Policy, People, Presence

This article was first published in The Hammer, Issue 09/02

In every general election, Singaporeans who are fortunate enough to vote in a contested constituency are faced with a decision which will decide our government for the next five years.

Some may make that decision out of blind faith, some may do so out of spite. What about you?

This article outlines three points to help you in your decision which will determine the future for you and your loved ones.

Policy
Every serious political party will present a set of policy ideas to Singaporeans. These policy ideas are framed in a document called a "Manifesto". With this Manifesto, each political party sets out to persuade Singaporeans that its policy ideas will create a better life for everyone.

When a political party wins the election and forms the government, it then has the mandate and duty to carry out the policy ideas in the Manifesto. Should a political party not win the majority of seats to form the government, but wins enough seats to form a sizeable opposition bloc in parliament, it can continue to persuade the government to adopt its alternative policy ideas on behalf of its constituents.

In the 2006 general election, the Workers' Party presented its set of policy ideas to Singaporeans in its Manifesto entitled "You Have A Choice". The Manifesto contains 180 policy ideas in 14 distinct sections with topics ranging from the economy to national security.

Since the Workers' Party won only one elected seat in Parliament in 2006, and was given one other Non-Constituency MP seat, do our policy ideas get a chance to be heard after the elections? Yes, they do. However, it will take time.

The 1988 Manifesto of the Workers' Party contained a proposal for every child to have a basic education up to the age of 15 or 16. The 1994 Manifesto contained a similar proposal for such basic education to be made compulsory. In 2000, a full 12 years after the 1988 Manifesto, the Compulsory Education Act was passed by Parliament.

With your support and with more seats in Parliament, the Workers' Party will be able to speed up the implementation of such policies that benefit Singaporeans.

People
Without people, there can be no party. While a political party is made up of people who work hard on the ground and behind the scenes, the most visible are the candidates which a party fields during general elections.

With the rise in educational levels of Singaporeans and the increasing complexity of the problems that our country faces, Singaporeans' expectations of the quality of candidates have also soared. Political parties have found it increasingly difficult to find people who are willing and able stand as candidates and, at the same time, meet the high expectations of Singaporeans.

In the 2006 general election, the Workers' Party fielded a total of 20 candidates, its highest number of candidates since 1988. Most of these candidates were university graduates with professions such as teaching, and business.

However, the quality of the Workers' Party's candidates should also be measured by important intrinsic values - the passion to serve, the ability to connect, the drive to succeed - which stem from the desire to make Singapore a better home for Singaporeans.

The Workers' Party continues to seek new people with both ability and passion so that Singaporeans can truly have a voice in parliament.

Presence
When was the last time your elected MP came up to you to say hello? "Walking the ground" is what elected and aspiring MPs must do to better understand the concerns of Singaporeans. No aspiring MP will gain the support of Singaporeans without "walking the ground," and no elected MP should take Singaporeans' support for granted once he or she is in office. For political parties to win an election, they must frequently bring themselves to Singaporeans, instead of waiting for Singaporeans to go to them.

In this respect, the Workers' Party regularly presents itself to Singaporeans by going door to door visiting residents every week, and by conducting weekly walkabouts promoting its newsletter, "The Hammer," at various housing estates around the country.

At these walkabouts, the Workers' Party listens to the concerns of Singaporeans from all walks of life. Those concerns are ingrained in the minds of the party members who propose alternative policies for the betterment of our country. With an increased presence both on the ground and in Parliament, these alternative policies can then be put forward and implemented for Singaporeans' benefit.

In conclusion, the next time you have the chance to vote, think about which political party brings you the Policy, People, and Presence that can truly make a positive difference to you, your loved ones, and to the success of our country.

Picture taken by Terence Ong in May 2006. Published under Creative Commons.

Visit to HortPark - 9th May 2009

Flowers, Cards, and Candy Are Not the Essence of Mother's Day

------------

From "101 Really Important Things You Already Know, But Keep Forgetting" by Ernie J. Zelinski (2007), Pg 219-220

-------------

As much as I loved my mother, it will come as a surprise to some people that over the years I didn't buy her flowers, or candy for Mother's Day. I did buy her dinner, however, and spent quality time with her every Mother's Day. Perhaps you should do likewise.

Truth be known, you don't have to feel guilty about not buying gifts to help your mother celebrate Mother's Day. Not buying your mother cards, flowers, or candy to help her celebrate this special event is not about being stingy and saving yourself a few bucks, however. There is a much better reason. We have to go back to the origins of Mother's Day to place this matter in proper perspective.

Anna May Jarvis was just two weeks shy of forty-two, working for a life insurance company in Philadelphia, when her mother (Mrs Anna Reese Jarvis) died on May 9, 1905. It was the second Sunday of the month. The next year Anna May Jarvis made her life goal to see her mother and motherhood honored annually throughout the world. Jarvis felt children often neglected to appreciate their mother enough while she was still alive. She hoped Mother's Day would increase respect for parents and strengthen family bonds.

Two years after her mother's death, Anna Jarvis and her friends began a letter-writing campaign to gain the support of influential ministers, businessmen, and congressmen in declaring a national Mother's Day holiday. In 1914, President Woodrow Wilson signed a proclamation from the U.S. Congress to establish the second Sunday in May as Mother's Day forevermore.

Ironically, the commercialization of the day she had founded in honor of motherhood - today it is the biggest business day of the year for U.S. restaurants and flower shops - was not what Anna May Jarvis had envisioned. Jarvis wanted people to spend a lot of quality time with their mothers and let their mothers know how special they were.

Sadly, Jarvis, who never married and was never a mother herself, retired from her job at the insurance company to spend her remaining thirty-four years, and her entire fortune of over $100,000, campaigning against the commercialization of Mother's Day.

Whenever she could, Anna May Jarvis would speak out. She was known to crash florists' conventions to express her distaste for their "profiteering" from Mother's Day. Eventually too old to continue her campaign, she ended up deaf and blind - not to mention penniless - in a West Chester, Pennsylvania, sanitarium, where she died in November 1948 at the age of eighty-four.

"Why not give your mother flowers, cards, or candy?" you may ask. "Flowers," declared Jarvis, "are about half dead by the time they're delivered." As for candy, Jarvis advised, "Mother's Day has nothing to do with candy. Candy is junk. You give your mother a box of candy and then go home and east most of it yourself."

"Well, then what's wrong with cards?" you may add. Jarvis felt that "a maudlin, insincere printed card or a ready-made telegram means nothing except that you're too lazy to write to the woman who has done more for you than anyone else in the world."

Tell your mother the truth about Mother's Day and you won't have to spend money on flowers, candy, and cards to help her celebrate her special event of the year. Heck, you don't even have to buy her a copy of this book as a gift. You should, however, make her dinner or take her out to a fine restaurant.

Most important, you should spend a lot of quality time with her. You mother will appreciate this immensely. What's more, if she were still living today, Anna May Jarvis would be so pleased that you celebrate the second Sunday of May with your mother in the true spirit and essence of Mother's Day!

Thank Your Mother a Lot While She Is Still Alive

Regardless of their age, the large majority of mothers care for their children in a thousand little ways that their children tend to take for granted. Unfortunately, most of us don't realize how much our mothers mean to us until they are no longer around. Of course, there are many people who truly appreciate their mothers and express their gratitude for them.

-------------

From "101 Really Important Things You Already Know, But Keep Forgetting" by Ernie J. Zelinski (2007), Pg 213-218

-------------

Regardless of their age, the large majority of mothers care for their children in a thousand little ways that their children tend to take for granted. Unfortunately, most of us don't realize how much our mothers mean to us until they are no longer around. Of course, there are many people who truly appreciate their mothers and express their gratitude for them.

"All that I am or ever hope to be," remarked Abraham Lincoln, "I owe to my angel Mother." George Washington declared, "I attribute all my success in life to the moral, intellectual, and physical education which I received from my mother." Jewish people have a proverb about mothers that is even more eloquent: "God could not be everywhere and therefore He made mothers."

Given that my mother passed away while I was in the middle of completing the new edition of this book, allow me to share how I never got to express my love and appreciation for her as much as I would have liked. On the first Sunday of February 2007 I was contemplating whether I should go to a musical performance at our local jazz club. I gave consideration to the fact that on the previous Sunday I had not visited my mother, which I had done virtually every Sunday for almost twenty years. Thus, I decided to skip the musical performance.

I picked up some items from a local supermarket deli and headed over to my mother's apartment. This particular Sunday my sister, Elaine, and her husband, Lorne, also showed up and we had an enjoyable dinner together. Later I noticed that my mother was wheezing after she climbed a flight of stairs. She also complained about how her legs had gotten really stiff lately.

Even so, I would later find out that my mother told her best friend that she had a really great day, because my sister, my brother-in-law, and I had visited her. What's more, earlier in the day, just as my mother was about to call my brother, Kenny, who lives out of the city, he called and talked to her for an hour.

As it turned out, this was the last Sunday dinner that I enjoyed with my mother. You can imagine how fortunate I felt that I had skipped the musical performance. Two days later, I called my mother to ask her how she was doing.  

She complained of severe headaches that would respond to Tylenol. Later in the evening my sister and her husband drove my mother to the hospital. The doctors decided to keep her for two or three days because of her low oxygen level but they didn't it was anything serious.

On Wednesday afternoon when I visited my mother at the hospital, I was stunned to find out that the doctors had diagnosed her with acute leukemia. The head doctor indicated that she could live for several weeks - even months - if they gave her blood transfusions and chemo drugs along with morphine. Needless to say, I left the hospital in somewhat of a daze.

That evening I decided that I would visit my mother at least once every day until she passed away. I also decided to get a nice black book in which I would write down all the special things that I wanted to thank her for. I was also going to encourage other people to write in the black book all the things that they liked about my mother.

As fate would have it, the next day my mother took a turn for the worse. The doctor phoned early in the morning and indicated she had only a few days left with her likely losing mental capabilities in a day or two. Soon after I got to the hospital, I decided that I should bring my mother's best friend, Mary Leshchyshyn, to see my mother one last time while she still had her mental capabilities. After I brought Mary to the hospital, she and my mother were able to spend half an hour together while the rest of us went for coffee.

When we got back to my mother's hospital room, I noticed that my mother had gotten worse and was gasping for oxygen. At this point I felt that she might not last more than a day. So I immediately thanked my mother for two or three important things that she had done for me.

She responded - as she struggled for oxygen - by thanking me specifically for having come over every Sunday. (At this point I truly realized how much my weekly Sunday visits meant to her.) I also told my mother that the reason that I had never married was that I had never met a wonderful woman like her. Shortly after, my mother's best friend, Mary, stated that my mother looked really tired and that she should go home to let my mother rest. My mother was able to say a few more words to Mary including "Don't get what I got." 

Mary's last words to my mother were "See you later." I would find out soon after from my sister that my mother whispered, "Oh no, you won't." But Mary didn't hear this.

Sadly, while I was driving Mary back to her apartment, my mother passed away. My sister, Elaine, and her husband, Lorne; my cousin, Jerry, and his wife, Lil; and the hospital chaplain, Blaine Allan, were there with her and said a prayer while she passed away. Surprisingly, my mother at eighty-five had her mental capabilities and even a great memory right until her last minutes, given that she was giving instructions to my sister about the funeral, including the dress she wanted to be wearing and how she wanted her head tilted just a bit in the coffin instead of straight up.

I found out a few interesting things shortly after my mother passed away. Blaine, the hospital chaplain, had visited my mother in the early morning and spent about an hour with her. She talked to Blaine about what a great life she had had and how she was sure she was going to pass away that day. Blaine also indicated that my mother was not trying to hand on like some people do.

Later that morning, when my sister arrived, my mother told her, "I'm done." My sister responded, "What are you talking about?" My mother replied, "I lost the stone from my family ring. It's gone so that means that I am gone too." My mother was so sweet and so strong during her last hours. Even the hospital staff talked about the deep affection they had developed for her during her short stay in the hospital.

As hard as my mother's death was on me, there was something remarkably spiritual about it. There were also a few things for which I had to feel grateful. My mother did not have to suffer for a long time like so many people do in their later years. I was thankful that Elaine, Lorne, Jerry, Lil, and Blaine were there with her to say a prayer when she passed away. I also felt relieved that I had brought Mary to the hospital so that she and my mother got to spend half an hour together before my mother left us rather unexpectedly that day.

After I left the hospital that fateful afternoon, I felt blessed that I was able to see my mother her last day and thank her for at least two or three special things that she had done for me. But I was also terribly saddened that I did not get to give her a hundred more reasons why she had meant so much to me. So I wrote a letter to my mother, which follows this photo of her in her twenties:

-------------

Dear Mom:

I am so sadden that you left us rather suddenly while knowing that in many ways it was the right thing for you to do. I am sorry that I was not there when you passed on but I know that you appreciate that I brought your best friend Mary to see you one last time and I know that Mary appreciated having to chance to see you one last time. 

Unfortunately, while I was driving Mary back to her home, you left us but Elaine, Lorne, Lil, Jerry, and Blaine were there with you.

I will miss you. I hope that we meet in Heaven. I know that from the way you treated me and the way you treated others - and how much they held you in great esteem and admiration - that you have an outstanding chance of entering Heaven - far greater than me, that's for sure. But I will remember the great things that people loved about you and try to instill as many of your great qualities in myself as I can from now on. Perhaps I will get into Heaven as easily as you.

Because you left rather suddenly, there are so many things that I wanted to thank you for but didn't get a chance. 

Here are just some of the things I wanted to thank you for:

* Thank you for having stuck by my side so many times and gotten yourself in trouble with Dad when he thought I should be doing something else with my life.

* Thank you for lending me the money to publish my first book although, as you said when I was paying you back, you thought you would never see the money again.

* Thank you for making a prompt decision around eight years ago to sell your house and move into the St Andrew's Retirement Complex - I know that your living in the apartment complex rather than continuing living isolated in the house added several years to your life - and of course joy in other people's lives.

* Thank you for still making the great cabbage rolls this last Christmas that you made all these years even though you had been quite ill just before the holidays.

* Thank you for having taken care of your best friend Mary by buying groceries for her when she couldn't make it out on her own due to her low energy level.

* Thank you for having had the ability to always be so pleasant with everyone that you met.

* Thank you for your appreciation of other people - I can't recall your ever having said a bad word about anyone.

I could go on forever about the things that I would like to thank you for, but I just to wrap it up by saying I am somewhat mystified - but nevertheless proud of you - for being able to live to the age of eighty-five in generally good health and then make a fairly rapid exit from this planet without having to suffer like so many people do. 

Great work, Mom!

But I am going to miss you a great deal. Not having the regular Sunday dinners as we have for so many years and not having someone special to phone every day or two are going to be hard on me.

I promise to think of you as I live the rest of my life. I will give much though every day about the types of things you would have wanted me to do and how you would have liked me to treat other people. I know that this will make me a much better person and I hope that I will have as many great people mourn my passing from this planet as will come to mourn yours.

Thank you, Mom

With all my love

Ernie

-------------

I placed this letter under my mother's arm in the coffin when members of my close family and I visited the funeral home to pay our respects the day before the funeral. The next day, after I read a copy of the letter as the eulogy during the funeral service conducted by Father Don Bodnar, a good friend of mine commented that this is the type of letter we should all write to our mothers while they are still living.

To be sure, you should thank your mother a lot for all that she means to you while she is still alive - not only with letters but also with thoughtful comments every time you see her. Clearly, your mother deserves much more than a card, flowers, or candy once a year on Mother's Day. Why not send her a handwritten letter at least once a month? Start today because you never know when she may lose her suddenly.

Here are a few words from Washington Irving to remind us a little more about how important mothers are to us: " A mother is the truest friend we have, when trials heavy and sudden, fall upon us; when adversity takes the place prosperity; when friends who rejoice with us in our sunshine desert us; when trouble thickens around us, still will she cling to us, and endeavour by her kind precepts and counsels to dissipate the clouds of darkness, and cause peace to return to our hearts."

I was fortunate that I saw my mother fifteen to twenty minutes before she passed away and was able to at least thank her for a few things. I am also blessed that I get to dedicate this book to her and will have her name live on at least in some small spiritual way due to me - and, of course, due to the great person that she was. You may not get these same opportunities. So again, thank your mother a lot while she is still alive. Trust me - you will deeply regret it later if you don't.

-------------

The Fragility of Life

Delivered on 6th July 2006, this speech was my inaugural presidential opening address, which marked my first chapter meeting as President of Tampines Changkat Toastmasters Club.

-------------------------------------

Inaugural Presidential Opening Address

By Nathaniel Koh Kim Kui

President, Tampines Changkat Toastmasters Club

6th July 2006, thursday

At the start of this meeting, we had a moment’s silence to remember the passing of a former member of our club, Martin Steiner. He was murdered in Dubai a couple of weeks back, and his body was found a few days ago. He leaves behind his wife, Christina, and his daughter.

This incident caused me to reflect upon the fragility of life.

I know that this topic is very peculiar to an inaugural presidential address because such addresses usually paint a bright and beautiful picture of our environment. But I feel that this topic is close to my heart and I believe that it is close to yours as well.

It is close my heart because I have experienced the fragility of life a few times before. Let me share with you a couple of incidents.

I was a premature baby. I was one month premature. The doctors had to take me out early because they found water in my lungs. And unlike the other babies who could go home after a few weeks, I had to remain in the hospital for the next half-a-year.

I had tubes inserted into my nose to drain the water out of my lungs slowly and carefully for the next half year. And I was just this small.

If the doctors did not discover the water in my lungs, I would have drowned. And I would have died even before I was alive.

In 1999, my father passed on. He was just 49 years old. He had a heart attack in the office. He may have had diabetes and high blood pressure, but he had no history of heart problems, nor were there signs of an impending heart attack. It was very sudden.

It came just two weeks before my ‘O’ Level exams. But his death affected my mother the most. They were married for over 20 years. I would hear her cry every night in her bedroom.

But through this circumstance came the passion, perseverance and persistence to carry on with our lives. I took the ‘O’ Level exams two weeks later, and I passed. Soon, my mother picked herself up and moved on .

Those are just two personal incidents of mine which I have only skimmed the surface of. I have more to share, and I believe that you have yours to share as well.

As each of us look back in our lives, there would be incidents and circumstances that push the limits of our patience, but which reflect the passion, perseverance and pure persistence to push forward in our lives.

How about in Toastmasters? Can we find passion, perseverance, and pure persistence in the movement?

Many of you may know that I began my journey in Toastmasters as a Co-Curricular Activity in Temasek Polytechnic. That was in the year 2000. In that year, I delivered only two projects. There was no push, there was no motivation.

But around May of 2001, at the end of the term after the exam, I made a call that changed my life. I called a friend of mine who was also member in the club. I asked him, “How come so long never have chapter meeting? When’s the next chapter meeting?” And he replied, “Nat, don’t you know that the poly asked the club to close down?”

I had no idea. I was not in the Executive Committee. But over the next few days and weeks, I played a small part in the team to rescue the club from the clutches of closure. On my own accord, I compiled a 29-page report on why the club should not be closed down. Because I was still inexperienced at the time, most of the 29 pages were copied from the Toastmasters website.

I still do not know whether or not the report had any effect, but it doesn’t matter to me, all I needed to know was whether or not the club survived. And to great relief, it did. And that changed my life forever.

Because soon after, I was made the Vice-President Education. That began my habit of visiting clubs almost every day. I would go out, shake hands, meet people, deliver my projects, do some evaluations, take up some appointments, and improve myself so that my club could improve as well. That was five years ago.

If not for that phone call, I would not have known that the club was on the verge of closure. If not for the passion and perseverance of the Executive Committee at that time, there would be no more Temasek Polytechnic Toastmasters Club. I would be club-less and my life would have taken a different direction.

What about Tampines Changkat Toastmasters Club?

If you look at the top of your programme sheet, you can see that our club number is 9165. And that we were chartered on 14th January 1993.

But on 14th January 1993, Tampines Changkat Toastmasters Club did not exist. On that date, club number 9165 existed, not Tampines Changkat.

Because on 14th January 1993, club number 9165 was chartered as the NCOC Toastmasters Club. We were under the auspices of the People’s Association. The charter members of that club who are still with us today are Michael, Cheng Lee and Edward.

But a few years later, the People’s Association no longer saw a need to have a Toastmasters Club. And so, the NCOC Toastmasters Club was dissolved. But because of the passion, perseverance, and persistence of the charter members, the spirit of Toastmasters lived on. Soon, club number 9165 found a new home in Tampines East Community Club. And club number 9165 was then called Tampines East Toastmasters Club.

After a few years, the Tampines East CC closed us down, under what circumstance I do not know. But again, because of the passion, perseverance, and persistence of its members, the spirit of Toastmasters found a new home in Tampines Central Community Club. And club number 9165 became Tampines Central Toastmasters Club.

Again, after a few years, under what circumstance I do not know, Tampines Central Toastmasters Club was asked to move out. But again, because of the passion, perseverance, and persistence of its members, the spirit of Toastmasters found a new home. And club number 9165 became Tampines Changkat Toastmasters Club. And that is where we are today.

Passion, perseverance, and persistence have guide us throughout these years.

I hope that history does not repeat itself. Because our past should not be an indication of our future. But if it is. I hope that we here today will have the passion, perseverance, and persistence to carry on the spirit of Toastmasters wherever we go.

Labour Day: Economic growth should benefit all, not just the rich

Labour Day: Economic growth should benefit all, not just the rich

By Avery Chong, Gerald Giam, Nathaniel Koh, Watson Chong and Yaw Shin Leong

1st May 2009

Singaporean workers are facing their most challenging period since Independence. Thousands have lost their jobs since the current economic crisis began last year, and unemployment is expected to continue rising through 2009 and beyond. Many workers have been forced to accept salary cuts or go on unpaid leave to help their companies stay profitable.

These workers should be saluted for their resilience, perseverance and adaptability in the face of enormous challenges. Singapore’s prosperity and economic progress were achieved primarily through the sweat of our workers.

The Government always claims credit for Singapore’s economic growth during good times, yet conveniently blames the global downturn when our economy takes a nosedive. However the facts tell a different story.Singapore was the first country in Asia to slip into recession last year. Our GDP is expected to contract 8.8% this year — much worse than almost all our major trading partners (see Annex A for the economic forecasts for our top trading partners).

The Government’s economic model may no longer be serving us well, and we need to start a national conversation to discuss alternative economic models to take Singapore to the next level of progress.

Closing the income gap

Singapore’s economic growth over the last decade has resulted in phenomenal income increases for PAP ministers, “foreign talents” and top company executives, while the incomes of low wage Singaporean workers have stagnated or even fallen. Singapore’s income inequality is now more in line with Third World countries than with other developed economies like Japan and Denmark.

Economic growth should benefit all Singaporeans, not just the rich and well-connected. While there should be fair rewards for hard work and good performance, the reality is that many ordinary Singaporeans work just as hard, if not harder, than their wealthy counterparts, but have not reaped commensurate rewards.

The Government should implement measures to increase the take home pay of low-wage local workers. This can be achieved through tighter restrictions on the import of foreign labour in domestic industries, skills development for higher value-added industries, productivity increases through capital investments and increasing government-funded income supplements.

The Goods and Services Tax (GST) for basic necessities like rice and sugar should be removed to benefit low-income Singaporeans. The GST should be reverted to its previous rate of 5% for all other goods and services, except luxury items.

While a no strings attached welfare state is undesirable, there is room for limited and conditional financial assistance for the unemployed. This financial assistance could be based on a fixed quantum or a proportion of the job seeker’s last drawn salary. It should not be disbursed solely at the discretion of Citizen’s Consultative Committees or Community Development Councils. It should be given for a limited period (e.g., six months) to all retrenched Singaporeans who demonstrate a commitment to looking for a new job.

Finally, wealthy Singaporeans should do their part to help their less fortunate countrymen through increased contributions to social welfare organisations and foundations that help Singaporeans in need.

We wish all our fellow Singaporean workers a Happy Labour Day!

——–

[1] The Economist Country Briefings (17 April 2009).

[2] Caught in the pay squeeze, Straits Times, 8 Jun 2008; MOM Report on Wages in Singapore 2006, p45.

[3] Singapore’s Gini index is 42.5, similar to Thailand (42.0) and Cambodia (41.7). Gini index for Japan (24.9) and Denmark (24.7) are much better than Singapore’s. There are no developed countries that have a worse Gini index than Singapore (UNDP 2007/2008 Human Development Report).

——–

Annexe A

2009 GDP Growth Forecasts for Singapore’s top trading partners 

Trading partner rank	Country/Region	Real GDP growth forecast (2009)
2	China	+6.0%
10	India	+5.0%
11	Australia	-1.2%
4	Indonesia	-1.9%
1	Malaysia	-3.0%
3	United States	-3.2%
13	United Kingdom	-3.8%
9	Thailand	-4.4%
12	Germany	-5.3%
6	Hong Kong	-5.9%
5	Japan	-6.4%
-	Singapore	-8.8%
7	Taiwan	-9.3%
8	South Korea	-10.1%

Source: IE Singapore and Economist Intelligence Unit

Transcript of 1988 TV Debate on the Elected President Proposal

TRANSCRIPT OF TV DEBATE ON THE ELECTED PRESIDENT PROPOSAL - 1988

Transcribed by Nathaniel Koh on 18^th & 19^th April 2009 from Lee Kong Chian Reference Library, Level 11, ENGLISH 324.7 ELE

INTRODUCTION

NARRATOR: This morning, a TV debate was recorded between the People’s Action Party and Opposition parties on the proposal for an Elected President. Mr Goh Chok Tong and Brigadier-General Lee Hsien Loong represented the People’s Action Party. Mr JB Jeyaratnam represented the Workers’ Party, and Mr Chiam See Tong, the Singapore Democratic Party. The moderator was Professor KS Sandhu. We bring you now the debate in English, unedited.

Rules of the TV debate: The duration of the debate will not exceed 60 minutes. 50% of the time will go to the People’s Action Party and the other 50% to the Opposition parties as a group. Timekeepers will alert participants when their time is up.

Format of the debate: The debate will start with opening statements. The People’s Action Party will be given 6 minutes, and the Opposition parties as a group 6 minutes - 3 minutes for each Opposition party.

This will be followed by a debate on positions. The People’s Action Party will have 12 minutes to cross-examine the positions of the Opposition parties. Then, the Opposition parties will cross-examine the People’s Action Party’s position for 12 minutes. 6 minutes will be allotted for the moderator to seek clarifications.

The debate will end with closing statements. The Opposition parties first. They will be given 6 minutes - 3 minutes for each party. The People’s Action Party representatives will then have 6 minutes to make their closing statements.

The moderator’s ruling regarding duration, relevancy to the issue debated, and other related matters will be final.

MODERATOR (MOD): As all Singaporeans know, the government last month published a White Paper to provide for an Elected President to safeguard accumulated national financial assets and the integrity of the public services. Also, that this proposal has become an election issue. Indeed, there have been calls for a TV debate on this by Opposition parties. Responding to such calls and associated public interest, the SBC took the initiative to organise such a debate and approached the PAP and the main Opposition parties to participate in it.

Accordingly, to participate in this debate on the Elected President proposal are on the one hand the PAP, and on the other, the Opposition Workers’ and Singapore Democratic Parties.  Representing the PAP are Mr Goh Chok Tong and BG Lee Hsien Loong. While the Workers’ and Singapore Democratic Parties are represented by Mr JB Jeyaratnam and Mr Chiam See Tong respectively.

The debate will comprise essentially of three parts: opening statements by the competing parties, followed by rebuttals and clarifications, and finally, closing statements. I’m the moderator, and my job is to enforce the rules agreed upon as well as to keep the debate on schedule. In this regard, the participants have been again reminded that time is of the essence and any unnecessary deviation from the topic under debate would be a golden opportunity missed.

With these guidelines, it is time to get the debate underway. To do so, I have great pleasure now in inviting Mr Goh Chok Tong to make the opening statements on behalf of the PAP. Mr Goh.

 

OPENING STATEMENTS BY PEOPLE’S ACTION PARTY

GOH CHOK TONG (GCT): Thank you, Mr Chairman. The Elected President is to protect our reserves. These are your hard earned savings, your CPF money, which is looked after on your behalf by the government. Presently, the only safeguard is the integrity of the PAP government. If an irresponsible, unscrupulous and dishonest government should one day come into power, they can spend your money without telling you about it. When you retire at 55 and try to withdraw your CPF, it will be gone. Hence our proposal to create an Elected President. 

First, to safeguard reserves and secondly, to protect the integrity of the civil service. How can it do this? The Elected President must consent if the government wants to spend reserves which it itself has not accumulated, to make certain key appointments, for example, appointments to members of the Public Service Commission or judges of the Supreme Court. The Elected President will have the custodial powers, custodial powers to say no in these two key areas, and the moral authority to block the elected government again in these two areas. He will not have the right to initiate policies himself even in these two areas, be given any powers in other unrelated areas, or be an executive President, like the US or French President. It is a two-key safeguard mechanism. To unlock the reserves and take out the money, both keys must be used. The Prime Minister and his Cabinet hold one key, and the President, the other. The veto powers over key appointments are necessary to protect the judiciary, the SAF and other key institutions from political corruption, to prevent an unscrupulous government from packing the Public Service Commission or the MAS with corrupt appointees who will do their bidding and spend the reserves secretly without telling you or even the Elected President.

The Opposition have claimed that the Elected President proposal is designed for Mr Lee Kuan Yew. In fact, the PM has told the Cabinet that he was not interested in the job. He wanted to say this publicly. I have told him not to do so because I know that there are many Singaporeans who would like him to be the first Elected President, and anyway, he should not close the option, because I believe he has a lot to contribute to Singapore even after he has stepped down as Prime Minister. He is a national resource. The Elected President proposal is a major change in our Constitution. That is why the PAP wants it to be thoroughly discussed and debated and endorsed by Singaporeans. The government has been thinking about this, about how to safeguard your reserves since 1982. The Elected President was first publicly discussed in 1984 before the last general elections, and the government has deliberately released the White Paper on the Elected President before this general election so that it will be fully debated before the electorate. After the general elections, the government will table the bill in parliament on the Elected President. The proposal will be put to a select committee so that more views can be heard. Now, I do not believe in government by referendum, but if despite the prolonged consultation, at the end of the process, there is no consensus on the Elected President, then despite my reservations, we will put the question to a referendum.

In 1984, both Workers’ Party and SDP campaigned on the platform of denying the PAP a two-thirds majority, so that they could not amend the Constitution to create an Elected President. They failed. The government had the time and the majority to push the Elected President proposal through this year before we call for an election. It chose not to. Why should it want to ram through the Elected President proposal or any other hidden proposals after the general elections? Why should it want to do so when we have not done so before this? Thank you.

 

OPENING STATEMENTS BY WORKERS’ PARTY

MOD: Mr JB Jeyaratnam. 

JB JEYARATNAM (JBJ): The Workers’ Party’s position is very clear. The issue is not whether there should be adequate safeguards to protect the financial assets of the country, that there should be adequate safeguards to prevent an irresponsible government from squandering our financial assets is accepted by the Party without question. But the Party believes that already we have adequate safeguards in our institution of parliamentary government. The issue is whether the supremacy of parliament, the body of the people as the final check over the government, should be diminished, whether the parliament should surrender its role and its powers to one man over whom there would be no control under these proposals. The Party is firmly convinced that government should remain accountable to the people through parliament. That is the essence of parliamentary government. We accepted this when we became self-governing. The fact that hitherto parliament has not been effective as a check on government is not due to any weakness in the system, it is due to the PAP’s deliberately followed policy of reducing parliament to a rubberstamp of the government, by blocking the growth of any opposition in parliament.

Now that the PAP perceives that parliament may begin to play its rightful role with the emergence of an effective opposition, the PAP proposed to circumvent this by this plan to transfer parliament’s powers to the man they have already decided should become President. Under the proposals, the President will not only control our financial assets, he will be given powers over the appointment of Supreme Court judges and key personnel in the public service. The magnitude of this power cannot be exaggerated. The President can under these proposals thwart a government elected by the people from carrying out the mandate of the people. These are fundamental changes to how we govern ourselves, and if these changes are to be made, the people should be first asked in a referendum whether they agree to surrender their powers to one man over whom they would have no control once he is installed until his term is over. Remember, he is not accountable to parliament. What the proposals do is to lock the people out of what is theirs.

OPENING STATEMENTS BY SINGAPORE DEMOCRATIC PARTY 

MOD: Mr Jeyaratnam, we must stop. Mr Chiam.

CHIAM SEE TONG (CST): Thank you, Mr Chairman. We must first crystallise the issue in this debate. The PAP is saying that we need an Elected President to safeguard our national reserves. To the SDP, safeguarding the reserves is not the issue. The issue of safeguarding our financial reserves is only a deception, a distraction, a diversion from the real issue, and that is the people of Singapore do not want an Elected President. This can easily be proven if the PAP dares to hold a national referendum. At this referendum, the question can squarely be put to the people of Singapore, quote, “Do you want an Elected President?” unquote. I know the majority of people of Singapore will say no to that question. A national referendum must be held as the issue of the Elected President is so vital to our political system. It concerns the survival of democracy and the survival of our parliamentary system as we know of it today. If the people of Singapore gives the PAP two-thirds majority at the polls, this will be the last time the people shall be voting under the parliamentary system as we know of it today. The real purpose of the PAP to introduce the Elected President is to deprive the people of Singapore effectively the one-man-one-vote system. Yes, the real purpose of installing an Elected President which has executive powers ultimately is to deprive the people of Singapore the one-man-one-vote system. The threat to the change to the one-man-one-vote system was made by the Prime Minister in the early morning hours of December 23^rd 1984 after the last polling day. The people of Singapore must demand on a national referendum.

 

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY PEOPLE’S ACTION PARTY

MOD: Well, we have the opening statements. Now it is time for challenging the statements and rebuttals.

LEE HSIEN LOONG (LHL): If I may direct my first question to Mr Chiam. Mr Chiam, do you recall that in parliament on August the 12^th, Mr Goh Chok Tong spoke on the subject of the Elected President, and asked you to confirm that you are in favour of making changes to our system in order to ensure that our reserves not be depleted.

CST: Yes.

LHL: And you said yes.

CST: Yes, we agree that there should be.

LHL: You agree there should be checks.

CST: There should be checks. We should have hundred, a thousand Gurka troops if you want to take care of our reserves.

LHL: It’s that simple.

CST: Eventually, these Gurka troops instead of taking care of the reserves; they will be imprisoning the people of Singapore. That is why we are concerned.

LHL: That is why we don’t have Gurka troops. Are you suggesting that?

CST: Well, take another example. If the government without me asking put ten policemen in front of my house. They say, the PAP says that ten policemen is to guard me for my safety, but I say no, they are to put me under house arrest. That is why I object to an Elected President.

LHL: You agree that it is necessary to safeguard the reserves.

CST: That is not the issue at the moment. The main issue is whether or not we want to deprive Singapore of our parliamentary system.

LHL: Do you also agree to the need to safeguard the civil service?

CST: By all means, civil servants, reserves, they must be safeguarded. 

LHL: They must be protected, and some changes have been made to do so.

CST:  But these two are not the issues at the moment.

LHL: But you have conceded. This is the purpose of the proposal.

CST: We are saying that the purpose of the proposal is to have an Elected President with executive powers, eventually leading us to a fall of government which we do not want, maybe a dictatorship, and then our reserves will really be lost then.

LHL: Can you explain how it will be possible for the President to have executive powers when all he can do is to say no to the government spending money which has been accumulated by previous governments, not by itself? It can tax, it can spend, it can plan, it can implement. The President has no say, but only protect money accumulated by previous governments, including CPF money.

CST: We all know the proposal, but our innermost fear is that when the PAP is threatened in 1992, and you have the majority, you have two-thirds majority, who will stop you from amending the Constitution further to hand over more executive powers to the President, internal security, finance, defense?

LHL: You therefore concede that the proposal does not contain executive powers, because you are talking about a hypothetical situation which may or may not arise.

CST: No, Mr Lee. We are going to establish something in our society, in our country, which is going to be there for ages to come, and we don’t know who is going to abuse that system that you are going to establish. What the people of Singapore is worried is the powers that will eventually end up in the hands of one person.

LHL: What about the powers which are presently proposed to be given to the Elected President? Do they or do they not constitute executive powers?

CST: Of course they do.

LHL: They do, because he can say no.

CST: Yes.

LHL: You are aware that we have a Presidential Council for Minority Rights.

CST: Well, if they are given discretionary powers, I think they are, but they are not real safeguards.

LHL: You are aware that there is a Presidential Council for Minority Rights.

CST: What has the Presidential Council for Minority Rights, up to date, what has it done?

LHL: You know that…

CST: As far as I know, there is nothing effective about it.

LHL: Mr Chiam, can you answer the question?

GCT: Are you aware or not aware that there is?

CST: Of course. There was a big debate in the 60s on it.

LHL: You know that the Presidential Council for Minority Rights vets all bills before they are sent to the President.

CST: Well, I read my papers, parliamentary papers. Yes, of course.

LHL: Yes. It has custodial powers. It can say no to bills if it deems them discriminatory.

CST: Discriminatory only in regard to certain matters of affecting the community, the community at the moment.

LHL: Yes, yes, in the same way as the…

CST: If there is going to be racial problems or disrupting racial harmony in Singapore.

LHL: Yes, it has the power.

CST: Yes.

LHL: It is not an elected body. Is it an executive body?

CST: We are talking about electing an…installation of an Elected President, and here you are, you are diverting the issue by saying that there should be a person to take care of our national reserves and appointing of our civil servants. These are only as I have said, perhaps you do not understand me, a distraction from the real issue. The real issue is that your government is going to install one person with executive powers, and you can please tell me whether or not there is any provisions to check parliament from further giving any more powers to the President.

GCT: Mr Chairman, Mr Chiam is being cross-examined. He should give the answer.

MOD: Yes, yes. Straight.

LHL: Is or is not the Presidential Council for Minority Rights an executive body? It has custodial powers. Does that make it an executive body?

CST: Well, there’s nothing…..

LHL: It doesn’t, so why not say so.

CST: It doesn’t say anything about, you know, stopping the use of reserves.

LHL: But it has powers. It can prevent parliament from passing bills, any bills.

CST: The Presidential Council for Minority Rights, its purpose is set up to ensure that no bills would disrupt our racial harmony in Singapore.

LHL: Correct, and the Elected President is set up to make sure that no bills or any other government measures would eat into reserves accumulated by previous governments. Specific purposes. Those are custodial powers, similar to the Presidential Council for Minority Rights.

CST: No, they are not.

LHL: Does that make the Elected President an executive one?

CST: Yes, of course, as I have said so.

LHL: And the Presidential Council for Minority Rights is also an executive body?

CST: The fact that the President is able to stop the use of finance without….

MOD: Mr Chiam, I think we will get the debate going if you could answer his question directly, and then we can come back to your turn.

LHL: Are you opposed to the Presidential Council for Minority Rights which has custodial powers?

CST: Well, there is no necessity…

LHL: You do not oppose that.

CST: There is no necessity for the Presidential Council for Minority Rights. I was not in politics when it was formed.

LHL: You would get rid of it. Mr Jeyaratnam, you would surely agree with Mr Chiam that there is no need for such a Presidential Council or indeed any safeguards whatsoever to the system.

CST: So far, you…so far, there is no law which is passed in parliament which has been refused by Presidential Council except I know of one in which parliament overruled the Presidential Council in the GRC proposal, that is what has happened.

LHL: Is that true?

GCT: No, that’s not true.

CST: You have made laws that cut out the powers of the Presidential Council for Minority Rights. That is what you have done.

MOD: That’s not the answer.

GCT: We haven’t heard the answer from Mr Chiam.

MOD: Do you want to respond, Mr Jeyaratnam?

JBJ: Was I asked a question?

LHL: Yes, you were asked a question. Do you agree with Mr Chiam that we should scrap the Presidential Council for Minority Rights and it has an executive function?

JBJ: I think there is a confusion of thought here. The Presidential Council for Minority Rights protects the minorities’ rights, their culture, and their, you know, way of life. Now, the Presidential Council for Minority Rights is not effective. Perhaps you have forgotten that parliament can override the presidential committee’s decision on any bill by itself passing the bill again with a two-thirds majority. Are you aware of that? So that the presidential committee is not effective. I, my Party, would like to see the presidential committee for minority rights made really effective.

LHL: But it has in no way diminished the standing of parliament, neither will the Elected President. Now let me ask you another question. Mr Chiam, you say the Elected President denies people one-man-one-vote.

CST: Yes.

LHL: In America, they have one-man-one-vote?

CST: Yes.

LHL: They vote for a President?

CST: But their system is different.

LHL: They vote for a President?

CST: Yes.

LHL: Therefore, an Elected President does not in itself mean that one-man-one-vote is diminished.

CST: Yes, but we have a different system here.

LHL: Can you answer the question, Mr Chiam?

CST: Yes, what is it?

LHL: The question is, in America they vote for a President.

CST: Correct.

LHL: They also have one-man-one-vote.

CST: They have got an electoral system where they have other people to vote the President.

LHL: And they have democracy.

CST: Yes.

LHL: We will have an Elected President with powers far fewer than the American President. We will have one-man-one-vote too.

CST: Effectively no, in time to come.

LHL: Why does that follow?

CST: Because if you have two-thirds in parliament, and when there is a threat to overthrowing you, as stated by the Prime Minister in 1984, then you will amend the Constitution…

LHL: Mr Chiam, if we have wanted to amend the Constitution…

CST: …to give more powers to the President and that will be the end of one-man-one-vote.

LHL: If we had wanted to amend the Constitution, why do you think we did not do so before the general election?

CST: Well..

LHL: We have the majority. You campaigned on this issue in 1984 if you will remember. You failed.

CST: No, we were against the Elected President.

LHL: Yes, and you failed. If I may quote you, in your first election rally, you said, “If the PAP is returned again, parliamentary and democratic government here will be changed to a presidential system in which power will rest with a few or one person.”  We have not done that.

CST: Yes, I still stand by it.

LHL: Have we done that?

CST: Because the time has not come yet. Once it comes, you will do it, your government will do it.

LHL: Why do you think we have not done so all these years? Since 1966, there was no Opposition in parliament until ‘81 when Mr Jeyaratnam was elected, and then in ’84, you were elected, and in ‘86 Mr Jeyaratnam was disqualified, and you were alone again. All these years, we have never passed any bill, or amended any constitutional provision, without full debate, discussion, and public explanation. Why do you think we want to do so now?

CST: Because at the moment you don’t perceive the threat. Once the threat is there, I believe, unless you give us assurances, you will go ahead to amend the Constitution to hand further powers above those proposals.

LHL: If the threat is there, Mr Chiam, it will be too late for us to do anything, would it not?

CST: No, you can amend the Constitution in one hour on a certificate….in one afternoon, on a certificate of emergency, three readings, one, two, three.

LHL: Which could be done without an Elected President.

CST: No, you must have an Elected President first.

LHL: No, why? We can have the three readings without the Elected President?

CST: Well, you would not have the moral authority…

LHL: (Loud laughter)

CST: You would not dare to. That is the only reason why you want to go for election.

LHL: So without the Elected President, we would not dare, with, we would. It’s that simple. Can I ask you one last question? Do you understand the President’s powers to restrict spending is only on old money, not new money?

CST: Well, that is a very difficult issue…

LHL: You understand that.

CST: Because even Dr Toh himself says that it is difficult to determine what is old money and new money.

LHL: Mr Chiam, we are not debating Dr Toh here. Do you understand that?

CST: We understand…

LHL: Why do you object to restrictions on spending old money?

MOD: I think we should move on to Mr JB Jeyaratnam now. It’s your turn to ask the questions. 

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY WORKERS’ PARTY

JBJ: Thank you, Mr Chairman. We’ve been told that this plan was first mooted in 1984.

GCT: ’82.

JBJ: ’82. Alright.

GCT: ’84, publicly.

JBJ: Pray why in 1982, and not before? Was it because the 31^st of October saw an Opposition member in parliament?

LHL: Mr Jeyaratnam, you flatter yourself. In 1972, the Constitution was amended to prevent sovereignty from being surrendered.

JBJ: Will Brigadier-General Lee answer the question?

LHL: Because you ran the line, in 1982….

JBJ: Mr Chairman, will Brigadier-General Lee answer the question?

LHL: In 1982,…

JBJ: Why in ‘82?

LHL: Because by 1982, a sufficiently large amount of reserves had been built up, that we were worried for Singaporeans that should something happen, their savings would not be protected, before that there was no money.

JBJ: Was there a large jump in the reserves from ’81 to ’82?

LHL: These are cumulative…

JBJ: Please answer the question.

LHL: The PAP…

JBJ: Was there a large, a big jump in the reserves?

LHL: The reserves have been building up year by year because we have never touched them.

JBJ: But why, before ’82, this plan was never hatched up?

LHL: Why should we not?

JBJ: But why, I’d like to know. Would you please answer that question?

GCT: Mr Chairman, there’s always a time to introduce certain amendments. This was discussed first in 1982. Mr Jeyaratnam would like to think that this was prompted by his victory in Anson.

JBJ: Well, that’s not what I think, Mr Goh. That’s what the public in Singapore think. That’s so plain to everybody. May I move on to the next question? Do not these proposals make a radical change to the parliamentary system?

LHL: Yes, they make a radical change to our Constitution.

JBJ: Thank you, and let’s move on to the next question.

LHL: And that’s why they have fully discussed and are being presented for the population to decide upon them in the election.

JBJ: May I make the next question? You agree that they make a radical change. If you look at your White Paper, you say there should not be any radical change, but now you admit there’s going to be a radical change. Why don’t you go to the people on this radical change?

LHL: As Mr Goh has explained, we will take it step by step. First, a White Paper, debated, explained. Second, major general election issue. We didn’t have to do that, but we have chosen to make it a general election issue. You notice, Mr Jeyaratnam, that in your paper, Towards a Caring Society, you have made no mention of the Elected President, have you?

JBJ: But you don’t answer my question.

LHL: Because…

JBJ: You have admitted that this makes a radical change and this is my Party’s stand, it is going to reduce the role and powers of parliament further

LHL: Can I ask where in your programme you have covered this subject?

JBJ: Please don’t evade my question. We are here to debate this issue, not what appeared and what not appeared in the Hammer.

LHL: You are presenting this as a fundamental issue of momentous significance. We agree…

JBJ: It is. It is.

LHL: Well, where is it in your programme?

JBJ: Brigadier-General Lee, will you please answer my question?

LHL: Where was it…

JBJ: And not try and, you know, evade the issue by saying, oh, you didn’t raise this before.

LHL: Did you raise it?

JBJ: I’m raising it now.

LHL: Did you raise it in the Party’s political broadcast on Sunday?

JBJ: Now, next question for you, Brigadier-General Lee or Mr Goh Chok Tong. Under these proposals, where is the check on the President? Where is the check on the President, can you tell me?

GCT: Well, the President does not have the power to initiate any policies. He cannot, on his own, change any policies. That lies with the government.

JBJ: I’m not asking you about initiating policies.

GCT: I have not yet completed my answer….

JBJ: Where is the check on the President’s use of his powers?

GCT: The President does not initiate any policies. It is the Prime Minister and his Cabinet that do so. The President can decide to say no to certain proposals of the government. Your question is where is the President checked?

JBJ: Where is the check on the President?

GCT: Right. Hence, the need to have an Elected President. The check is with the people. If the President does not do a good job, the people will throw him out very quickly.

JBJ: Well, have you seen your proposals on how to throw the President out? They are very cumbersome and tortuous. Have you seen that?

GCT: The President has got to go before the people every six years.

JBJ: And yet you take the line that it is cumbersome to go to the people now, at this precise moment.

LHL: Mr Jeyaratnam, we have not said that. You have not listened to Mr Goh’s opening statement.

JBJ:  I have listened.

LHL: What we said was, first, debate it in the general election. Then, introduce a bill in parliament. Then, have a select committee hearing. You may present your proposals, alternative views, objections. And if at that point, after all the debate, there is still a need for a referendum, we will do so.

JBJ: May I come back to my question?

MOD: Your colleague, JB, also wants to raise a point.

JBJ: May I come back to this question? Do you agree that the President is not accountable to parliament? He cannot be made to answer to parliament if he decides not to allow the government to spend any reserves or he blocks the appointment of any civil servant. Do you accept that?

GCT: The President is accountable to the people, and..

JBJ: The question is, is he accountable to parliament? Please.

GCT: He is accountable to the people.

JBJ: You don’t answer my question, Mr Goh. Where does he say that he can be summoned to parliament to answer these questions?

MOD: Well, his reply is he is accountable to the people.

JBJ: Doesn’t that diminish the supremacy of parliament? Does it not?

LHL: Mr Jeyaratnam, you’re dying to lord it over the people, aren’t you?

JBJ: Parliament is the people’s body. I’m not lording it over them. I’m defending the people’s rights. Parliament stands for the people.

 

CROSS EXAMINATION BY SINGAPORE DEMOCRATIC PARTY

MOD: Well, we have now run out of time. But it is the moderator’s time, and Mr Chiam had a question. If it’s a quick question, I’ll allow it.

CST: I have the other half of the questioning to do. You have agreed on that.

MOD: No. No, it…

CST:   Yes, yes, Mr Goh has to give me six minutes as well.

MOD: Sorry, I beg your pardon.

CST: Can I start now?

MOD: Yes, please.

CST: Now, Mr Goh. You are going to be the next Prime Minister of Singapore. Can I put this question to you? Do you agree that there should be a national referendum on this question of Elected President?

GCT: No, my position is very clear. I don’t believe in going to the people on every issue. You can’t govern through a referendum.

CST: No, this is not every issue, Mr Goh.

GCT:  Let me finish. You can’t govern through a referendum. I’ve stated my position very clearly. If after all this discussion, first this debate in this studio, debate outside this studio before the people, select committee after the bill has been tabled in parliament, and you, I and everybody agrees that there’s no consensus on this important issue, I’m prepared to refer this subject to the people for a referendum.

CST: No, as a matter of principle, let’s take aside all this talk about consensus. Do you agree on principle that this is a very important issue, as important as dismantling our armed forces, as important as giving up our sovereignty, because we are going to give up our parliamentary system. Do you agree on this issue, in principle, that we require a referendum.

GCT: No. It is not on the same genre as selling your sovereignty to other countries.

CST: Thank you. Alright, Mr Goh. Now, assuming that you go with what you’ve just said, that there is no national referendum on this question, and you have two-thirds majority in parliament, do you agree to give an assurance to the people of Singapore that no more executive powers will be handed over to the Elected President unless you go back to the people on a national referendum to get the permission to do so?

GCT: Now, we have stated this very clearly….

LHL: This proposal is to safeguard money….

CST: I’m asking Mr Goh please, not Mr Lee.

LHL: Mr Chiam, we speak together. This proposal is to safeguard money. We have said that there would be no amendments not related to this money and key people, because key people are related to money. No clearer undertaking is possible. There are no other components to this. The PAP lays its cards on the table. We do not even have to open this subject. We have presented it because we want to debate it.

CST: I have only three minutes. Can you please answer the question yes or no? The question is if you have two-thirds majority in parliament…

LHL: We have no intention of making any further amendments.

CST: Alright, so you would be willing to go to the people on a national referendum should you require further powers given…

LHL: We will proceed the way we have always done with full public discussion on any issue. But this is purely hypothetical. We have no intention.

CST: The question is do you agree to go to the people?

LHL: Mr Chiam, there is no proposal. We are not intending to do any such thing. You are raising a hypothetical question…

CST: No, it is not hypothetical. You are thinking of 100 years ahead. We are only thinking of, maybe, four years ahead. Assuming that you have got problems, you are going to lose the election, are you going to pass more powers to the President without going to people on a national referendum?

GCT: The answer is a simple one…

CST: Yes or no.

GCT: And I repeat my point. We don’t believe in government-through-referendum. And we will proceed with any changes in accordance with the way we have governed Singapore all the time.

CST: So your answer is no.

GCT: No, there must be full public discussion first. The answer is not a no or yes. There will be a full public discussion…

CST: Don’t evade the question, Mr Goh. Yes or no. You are not willing to go on a national referendum if the government sees a need to hand more powers to the President.

GCT: No, you are assuming that we see the need to hand more powers to the President. We have put up a very clear proposal that we are only interested in these two areas.

CST: So I take it that you are not willing. Your answer is no. You are not going to go on national referendum in case you are going to give…

GCT: We are not contemplating of introducing any other areas for the President.

LHL: There’s no proposal. We’re not intending to do anything.

CST: We are talking of a system if the need arises.

LHL: We are talking about the Elected President.

GCT: Mr Chairman, we are discussing the Elected President proposal as it is. Mr Chiam is asking us a question on what we will do. It’s all in the White Paper.

MOD: Mr Chiam, in the opening statement, Mr Goh made the statement that if as a last resort, if all other issue…

CST: Alright, I go to the next question…

MOD: Let me finish, Mr Chiam. If all other options are exhausted, then the last resort would be they would be prepared to go for a referendum as a last resort if the need arises.

CST: Now, on the first question, he said no. I’m not going to the second question. Mr Moderator, now I go on to the next one. I presume your answer to the second question is no. Now, we come to the general elections, we are in the midst of the general elections. Now, what is the purpose of the general elections?

GCT: Very simple. First, to present our programme to the people, to get a mandate from the people.

CST: To elect a new government, isn’t it?

GCT: Exactly.

CST: Correct. Now what is the purpose of my standing at Potong Pasir?

LHL: You have to answer that.

GCT: I’m amazed. I don’t know what’s the purpose.

CST: So the purpose is not to decide on the issue of the Elected President, is that not correct?

GCT: The purpose of a general election is to decide on whose programme you’re going to accept for the next five years, and…

CST: But the purpose of this general election is not to give a mandate to the government to change the Constitution.

GCT: It is part of our programme, and we’re putting it before the people to decide.

MODERATOR’S TIME

MOD: Well, gentlemen, it’s time for your cross-examinations, but if I may just come back to where we started. Let me get one thing straight on the part of the People’s Action Party. That in proposing the Elected President and the safeguarding of the accumulated reserves and the integrity of the public service, you’re not talking in terms of either hindering the proper functioning of government or dismantling anything or working out to detract in manner from the people’s rights or the normal concerns of a democracy. What you’re really concerned about is how to prevent the squandering of hard-earned reserves by putting in a check, checks and balances to be provided by an Elected President of proven worth and integrity. Is that what the main thrust? 

GCT: Yes.

JBJ: Mr Moderator, if I may say, you are putting the case for the government. You are putting the case for the government.

MOD: No, I’m not. I’m coming to you now. And I’m going to ask you that is the case for the Opposition that the Opposition is not opposing the principle but you are concerned about the manner in which it is being implemented and the impact that this is going to have for the very fundamentals that you are concerned.

JBJ: I thought I made that clear in my speech. We are concerned with the further erosion of parliament’s role and its effectiveness. The Party believes that parliament and parliament alone should have the final say over what happens in this country. Now, under the proposals the President can thwart the elected mandate of the people by stopping appointments, preventing use of assets. He’s got great powers under these proposals which is not realised by the government, or they do realise it, they are disguising it.

MOD: Mr Chiam.

CST:  Thank you Mr Chairman. Our stand is that the people of Singapore do not want an Elected President, and if you want an Elected President, there must be a national referendum, otherwise the will of the people will be subverted. That is our position. We are demanding that there must be a national referendum on this very vital issue.

MOD: Thank you. Do you want to add anything before I move to closing statements?

LHL: I would just like to ask the Opposition why they are against having two keys on the reserves. All these years the PAP has never found it necessary to do what the Elected President is elected to prevent namely touch the reserves in order to spend them. We have never had to do that because we always run prudent financial management. We’re now trying to put a safeguard.

JBJ: May I answer that?

MOD: Quickly.

JBJ: Well, he’s taken a minute or more. Alright, but I say give that other key to the people, and that is the key should be given to parliament, and  I will outline in my closing statement how I think the parliament can hold that key.

LHL: The President is elected by the people.

JBJ: But the President is not accountable to parliament.

MOD: Right gentlemen, we are really going to run out of time. And now I think you will have your last chance to say really what you consider to be fundamental. I’ll start with BG Lee on behalf of the PAP.

LHL: I think it should be the other way, Mr Chiam.

MOD: Sorry, I beg your pardon. We will start with Mr Jeyaratnam.

JBJ: No, Mr Chiam first.

MOD: Ok, sorry. Oh, you’re going to follow this order.

JBJ: That was how it was arranged.

MOD: Sorry. Mr Chiam to start off with, then Mr Jeyaratnam, and then the closing statement by BG Lee.

CLOSING STATEMENTS BY SINGAPORE DEMOCRATIC PARTY

CST: Thank you Mr Chairman. I said that the purpose of the Elected President is to deprive the people of Singapore the one-man-one-vote system. Now I think it’s significant to quote from the Straits Times of 23^rd December ’84, what the Prime Minister said, “Asked what alternative there were to the system, he said,” ‘he’ meaning the Prime Minister said, “he was thinking of modifications to make sure the excesses were not carried too far.” I interpret the word ‘excesses’ as being the 12.6% vote swing to the opposition in the 1984 general elections.

Now, the Prime Minister is an experienced man, and he knows that once this swing starts, the momentum will be there and if it goes to the ultimate conclusion, the PAP will lose power. In fact, that is what he said, “It is necessary to try and put some safeguards into the way in which people use their votes to bargain, to coerce, to push, to jostle, to get what they want without running the risk of losing services of the government because one day, by mistake, they will lose the services of the government.” He said, “Suppose there had been another 14% shift in votes, the combined opposition would have captured forty seats, and the PAP 39.” Mr Lee then went on to describe the mood of the voters as groping out for something which they thought was better for them. To those voters, he had this to say, “By all means, reach out. But know the price, this is going to lead to some brinkmanship, not in 1988 maybe, but if we go along this road, it must unravel” meaning PAP government will be unseated. “Is it going to be 1992?,” The Prime Minister asked, “When the PAP is going to lose at the polls.” There you were, those were the innermost fears of the PM when he expressed those words.

Now, you would notice that it is very significant. He was concerned purely whether or not the PAP government was going to be unseated. There was no mention about the preservation of our financial reserves. There was only utterances of fear on the part of PAP losing power. By all means, we have safeguards. Like I’ve said, you have hundred, 200 hundred Gurka troops to guard our reserves. But what the people of Singapore are worried is that these Gurka troops instead of guarding the reserves, is going to imprison them. That is the fear. You give powers to one person, and eventually, instead of using it just to keep our reserves, it can be used against us.

 

CLOSING STATEMENTS BY WORKERS’ PARTY

MOD: Mr JB Jeyaratnam. 

JBJ: Thank you, Mr Moderator. This issue, or these proposals rather have been put forward on a fallacious assumption that only the PAP contains within its ranks honest men, and slanderous statements made of the opposition parties that they’re all crooks. I resent that very strongly and it’s not worthy of the PAP to make that statement, shows the kind of people we’re dealing with.

I’m surprised that I have not been asked what the Workers’ Party’s alternative proposal is, and I will now tell you. A much better safeguard would be to require the government to get the unanimous vote in parliament before it begins to use in parliament before it begins to use any of the foreign reserves or the assets. In that way, the government will have to come to parliament, explain its proposals, why it needs the money, and the whole thing will be debated, and if parliament, the government party and the opposition object to this and reject it, then the Prime Minister can advice the President if he thinks that he has to have access to the reserves to dissolve parliament and to call for elections and go to the people. That seems to me to be a much more effective safeguard of our reserves than to give it to the President. As I’ve pointed out, the President under these proposals cannot be summoned to parliament. He cannot be asked to explain why he has made any decision about the reserves or over the appointments. Contrast this to the United States, the President there can be checked by Congress. Every key appointment that he makes must be approved by the legislative bodies. And if Congress doesn’t approve of any decision, it can withhold the supply of money from the President from implementing it. It seems to me, to the Party, that the PAP is fraudulent in its reasoning and its attempting to perpetuate this PAP hold over Singapore by introducing these proposals which are purely designed to pass from a parliamentary government to a dictatorship. Thank you, Mr Moderator.

  

CLOSING STATEMENTS BY PEOPLE’S ACTION PARTY

MOD: BG Lee.

LHL: Mr Chairman. The PAP has deliberately made the Elected President a key issue in this general election. Otherwise, we will not be here today. We seek the people’s mandate to implement the proposal. Our purpose is very simple: safeguard CPF savings, prevent an unscrupulous government from squandering them without telling you or consulting you. The Elected President will stand guard over these reserves and should they be in any danger, he will sound the alarm. The Opposition are against having a guard or an alarm. You must ask yourselves why.

The Elected President will also have to consent to key appointments in the civil service, because otherwise his powers to protect the reserves can be circumvented. You just put the wrong man in, he will do the job surreptitiously for a crooked government. The Opposition says there’s no need to do anything, all is well. They say that this is a way for Mr Lee, the Prime Minister, to hold on after he has stepped down as PM. They say this will lead to an executive president, and water down our one-man-one-vote system. They are wrong.

First, Mr Chiam and I think also Mr Jeyaratnam have already admitted that there is a need to do something to safeguard our reserves and to uphold the integrity of our public service. So it’s not a difference of principle. It’s only a question of how it should be done.

Secondly, Mr Lee is not interested in this job. He doesn’t want the job. Why should he? He’s already said he doesn’t want to and we have held him back from saying so publicly. And in any case, as he has explained, if he wanted to hold on to power, this is not the way to do it. All he has to do is to be Secretary-General of the Party, and that would be enough.

Thirdly, the Elected President’s powers are purely custodial. He cannot do anything. He can only say no. And they are only restricted to two areas: key personnel and money. He cannot extend his influence to other areas. Even Mr Chiam has no objections to these two proposals. His fear is this will lead to horrendous consequences. Totally unfounded, of course. But even as it stands, he has no objection to the intrinsic powers which will be given to the President. And one-man-one-vote will be quite unaffected. In America, they vote a President. It’s one-man-one-vote. In France, they have a President and Prime Minister, it’s one-man-one-vote. And in Singapore too, nothing would have changed.

Now, we must ask ourselves why the Opposition opposes a two-key system. The PAP has never had to touch the reserves all these years. Is the Opposition intending to touch them as soon as they come into power? Why oppose? If they oppose, what is their alternative? Mr Chiam has sketched none. Mr Jeyaratnam’s alternative is a unanimous vote in parliament. What that means is that if Mr Jeyaratnam or Mr Chiam are the two Opposition members in parliament, they will effectively be the Elected President, because they would have complete veto powers in one constituency on the basis of Potong Pasir.

JBJ: But the Prime Minister can then go to the country.

LHL: So the proposal has been invented on the spur of the moment, and we have yet to hear one from the SDP.

CST: That is not an issue.

LHL: That is an issue, because the SDP, if it is against this proposal in practice, but not in principle, then it is your responsibility to produce an alternative possibility. Now the opposition is asking the electorate to deny the PAP a two-thirds majority, as if except for this majority, the Elected President would be imposed on people  The PAP has had more than a two-thirds majority for more than 20 years. We have never abused it. Why do we need to do so now? A referendum? Well, if need be, we will have a referendum. Let us go through the whole process first. Argue, debate, vote in elections. Second reading in parliament, select committee and then if there’s still fundamental objection, we will hold a referendum, and it will be properly entrenched and the votes will be produced. The question is not whether the PAP has a monopoly on virtue, we don’t claim that.

JBJ: Don’t you?

LHL: The question is how can we make sure that whoever governs Singapore is a good government. Never mind whether he’s a PAP one or an Opposition one. Mr Jeyaratnam takes umbrage at some of the things which have been said about the Opposition candidates but none of them are untrue.

JBJ: What about the PAP Ministers?

LHL: The concern is how do we make sure that whoever is in charge, your money is protected. So think carefully, decide whether you want your money protected, that is what the PAP wants to do. And vote according to your decision on Saturday.

 

CONCLUSION

MOD: Thank you. Well, gentlemen, I’m afraid we have run out of time. I wish we had more time listening to the arguments.

JBJ: Thank you, Mr Moderator. That’s what I’ve been asking for.

MOD: But that’s what we have. And we must bring this debate to a close. In doing so, it remains for me to say how grateful I and the organisers are for your participation. Thank you. Thank you.