of this
country. What then is the type of Singapore they want in the coming
years? This was the question put to the audience by our First
Deputy Prime Minister in the last Dialogue Session. I am surprised
that there has not been much response from the press or from the
public. If criticism of the Vision for the 1990s had been
forthcoming during the last elections, I am disappointed that
nothing has been generated in the press to fire the imagination of
the Singaporeans on what they want for our future country. Perhaps
the vision of the new leaders put up by them is what the people
really want Singapore to be. And it is not fair to be silent now,
and later, with the benefit of hindsight, to criticize the vision
of our young leaders.
This involvement of the people in big decision making marked a
new style of government. The intention to set up a unit in the
Ministry of Community Development to sample public opinion on new
ideas, to accept and consider new ideas from the public, to sample
public opinion on policy matters before implementation, to review
policy particularly where it affects the public, and lastly as a
complaints bureau is a big step towards participatory democracy.
This unit, however, must not be seen as another arm of the
Government to explain or to defend the actions of the civil service
or the statutory boards. Nor should civil servants misunderstand
the role of the unit to that of witch-hunting or fault finding.
Mr Speaker, Sir, behind all these domestic issues, we must not
forget that we are living in turbulent times. We are small.
Singapore watchers saw how our people voted in the last general
elections. They have made conclusions. It would be in our national
interest to ensure that people elsewhere do not draw the wrong
conclusions about our unity and commitment to this country.
Singaporeans must bear in mind that our actions cannot go
unnoticed.
Mr Speaker, Sir, much has been said of the new leadership and
the new Members of Parliament. Most are inducted into politics.
Many are labelled as "reluctant politicians" and some Singaporeans
are sceptical of their political leadership. I would like to
compare ourselves as kidney transplants. Mr Speaker, Sir, in a
kidney transplant, two things can happen – either the body accepts
or the body rejects. To prevent rejection, the doctor pumps into
the body certain substances called immuno-suppressants. In spite of
this, some are still rejected. Like the transplanted kidneys, the
new MPs must have these immuno-suppressants in the form of faith
and support from the people. And, like the transplanted – kidneys,
those that are accepted will no doubt be able to perform as
effectively as the older leaders. Singaporeans must give our new
leadership a fair chance to prove themselves. Our new enthusiastic
Cabinet leaders have set admirable goals for themselves and for the
people. If they are able to win the hearts and minds of our
disciplined people, these goals will no doubt be achievable and our
country will prosper and progress.
Mr Speaker, Sir, the Leader of the House has asked the new MPs
"to speak their minds and let conscience be their guide." We should
take his advice. Although we will get walloped by the Ministers for
some of our remarks, we should not let these parliamentary wounds
deter us from speaking. We must develop what people
call"thick-skin"and, like a rubber ball, you must be prepared to
bounce back.
Finally, I am not sure whether the new MPs are lucky, or
unlucky, not to have amongst us the former First Deputy Prime
Minister and the former Minister of Education with us. I remember
he delivered my first parliamentary wound when I accused his
education system of creating class divisions. And I can assure new
Members of this House that it was not a pleasant experience. It was
ulcer-producing but, at the end of it all, it was worth it because
I registered my reservations and my belief and I also reflected the
views of many people who strongly believe that there is this
weakness in our education policy.
Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move. [Applause]
If only there's a FB 'like' button for forums.. 'like'!
Who else dares to speak this way.. have you guys
read his recent comment to our Law minister?
