gy19990521l To: cc: (bcc: NHB NASReg/NHB/SINGOV)

Subject: Dear Editor Note, 21 May 99 - Transcript of Karyawan's interview with Minister BG George Yeo

Dear Editor: ------Media Division, Ministry of Information and the Arts, #36-00 PSA Building, 460 Alexandra Road, Singapore 119963. Tel: 3757794/5

Dear Editor,

Attached is the transcript of interview Minister of Information and the Arts BG (NS) George Yeo did with Karyawan, the Association of Muslim Professionals’ publication.

The interview is published in Karyawan, Jan to April 1999 edition.

MEDIA DIVISION

MINISTRY OF INFORMATION AND THE ARTS

21 MAY 1999

TRANSCRIPT OF KARYAWAN'S INTERVIEW WITH MINISTER FOR INFORMATION AND THE ARTS, BG (NS) GEORGE YEO

Karyawan: General Yeo, you have spoken quite at length last year about civil society in Singapore. The term civic society has also been often mentioned in public discussions. Do you see the concepts of civic and civil society as inherently different or are there more similarities between them? Page 1 gy19990521l

BG Yeo: I am not an academic and I know that there are some academics who make a distinction between civic and civil society. From my perspective, whether it is civic or civil society, we are talking about the space between the family and the state. That is my view of civic or civil society. I think that is the conventional definition of what it means. Karyawan: So, from your point of view the two terms can be used interchangeably?

BG Yeo: I use them interchangeably. The academics will probably find fault with me for doing that.

Karyawan: Some academics are of the view that civil society involves participation of groups in community service as well as in the political arena. What is your view on that?

BG Yeo: That depends on how you choose to use the terms for your purpose. As to whether there is any political content in civic or civil society, I think, there is always that political dimension. It is part of life.

Karyawan: In your keynote address at the 1998 Institute of Public Policy (IPS) Conference on Civil Society, you raised the need to define more precisely the Singapore idea of a civil society and to find new and better ways to bind state and society together. What do you think is the model of civil society that should evolve in Singapore?

BG Yeo: It is important to see this from the historical perspective and not do a static analysis of what civic or civil society is in Singapore. If you look at Singapore in the colonial days, there was a vibrant civic society. Let us standardise it as civil society. There was a vibrant civil society because the colonial government only looked after the interest of the Empire. It had a legal, judicial framework within which the colonies were governed. The government of colonies was minimalist and economical. So the different communities which were swept onto our shores by international trade and the needs of the international economy, developed their own civil life, including the Malay people who came from different parts of the archipelago. The Bawean people had their pondok, the Javanese had their gamelan groups, the Buginese had their own settlements and so on, and each in its own way learnt how to look after itself. Different mosques were supported by different groups. In the case of the central mosque - the Sultan Mosque - its management ordinance requires that two North Indians, two South Indians, two Javanese, two Buginese, two Malays and two Arabs sit on the management board. This reflected the interaction of these sub-groups. Then you had off-shoots of larger movements in the region also lapping onto our shores. These included Malay nationalist movements. The movement of UMNO had its reflection in Singapore. Muhammadiyah also had its reflection in Singapore. And right up to the late fifties, many Malay families still had the portrait of Sukarno in their homes. We were just as fractured if you look at the other communities. The Chinese had their clan associations, temples, and schools. The Indians had their equivalents. So there was a very vibrant civil society because the state did not look after the various communities except in a minimalist way. If you are not a Christian, you had to find your own burial plots. That is the reason why Page 2 gy19990521l Ngee Ann Kongsi has Ngee Ann City today because the Teochews acquired their burial land along Orchard Road.

The first thing that we had to do when we became a nation was to, as it were, weaken these civil organisations and re-orientate them towards the idea of a single Singapore country or nation. The schools were effectively nationalised. We created a common education system. Land was acquired. Loyalties were redirected. So today, if you visit the Muhammadiyah Association in my constituency, it has a different life from the Muhammadiyah in Indonesia. That has to be so, because we now reflect different societies. Yes, we still have communication between them - like between the Chinese clans in Singapore and their ancestral villages in China - but really we are different societies now. The state intervened in many sectors of Singapore in order to lay the foundations of a common Singapore nation. Whether you are English educated, Chinese educated or Malay educated, whether you speak more of one language or the other, there is a common substrate between you and me, between you and the Chinese or the Indian or the Eurasian, which is the Singaporean substrate. So after having achieved a certain level of foundation laying, we can now gradually free up again and create not a colonial civil society but a Singaporean civil society. Of course, in the first stage, many of these organisations require support from the government. For example, AMP went through a big debate whether or not it should receive any grant from the government, and finally decided that it was better to do so. Every organisation had to make its own decision because, if it accepted public funding, then it must observe certain rules, certain regulations, certain broad objectives because public monies are involved. If one decides. like AWARE (Association of Women’s Action and Research), not to receive any public funding, then you are off on your own. You just register yourself and good luck to you. So, if you look at Singapore now, there is a range of civic organisations, those which are closer to the government, acquiring public financing and those which are totally independent like many religious groups. Those which are closer to and are more associated with the government because of the need for government financing and support, we call them the people sector. The people sector represents a part of the continuum between the family and the state. Why do we want more civic society and a greater civic spirit in Singapore? This is very simple. It is to create participation and a greater sense of ownership and a certain rootedness. If everything that you have was given to you, then you will always be asking for more. There will never be gratitude and you will always be complaining. But if what you have is what you on your own have created, then there is affection and pride. There is ownership and a strong desire to defend what you have. It is crucial that, wherever we can, we allow greater civic participation to create a greater sense of being Singaporean.

Karyawan: In the Singapore’s model of civil society which is evolving (as opposed to what we had during colonial times), do you see a greater link or stronger umbilical cord between the government and social organisations? Would the government like to see a greater link with the various organisations or would it eventually allow the various organisations to develop on their own, to have greater independence in running their own affairs whether or not they accept public funding?

BG Yeo: If they accept public money, then there must be public accountability. The issue of how the money is spent would be debated in Parliament and subject to questioning by Members of Parliament. If only private money is involved, you are autonomous. You cannot have it both ways. You cannot say that you want public money but you should not be questioned. After all, the money belongs to the people of Singapore. For example, if you are an Islamic charity and you want to have tax exempt status, the government has the right to ask you to open your door to Singaporeans of all races and religions. And it applies as much to Islamic Page 3 gy19990521l charities as it does to Buddhist charities and Christian charities. In this way, we have developed a certain open door tradition in Singapore. You can be Jamiyah or you can be the Buddhist Lodge or the Catholic Welfare Services. Everyone accepts this openness which has become part of the strength of community life in Singapore. It is wonderful. It is no longer uncommon to see the imam, the monk and the pastor together at the same fund raising event. And in fact if you don’t, people will find it surprising. That has become the expectation. I was watching the recent effort to raise funds for Tabung Amal Aidilfitri (TAA) and how it has developed an almost multi-racial, multi-religious character, I think that is wonderful. That is really a part of the essence of being Singaporean. We take it for granted now. But how rare it is in the world! Therefore, how precious it is for us to have this spirit.

Karyawan: Do you see this flowing down, right to grassroots level?

BG Yeo: It is flowing down. You meet, say, a fund-raiser selling flags in a shopping centre. I think Singaporeans’ hearts are touched whether or not the cause is for a racial or religious group. It no longer matters. If it is a good cause, people will help if they can, and that is becoming a grassroots phenomenon. But it does not happen in a completely natural way. What do I mean by that? We cannot assume that just because we have achieved this position, we can only get better in the future. Racial and religious differences are powerful differences in any society. They are never very far below the surface. If we are not careful, far from getting better, we can get worse, which is why the leadership of community organisations play a very important role. It is crucial that everybody sees the government as being fair and impartial. You can be a Christian minister, you can be a Muslim minister, you can be a Buddhist minister but you are fair. You will turn up at a function if you have time or if you are invited. You do not openly or secretly favour one group over another in your public life. This is crucial.

There must be laws which prevent extremists of any kind from rabble-rousing.

If we do enough gardening, we can have a beautiful and colourful garden. But someone must do the gardening to make sure that the weeds do not overgrow, and pests don’t come in and eat up the flowers. Then we can have a beautiful garden. So, amidst this beautiful picture, there are laws and security precautions.

Karyawan: The Straits Times reported that we are already reaching a target of four million people living in Singapore. What will be the impact of an inflow of foreign talent into Singapore on the development of a civil society and nationhood? We have seen this happened before and in a way similar, i.e, foreigners coming here in early days developed their own civil groups. Will you see an impact of foreigners coming in today ? Will they form their own civil group ? Will they impose their own values or social and political culture on Singapore society and in a way that would not upset but have an impact on nation building?

BG Yeo: On balance, the presence of a large number of foreigners in Singapore is a great plus to us. Yes, there are minuses because sometimes their habits are different, sometimes they are ignorant of local conventions and they create a little friction here and there. But on the whole it is an enriching presence. Today we see them everywhere, in the hawker centres, in the markets, in the HDB estates, not just along Orchard Road or in the hotels. And Singaporeans relate to them in a very natural and relaxed way. I remember mentioning this before, that I Page 4 gy19990521l was at a coffee shop in Kembangan with some of my grassroots leaders after a Meet-the-People session, sitting next to two young French couples chatting in French. You know this is so rare in the world. But we take it for granted. So, there is a core which is Singaporean, and there is a penumbra who are the foreigners living in Singapore. And then there is a wider world beyond. And this penumbra in Singapore is quite big.

When these foreigners go to the local market, they are accepted. No one looks or stares at them, or asks them for their passports. If they are Muslim foreigners visiting a mosque, there will always be locals to welcome them and invite them in, and will help if they need something. Foreigners also join us at worship in temples and churches. Some of them are tourists, some are people working and living here. It does not matter. Whether it is a restaurant, a place of religious worship or a club, foreigners today are well accepted in Singapore. Do they change us? Sometimes, because we are all human beings, we communicate, we talk, we react to different ideas and different customs. Do they force their views on us? Well, if they force their views on us, I think that we should be upset and rightly so. But I do not think they will force their views on us. If they try to, we have a right to protect ourselves from being forced to do something that we do not want to do. Otherwise, on the whole, I see the inflow of foreign talent as a very positive, very beneficial experience for Singapore. It keeps us cosmopolitan.

Karyawan: Do you see them having a liberalising effect on the way we view the world, whether culturally, socially or politically?

BG Yeo: Whether we become more liberal or less liberal depends entirely on the common will of Singaporeans. We are sovereign. We decide for ourselves. ‘Ourselves’ means the political process within which laws are made and changed in Singapore. If you feel passionately that religious freedom in Singapore should allow people to stand outside each other’s place of religious worship and say anything that comes to mind - in other words, a Hyde Park Corner next to every mosque, church or temple - make that your election platform. Then get elected, become an MP and argue your case in parliament. Move a private motions bill if you are not part of the Government and win public support. If the majority of MPs think that your views are sound, then they could become a part of the laws of Singapore. There is a process within which we adjust the norms which govern our lives and by which we define the freedoms which regulate contact between human beings of different ages, educational levels, religions and cultures. That is how it is. In the end, we decide for ourselves what we want - not foreigners, not permanent residents but Singapore citizens who have the right and the duty to vote at every election.

Karyawan: As time goes by these foreigners will also become citizens and part and parcel of our society. They will have a say in the way we run our system.

BG Yeo: The number of foreigners who are absorbed into Singapore every year is too small to affect us electorally. They will influence us more by their behaviour and their ideas than by their right to vote because not many are absorbed at any point in time relative to the total number of voters in Singapore.

Karyawan: The government needs to maintain an outer perimeter to hold our society Page 5 gy19990521l together. What is this outer perimeter and how do you respond to comments that this will curb the growth of a truly free civil society in Singapore?

BG Yeo: Well, we have to be very practical here. When we have Chinese, Malays, Indians and Eurasians living cheek by jowl in every apartment block and in every neighbourhood, we have got to respect each others’ sensitivities. So you notice that the mosques in Singapore are asked to turn their speakers inwards and to lower the volume for their call to prayer, and in return the muezzin’s call to prayers is broadcast on Radio “Warna”. Islam is the only religion that gets so much air time on public radio. Other religions have much less air time. Non-Muslims in Singapore have accepted that this is part of the bargain. In the same way, when the Taoist temples burnt bigger and bigger joss sticks, the government had to step in to regulate. We got the experts together and asked them whether big joss sticks are an essential part of worship. They tell us that they are not. So, we keep joss sticks to reasonable sizes. Then some Hindus, who have the tradition in India, want regular processions for temple deities. Occasionally we allow it - at Thaipusam and so on - but not at every festival or birthday, since there are many birthdays of deities in the Hindu pantheon. What is allowable in multi-racial Singapore cannot be the same as what is allowable in India.

When you talk about greater freedom and a more liberal environment, let us be very specific. That freedom or liberal environment can have an adverse effect on you.

I have Muslim residents who complain about Chinese residents grooming their dogs on furniture in the void deck . Toy dogs. It is may be relaxing for them to groom their dogs in this way, but it is a great stress for Muslim families. What do we do? When we talk about freedom, we must remember that there must be limits because your freedom may impinge on mine.

Do you want freedom for everyone to keep dogs and have dogs running everywhere? Do you want freedom for every mosque to have loud speakers at maximum volume, five times a day, everywhere in Singapore ? Do you want giant joss sticks burning away? We have to talk details.

And who decides? The people of Singapore will decide, not foreigners, not the foreign media, but us sitting down in meetings like this, at feedback sessions and in groups . This is Singapore, this is our home. This is a small island and we live close together. Let us find ways to compromise. This is how we have today's Singapore. This does not mean that everybody is happy with everything. If some are completely happy, it probably means that many others are not.

Karyawan: In relation to that, there has been a lot of debate in the nineties particularly, that there has been a lack of definition of the out of bound (OB) markers. It seems that the OB markers seem to shift according to, who pushes the limit and what the limits may be. They are unclear. Can you enlighten us on these OB markers, - what are these and will the state loosen these OB markers to encourage more individuals and groups to take part in the political process outside partisan politics?

BG Yeo: Let me answer this question generally first. It is not possible to define everything by law. It is a little like what constitutes pornography? We cannot simply define it on the basis of nakedness. There are many ways to be Page 6 gy19990521l obscene and, very often, you need human beings sitting in committees to decide whether something is obscene or offensive. You cannot define pornography precisely. In fact if you try to define it precisely, then others will play around that definition and say that they are in the clear. There are many ways to achieve an obscene effect. On matters of censorship, we have committees of private citizens, representatives from a cross-section of the population, who sit down in judgement and there are mechanisms for appeal against the judgements. For matters concerning religious freedom, it is also difficult to define exactly what the limits are. We have now legislated laws which allow the Minister for Home Affairs to make certain judgements and for a committee of religious leaders to express their views on these judgements. If they disagree with the Minister, then certain other processes could be activated. This explains why OB markers cannot all be defined in advance. I remember once, we had the famous or infamous case of someone snipping off his pubic hair at a public event. After that we planted an OB marker. Before that who would have been imaginative enough to say that you must not snip pubic hair in public? There are many things you do think about before they happen and there are new things which the human mind is capable of inventing which you have got to respond to from time to time.

One area which has concerned a number of civic organisations is political involvement. Here we have got to ask ourselves whether it is in our interest for religious groups, civic organisations and women’s magazines to get involved in political activism. If you look at our political history, United Front tactics, using seemingly innocuous activities to achieve political ends, are in the soil. Invisible dalangs pull strings and make things happen on the wayang stage. If this is the way politics is conducted in Singapore, we will never achieve democracy because the real protagonists do not show their hands or identify themselves. The people who are used are willing or unwilling puppets. What we have done over many years now is to make it clear that if you wish to involve yourself in political activism, declare it, come forward and appear on the stage, for everyone to see, such as in a political party.

We have had occasions to tell women’s magazines not to get involved in partisan matters. If we did not do this, every political party will use women’s magazines to get their views across. I do not think that is healthy for Singapore. So, over a period of time, we have taken the view that if you are a civic organisation, whether you are an organisation like AMP or whatever, if you want to get yourself involved politically, please get into the political arena and not hide behind a religious group, a tuition class, or a theatre troupe.

Karyawan: How do you then get yourself in the political arena without registering yourself or declaring yourself as a political party? How do you do that?

BG Yeo: You can register yourself like The Roundtable. There is always some ambiguity. When the law on political videos was enacted, we could not confine it to political parties, because then the obvious way to get around it was to get a friendly non-party organisation to produce the video. Therefore, we had to extend the law to include those whose purposes are obviously political even though they are not political parties. At the same time, it was obviously not in our interest to disallow all videos which covered political topics. This then created an ambiguity in the position which is left to the Films Appeal Committee to settle. There was much debate in Parliament about whether this ambiguity could not be better defined. Well, we should if we could.

Page 7 gy19990521l

Karyawan: Let us take an example of an organisation that goes public and launches a campaign against the development of more golf courses in Singapore. Their reason is purely environmental . How would you react to this? Would you blow the whistle if they become increasingly activists in their posturing on environmental issues?

BG Yeo: It would be absurd and stifling to say that nature societies are not allowed to comment on the environmental impact of golf courses. But if a pattern of behaviour emerges that makes it clear that the issue is being politicised, then I think it is better for all of us if the people involved declare that they are lobbying politically for a change in the law governing land use for golf courses. Singaporeans may well support them. How do we know when an environmental issue is being politicised? It may be a subjective judgement but a committee of fair minded citizens could sit down to decide. In this way, those who are in fact playing political games in the shadows will be brought to the sunlight.

In many societies, you are allowed to play such games. People accept it as a way of life - the wayang. You are left wondering all the time what is really going on. Whose shadow is that? Where do the strings lead to?

Do we want to be that kind of society? I think not. That is why our laws, regulations and standards have evolved in a particular way. It is necessary to set parameters. Some lines are hard to draw in advance but, over a period of time, we can establish certain conventions. Sometimes we have a controversy, a big incident that sparks a public debate. After a while the dust settles and a common understanding emerges. This is a “common law” way to establish the standards for our society.

Karywan: In the light of the conventions as well as the mechanisms that are in place and the government’s encouragement for more civic / civil groups to grow and take an active interest in Singaporean life, it may be inevitable that these groups could develop into lobbies or interest groups to represent certain sections of Singaporeans in finding solutions which are important for their respective groups. Can we have your reaction.

BG Yeo: In the first place, there is freedom to form such organisations. If they are in receipt of public funding, there will be some form of public scrutiny of the activities they undertake. If they are not in receipt of public monies, monitoring whether or not these are political parties or political activities in disguise should be the responsibility of the Ministry of Home Affairs. Someone has got to make sure that the politics of Singapore conform to certain rules and norms. If you refuse public money but, mysteriously, you have a lot of resources to lobby certain causes, then it is important that someone worries whether foreigners are pulling strings behind the scene. ISD must worry. We had cases in the past of such foreign manipulation. Action had to be taken so that the politics of Singapore are for Singaporeans to determine, not foreigners to influence in hidden ways. It is for this reason that we make sure our local newspapers are not subject to foreign control or manipulation. There were cases in the past when foreign monies subsidised newspapers to influence Singaporeans. We are a small country, politically and religiously linked to different parts of the world. This social mix makes it particularly crucial for us to worry about foreign subversion. We do not Page 8 gy19990521l mind if foreigners try to influence us openly. Then their intentions are clear. Indeed, some of them think they are influencing us for our own good. And if they give us good advice, why should we not listen?

Karyawan: How do you see discussions on public issues developing through the internet?

BG Yeo: In new and wonderful ways, but for both good and ill.

Karyawan: But it is unhindered , it can be a free for all.

BG Yeo: This is technology. This is like the fax machine or the telephone. We cannot stop it. This is something which has come down upon us. There are some things we can control. There are many things we cannot. Also, the government cannot be responsible for everything. In fact, in some matters, the government has not competence at all.

Take the example of the Al Qadiani Movement. The local Muslim community has always been against the Movement’s activities in Singapore and their members’ declaration that they are Muslims. As a secular government we cannot be involved in this debate. Muslims have complained to me and asked MITA to ban Al Qadiani literature.

But I am not a theologian. I have no competence in this area. I ask them to complain to MUIS (Islamic Religious Council). I believe MUIS has come up with a fatwa so that Singapore Muslims are clear what the correct position is. MUIS exercises some control of what is allowed in the mosque. However, once you are in the web world, you can bypass MUIS, you can bypass the ulama, you can bypass your parents, that is the reality.

Even if you are a Middle Eastern sheikhdom, you cannot control in the old way anymore.

Karyawan: The internet will also allow for direct dialogue between, not only groups but individuals with the government. If I have your email address, I can email to you directly..

BG Yeo: It does not mean that you will get a reply all the time Karyawan: You will hear my point of view, if you read it, but that allows a unique and direct way of having a discussion with the government. We do not need intermediaries, we do not need our members of parliament to speak on our behalf or any other middleman. BG Yeo: I don’t think it is so simple. Karyawan: It allows for something which is quite new.

Page 9 gy19990521l

BG Yeo: Internet communication may allow you a direct link but it matters a lot who is communicating, what position he holds in society and whether the views are expressed by a respected person or by a mad man. At the end of the day, these views are weighed. Some views are weightier than others and you have to make decisions. Assume that I receive a thousand emails a day. Should I read them all? Many of them may be junk. I must be selective. Although the technology offers these possibilities and has the effect of flattening hierarchical organisations, this does not lead to a complete loss of hierarchy . You still need hierarchy, you still need parents, teachers, imams, political leaders, CEOs, gatekeepers and so on.

Karyawan: So you do not see a breaking down of barriers?

BG Yeo: I see some breaking down of barriers, not a total removal. New barriers may be needed. We have to adjust ourselves to this new environment. For example, you may decide to create different e-mail accounts. I may have a public e-mail account which my secretary or a junior officer goes through. Then I would have a private e-mail account whose address is known to a few people who deal with me directly. We also have an internal network in the Civil Service, with security features and firewalls, to discuss confidential matters. After a while we learn to use the technology to regulate our work. Otherwise we get bogged down .I will be spending my whole day on the computer screen.

Karyawan: We are developing a civil society in Singapore to a certain degree. How have civil groups been successful in its discussions with the government and how responsive has the government been in listening to the voices of the emerging civil society?

BG Yeo: The PAP government has been in power for 40 years since 1959. The reason why it has been in power for so long is because it has kept itself young. It is neither dogmatic nor doctrinaire. If it has an ideology, it is a very pragmatic one. It is always open to different views and different ideas.

It keeps its doors open to new talent. All of us who are in the party and in the government feel a strong responsibility to make sure that we have replacements for ourselves. As long as the PAP government does this, it will enjoy the support of a large number of Singaporeans of all races and religions . Such a government must find it in its own interest to engage all major civic groups. Unless you are a civic group which adopts an anti- government posture for reasons of ideology or theology, it is in the interest of the government to have a dialogue with you. If you have good ideas, we should accept them because it is good for Singapore. And it is also good for the government.

Karyawan: Right. Shall we expect civil participation to be confined only to the local issues or should it also involves regional or global issues?

BG Yeo: It can be anything under the sun.

Karyawan: It is even more relevant now in this current regional climate that we Page 10 gy19990521l are experiencing.

BG Yeo: If you have good ideas on how can we help Indonesia, please pass it on to the government. If you have a view on how we can better protect the region from environmental disasters, certainly the government will consider it. It does not mean that it must accept your view wholesale. It may modify your view. It may reject your view but it is in the interest of the government to listen. Timing is also important. After a while, different groups and different individuals will develop different reputations for seriousness and credibility.

If you are consistently sensible and insightful, then naturally, even before you speak, people will sit forward and listen carefully to what you have got to say. On the other hand, there are others who are consistently extreme in their views. After a while, people will lose interest in them. But this is part of the natural process of human society. We develop reputations as individuals and as organisations. Like Karyawan. After a while, people will know your main lines of interests. If you are broadminded, fair and a source of ideas, they will read you. But if you are always pushing pet likes and dislikes, regardless of the logic or the argument, then after a while people will switch off. Then nobody but your ardent supporters will read you.

Karyawan: Minister, you mentioned just now about the organisations who receive public funding and may have to conform to a certain set of discipline when they conduct themselves publicly. Now for those groups like AMP and groups within the Malay community who are dealing very much with the development of Malay/Muslims in Singapore, more often than not, we find that its difficult to draw the line between discussion which is political comment and discussion which is not political comment because the development of the minority is always intertwined with political happenings. So, if going by what you have just said, it looks like AMP will have to conform to this set of discipline that would curtail the effectiveness of AMP as a self-help body to help raise the quality or standard of living of Malays/Muslims. Do you think that it is necessary for groups like AMP to have the space for it to address issues and matters of concern, even those which have political overtones?

BG Yeo: You cannot avoid touching on politics, whether you are AMP or a religious leader, or an environmentalist, because politics is part of human life. What we have to recognise is the need to separate political activities, especially partisan activities, from religious and civic activities. It is not a dark black line which separates the two. But the more we can separate the two, the better it is for Singapore.

I am not saying that AMP cannot touch on political issues but it should not have a political posture. It should not be a political party or a political group in disguise. However, in many areas of your interest, you will touch on political matters. This is inevitable. If the Government imposes on AMP constraints which are too tight, that would emasculate AMP and, beyond a point, you would ask yourselves whether it is worth the money you get. Then you might decide to break off and be on your own. What I am saying is that it is not in the government’s interest to constrain you unnecessarily. Are you an asset to the government ? You must be. If you are not, why should the government disburse public funds to you? AMP was formed eight years ago. When it was formed, PM Goh decided that there could be a dialogue between AMP and the Government. The government would help AMP subject to certain conditions. Over time, a set of norms has evolved which, on the whole, both Page 11 gy19990521l you and the Government are comfortable with. Because of this, we are in business and doing good work. Yes, from time to time, there will be new issues which require discussion.

Karyawan: We think that is an important clarification.

BG Yeo: That is the broad position. You have a choice because you may decide that you do not want public funding in order to have more freedom to do what you want. That is fine, that is your decision.

But then you may be less effective because you do need financing and you do need the support of government for some things.

Karyawan: When PM Goh offered Mendaki Swasta, back in 1990, we did clarify with PM on our principles of independence and non-partisanship. We accepted the offer of assistance based on government’s assurance that our principles of independence and non-partisanship will be respected.

BG Yeo: That is a crucial point. There was an internal debate within AMP itself, wasn't there?

Karyawan: Yes. In fact the debate is still on going.

BG Yeo: It is not an unhealthy debate if you ask me.

END

Page 12