PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS

Column: 3410

PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS: Debate resumed.

Mr Siew Kum Hong: Sir, may I ask the Prime Minister for two clarifications?

Mr Speaker: Yes.

Mr Siew Kum Hong: Sir, I would like to thank the Prime Minister for a very comprehensive speech and response, but I have two clarifications for the Prime Minister. Firstly, the Prime Minister has described our system as being a second model where voters vote for a party and not the candidate. Is the Prime Minister then advocating some sort of system of

Column: 3411

proportional representation which is really the pure form of such a second model?

And my second clarification, Sir, is that this second model is about voting for a party. Is it then the PM's position that, if in future an opposition party holds more than one seat in Parliament and one seat is vacated, he will allow the other MPs of that party to cover for the vacated seat?

Mr Lee Hsien Loong: Mr Speaker, Sir, first of all, one of the first things you learn in trying to make practical solutions in government is that we do not look for pure solutions, we look for workable solutions. And proportional representation, for reasons which we have explained and which we can debate on another occasion, is the wrong solution for Singapore. It leads to divided politics, it leads to extreme positions being espoused by parties which are going for votes on each side, and it leads to a fracture of our multi-racial and multi-religious harmony. You will have race-based parties, religious-based parties. There will be no end of trouble.

So, we are not talking about proportional representation, we are talking about a system where, when voters vote, they are not just voting for the Member. Look at the Member. Is he honest? Is he a cheat? Is he capable? Will he serve you? But look at the party. What party does he belong to? What is the credibility of that party? What can he do if he is elected in that party? And then make your choice because you are voting not just for the voter, but also for the party. And because of the way things have turned out and the PAP has a overwhelming majority in this House, so we amended the legislation and the Constitution to create NCMPs to give the opposition more representation in this House without having proportional representation.

As for what happens if an opposition constituency falls vacant, I have many

Column: 3412

options. I could call a by-election or I could allow some other opposition MP to cover for him. There is no difficulty doing that. We do that for PAP constituencies and we will do the same for the opposition constituencies as well.

6.13 pm

Mr Gautam Banerjee: Mr Speaker, Sir, thank you for giving me this opportunity to speak on this motion. It is always a hard act to follow the Prime Minister. But in this case, I am very fortunate, because not being a student of Singapore politics, not having studied the history and being here to live through some of the tumultuous times that Singapore went through, I think it was very enlightening to hear the Prime Minister on some of the practical aspects of democracy and how we need to make democracy work in this small city state of ours.

Singapore is a young nation and a young democracy. We are also a tiny city state with a mixture of races and religions. But already in our short history as a nation and, in spite of having no natural resources other than our human capital, we have achieved much that we can be proud of.

The "Singapore Brand" is internationally well recognised, respected and even emulated. When we started out as a newly independent nation, we adopted the Westminster model of government but our social, political and administrative systems have evolved to suit our unique set of circumstances.

So, for example, the creation of Group Representation Constituencies (GRCs) alongside the traditional Single Member Constituencies (SMCs) was a novel way to ensure that candidates from the minority races have a minimum guaranteed representation in Parliament even if voting were to take place along racial and religious lines. This was an

Column: 3413

important confirmation that Singapore is, and will remain, a multi-racial society. It left an indelible impression on new immigrants like me and helped me to decide to settle in Singapore for the longer term.

Similarly, the creation of an elected presidency with special powers of oversight on our national reserves was an innovative safeguard, which will hopefully prevent an irresponsible government making unwarranted use of our national reserves simply to boost its popularity with the electorate.

As a young democracy, our democratic values, traditions and policies are still evolving. The established democracies such as the UK and the US took many generations to develop. In Asia, the Japanese have taken over 100 years to develop their democratic system.

Our own Singapore brand of democracy is also developing and judging by the views and exchanges in both the traditional and modern media, our citizens would like to be increasingly engaged and have a say in how they are governed. In fact, as far back as 1989, Minister George Yeo, in his maiden parliamentary speech noted, and I quote:

"Singaporeans wants a livelier democracy, particularly younger Singaporeans. That is in accord with the times. ... A diversity of views is an insurance against the unexpected and the unforeseen. Singapore cannot become a great nation in this information age without a lively democracy. ... History, it seems, is now on the side of democracy."

Nearly two decades have passed since Minister Yeo's remarks on democracy in Parliament, but his message is as relevant today as it was then. So, we must get all

Column: 3414

Singaporeans, particularly our younger generation, to embrace our own Singapore brand of democracy. But for this to happen, our citizens must see and experience democracy and its various institutions in action. Periodic elections and even by-elections are examples of democracy in action. So, until I heard the Prime Minister and his clarification on the Singapore model of democracy, I have to say that I was tempted to support the motion that the Nominated Member of Parliament, Prof. Thio Li-ann raised.

In our short history, we have demonstrated that we can balance the need for a political framework, rights and freedom for our citizens, while pursuing social, ethical and economic goals. But for us to sustain our progress and success, we must continue to get this balance between developing our democratic traditions and practices on the one hand and our economic and social progress on the other hand. In fact, where necessary, we may need to recalibrate the scale from time to time.

But having heard the Prime Minister, I am satisfied that we do not need to change at this time our electoral system to retain this balance.

Sir, for this reason, I will not support the motion.

Ms Eunice Elizabeth Olsen: Mr Speaker, Sir, thank you for allowing me to speak on the motion.

Sir, considering I am the last to speak, I feel my speech on the by-elections may end up by the way but, nonetheless, I will put forward my humble opinion on this issue.

Sir, this topic could not have been more timely. The Prime Minister said in his National Day Rally speech that he wanted

Column: 3415

"to encourage more citizens to engage in debate, to participate in building our shared future" and that the Singapore system would "progressively open up" even more. Of course, he was referring to how the Government would keep up with the new media and how the rules at Speakers' Corner would be liberalised. Barely a week later, here is a chance to continue in this direction laid out by the PM, to demonstrate – although not at Hong Lim Park – that changes are being made to allow Singaporeans to play a more active role in the country. In fact, if this House were to support the motion, it would be a far more powerful and far more meaningful statement about the value this legislature and this Government affixes to the role that Singaporeans play in building our shared future. Here is why.

While every country may be different, the most basic feature of every democracy is the electoral process. That should tell us the fundamental importance, first, of the ability to vote and, next, to be able to do so in a free and fair election. There can be no purer way to have people take ownership of their country, have a say in deciding their future and be involved in the political process. While governments are entrusted to represent their people and lead the country every four or five years or when the nature of that representation has changed, the public is entitled to reclaim their country at the ballot box. Singapore is not an ancient civilisation, with 5,000 years of history to give her people an innate and deep-seated stake in the country. Only if she were, then perhaps we could dismiss the importance of elections in giving citizens a sense of ownership. So, it is heartening to hear how the PM wants to encourage Singaporeans to build our shared future.

Therefore, when it comes to this issue of by-elections, I am not so concerned about the legal wheretos and constitutional wherefores about why this

Column: 3416

House should or should not affirm the motion – to me, the guiding principle should be the long-term interests of Singapore. At a time when Singapore is set to face increasingly more challenging population issues – from the lack of babies to the increase in immigration – we must act to strengthen citizenship, not weaken it. I believe this motion strengthens citizenship.

On the other hand, imagine the message we would be sending if we defeat this motion. In essence, we would be telling Singaporeans that it does not matter if half or more of the MPs in your GRC vacate their seats for any reason. It does not matter if your vote has been nullified because your MP in your single member constituency has vacated his or her seat. It does not matter if there is no minority representation in your GRC. What would Singaporeans think, especially young Singaporeans, about the role they play and the kind of Singapore we want them to inherit?

We have had instances in the past where seats in single member constituencies have been vacated and have not been filled until the next election. It would seem the constituencies survived. If we consider this issue using the conventional yardstick of tangible impact to services in the constituency, there may be no need to hold by-elections. But I call on this House and the Government to aspire to higher ideals and objectives. In 1970, when Minister Mentor was Prime Minister, he articulated these principles at one rally. He said, and I quote:

"Very simply, we need not have had a by-election. But it is not in our nature to allow things to go on, to allow time to pass by, when we can in fact improve matters, make things better and prepare for the future.

We took this opportunity not because there was anything wrong or inadequate in what the

Column: 3417

incumbent MP had been doing for us ... but that we felt the time had come, and he had given of his best. We need a new recruit, somebody who has a greater performance. ... .".

We all know that having a full complement of MPs is the optimal situation. Let us not be satisfied with getting by with less. Let us always have a people-centric approach. I read the parliamentary reports the last time the by-election issue was debated extensively. I read how it was said that it would not be fair to ask other MPs in a GRC to resign simply because a member of the team had vacated his or her seat. I read how by-elections were not deemed necessary to prevent any MP from holding his GRC colleagues to ransom. I failed to see how the people's interests came first in this line of reasoning. If there are problems within an incumbent team in a GRC, is it not in the interests of residents to have a more focused team in place? I think the motion is quite fair to propose that a by-election be called when half or more of the MPs in a GRC – and not just one – vacate their seats. We should not penalise citizens when a political party is unable to choose good and capable candidates.

Currently, it is up to the Prime Minister to decide when to call for a by-election and it is certainly true that a wise and good PM does not need the law to tell him when a by-election is needed. But, surely, this House is not complacently assuming that there is no chance our future leaders may be less than wise or, worse, become self-serving. Amending the Parliamentary Elections Act, as suggested by my hon. colleagues, Prof. Thio Li-ann and Dr Loo Choon Yong, would safeguard the value of having by-elections. The question is whether the legislation is flexible enough for the Government to act reasonably and for the by-elections to be held fairly? I think so. The timeframe provided by the hon. Members is fair.

Column: 3418

Ms Eunice Elizabeth Olsen: 6.22 pm

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, in the past, the Government has said that by-elections could end up as distractions to more important matters at hand. I think we should put more faith and trust in Singaporeans, at least, if the Government would like Singaporeans to put their trust in its leadership. This is no longer a monochrome world. In this day and age, we must multi-task. If we are saying that Singaporeans are not up to multiple challenges, or that only the PM can decide that, we are doomed. All our years of education would have gone to waste.

Ultimately, how we view the motion reflects how much we value political engagement, how much we trust Singaporeans, how much progress we are making in opening up the system and how much we want Singaporeans to be a part of the country's future.

Sir, with that, I support the motion.

Mr Low Thia Khiang (Hougang): Sir, while I respect the Speaker's ruling on the amended motion moved by the Workers' Party Chairman, Ms Sylvia Lim, that it is out of order, I beg to differ on the interpretation of relevancy.

Sir, the tenet of the motion before the House is, "That this House affirms the importance of representative democracy." Sir, the amended motion about GRC exactly talks about representative democracy.

Secondly, Sir, the motion talks about by-election in a GRC. But the problem of by-election in a GRC – both in its technicality and practicality – is rooted in the problem of GRC itself. Therefore, instead of debating the substantive motion before the House on the question

Column: 3419

of by-election in a GRC, the fundamental question of whether the GRC system is justifiable and necessary should be debated first.

Sir, the Members who spoke on the motion spoke at length about the original intent of the GRC is clear evidence of this relevancy. Therefore, I am of the view that the amended motion moved by Ms Sylvia Lim is relevant. But, nevertheless, I respect the ruling of the Speaker and I shall speak on the question of representative democracy. Sir, I shall speak in Mandarin.

( In Mandarin ): [For vernacular speech, please refer to Appendix A.] Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, in our pledge, we pledge to establish a society based on justice and equality. The basis of democracy is to ensure that the people have the right to vote and the freedom to choose the government. In Singapore, although the Constitution provides that the elections will decide on the formation of government, the people have the right to choose the government, in practice, not every Singaporean has the right to vote. A recent report in the Straits Times shows that since 1988, with the introduction of the GRCs, the number of uncontested constituencies has increased steadily. In the 2001 general election, there were 55 uncontested constituencies, that is to say, more than 65% of the seats were not contested. In 2006, although there were some improvements, there were 37 seats uncontested. If the political landscape in Singapore remains the same, the prospect of whether the opposition party will be able to find enough candidates to field in future elections remains uncertain.

The PAP conveniently attributed the situation to the opposition parties not being capable of fielding enough candidates, hence depriving Singaporeans of the right to vote. Nevertheless, we should examine whether we are in the process of creating another version of a democratic system which is a system of

Column: 3420

automatic election of ruling party candidates. We should ponder over how this system affects our country, our people and the legitimacy of the government in the long run. I met a middle-aged person at Suntec City and he told me that he was already 50 years old and the only time he voted was for the Election of President. However, except for the first Elected President, there were no contest for the subsequent elections for the President because there were no candidates contesting, except for one. So there was no need to vote at all. This uniquely Singaporean electoral system where there are elections held but no contest, and hence election being won by default is the only one of its kind in the world and the first in the world. I do not know what kind of system this is.

According to the PAP Government, the purpose of the GRCs is to ensure that there is minority representation in Parliament and the PAP assumes that the majority of the Chinese will vote according to racial identity of the candidate. This assumption may not be correct. In the 1981 by-election and in the 1984 general elections, Mr Jeyaretnam, a member of the minority race, defeated the Chinese candidate of the PAP in Anson. Before the implementation of the GRC, we did not hear of a minority candidate of the PAP not getting sufficient support and losing an election.

Since the beginning, not many people believe the reasons given by the PAP for having the GRCs. And the PAP probably knew that the justification to ensure that there is minority presence in Parliament may not withstand scrutiny. Hence, Mr Goh Chok Tong, then PM, attempted to introduce new annotations to the original declared intent. He said that GRC system allows some PAP candidates who were not well known but have first class quality to avoid the challenge from the opposition candidates who are articulate and smooth

Column: 3421

talking but without real substance. Therefore, he says, GRC serves the interest of the nation. This is a serious insult to the intelligence of Singaporeans. This is like telling the people that they are not sufficiently wise to decide on the quality of candidate and if they are allowed to vote, they will not be able to vote in good leaders. So, the PAP has to implement this GRC system to select on their behalf. SM Goh has also said that the PAP needed the GRC system to assure candidates of the PAP that they will win when they come in. This will help the PAP to recruit new candidates. Are these candidates, who do not have a sense of political mission and commitment, but are concerned only about their personal career and income, the best way to ensure the future of Singapore?

The Constitution and the law should work for the benefit of all the people and not for the party. Unfortunately, the PAP has used its majority position in Parliament adopted different measures with grandiose ideas and reasons to change the Constitution to suit its purpose. In 1996, I had pointed this out in Parliament, we could see that in the 1988 and 1991 elections, the PAP had made use of the GRC system –

*Cols. 3435-3438.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Order. Mr Low, are you speaking on the motion?

Mr Low Thia Khiang: Yes, of course. I am speaking on parliamentary representatives, Sir.

Mr Deputy Speaker: The motion calls for a debate on by-elections.

Mr Low Thia Khiang: Yes, I am coming to that, Sir.

( In Mandarin ): [For vernacular speech, please refer to Appendix A.] The PAP continues to change the rules to increase

Column: 3422

the size of the GRC, so that these SMCs become less and less important. Therefore, I said at that time that the GRC would allow the PAP to absorb the areas where there was a high support for the opposition to be merged into a GRC, so that the opposition voters will always become the minority and hence opposition candidates will not be elected.

In 1997, the PAP nearly lost Cheng San GRC and after the election, Cheng San constituency disappeared, a major part of it being grouped into Ang Mo Kio GRC. When Braddell constituency had as much as close to 50% support for the opposition, it was absorbed into Marine Parade GRC. So, come next election, how will the PAP Government take advantage of the GRC to redraw electoral boundaries? Let us wait and see.

The PAP Government, in order to win more seats, has adopted many measures so that many seats can be won without a contest.

*Cols. 3437-3440.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Order. Mr Low, please speak on the motion on by-elections. If you want to speak on the GRC system, it belongs to another motion. So when will you be speaking on by-elections?

Mr Low Thia Khiang: Okay. Let me now move on to by-elections.

( In Mandarin ): [For vernacular speech, please refer to Appendix A.] _ Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, under the present law, it is provided that by-election shall be held for Single Member Constituency but it was silent on whether a by-election should be held within a certain timeframe. Thus, the Government can use the loophole in the law to postpone by-elections. So, even if the next general election is to be held in two years’ time, the Government will not hold a by-election. In 1986, after Mr Jeyaretnam lost his seat, a by-election was not held. The meaning in PM’s

Column: 3423

speech on the subject is profound; I wish to remind voters that your vote for the PAP will allow the PAP to control everything, including the holding of by-elections.

The meaning of election is representation. Without holding a by-election for a vacated seat does not conform with the spirit of electing representatives of the people. Elections also allow the people to experience direct participation in politics. This will nurture citizens’ sense of ownership in public policy discourse and national identity. Under the present Constitution and the Parliamentary Elections Act, we do not encourage the spirit of participation through elections, especially in light of the consequence of GRC, resulting in a scenario of having elections but voters being unable to vote due to no contest. If the situation continues, it will aggravate political apathy of Singaporeans and polling day would become just another additional holiday. This will be a sad day for the country.

*Cols. 3437-3440.

6.35 pm

Prof. Thio Li-ann: Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I am not a utopian. I want to relate a little story. I was teaching a course on constitutional law in Asian societies two years ago in the University of Melbourne, I think it was 26th or 27th September 2006. On that day, I was talking about the Thai Constitution. How it was one of the most exemplary constitutions in the world, full of the most perfect checks and balances. That was in the AM. In the PM, through modern technology, someone sent me an SMS. What did it say, "Thai coup". I had to go in with egg on my face having praised the wonders of the latest 1997 Thai's people Constitution and it got me to thinking that, ultimately, no degree of constitutional perfectionism will bring about stability or economic growth, and I prefaced my entire speech with that point.

Column: 3424

But while I am not a utopian, I am not entirely without ideals. If you think about it, even the very moving of this motion, it must have been inspired by some degree of idealism. So I hope that even in my own growth, I am somewhat moderate in that sense. But I would also note that I have had said I hope that the debate would be conducted along non-partisan levels, and see what happens. The NCMP stands up. If you look at the constitutional office, it says that the office of the NCMP is to ensure, in perpetuity, that there is always an opposition voice in Parliament – a political partisan voice. And, so, she stands up and she calls for the dismantling of the GRCs.

I have read the election manifesto of the Workers' Party. In fact, last year, we set it as the public law mid-term term essay. We wanted our public law students to analyse the Workers' Party's manifesto as a constitutional law examination. I will not tell you how they did it but just to know that we tried to be engaged, we tried to be relevant, and not utopian. I remember too Dr Ng Eng Hen stood up and said it was a time bomb. And I thought to myself, "Oh, these politicians, they are having their wayang again", because I was not in the House yet and I was not used to politics, I suppose. So, in a sense, I tried to craft, together with Dr Loo, what we considered was a compromised solution – moderate. Mr Siew Kum Hong said it did not go as far as he liked. But I thought that, in a sense, if politics is the art of the possible, let us not try and reach too high.

As far as the Constitution and electoral systems are concerned, I would be the first person to recognise that they themselves do not produce economic growth. My recent experience in Africa taught me one thing. Kenya and Singapore are about the same age. Kenya is 63, Singapore is 65. They are both former British colonies and, yet, when you

Column: 3425

go there, when you mention that you are a Singaporean, everybody's eyes light up. One Ethiopian said to me, "Oh, we are still on Earth. In terms of economic development, Singapore is on Mars.". So, there is a great sense of respect I find when I am in these overseas conferences. For Singapore, what it has accomplished, and I feel a sense of pride as a Singaporean as well. But if the whole purport of this motion was not just to rest on our laurels, not just to say good governors are enough, but to talk about good governors and good government – principles of government – as being in tandem, as, in a sense, producing as close a good system as possible.

I do not propose to rehearse my arguments. I think they are there, they will be in Hansard , we can evaluate it. I just do want to make certain points. In any of our suggestions, we were not suggesting the blind transposition of foreign models. I think Mr Hri Kumar said that. I think that was a cheap political shot because when we talked about it, I showed a range of models from 21 days to six months and, in a sense, we plumped for the moderate position. But aside from that, I do not see the relevance of his bringing up the US system, that is the Presidential system, I think it is entirely irrelevant. I think the three-month suggestion is a moderate compromise and the six-month suggestion is also fairly pragmatic.

To the argument that by-elections might be an unwarranted cost, I do not think, and I still maintain that I do not think this is a valid consideration. It may have been in Singapore in the 1960s but, again, we have to look and see where Singapore is today, and I still maintain that we need to start focusing more on arguments based on principle.

In 1966, when we were debating the Council of State, the proposed second

Column: 3426

Chamber, one of the arguments against it was that it would be far too expensive. In fact, one PAP MP said, "Our Republic, with its limited resources of income, cannot afford the luxury of a two-House system", and he estimated that if you have 21 counsellors and you pay them $500 per month allowance, that would be more than $100,000 a year. In the light of our debate on Ministerial salaries last year, I do not think this is problematical. So, I do not think costs should ever be an excuse for forgoing principle.

Secondly, would it be a distraction? Well, again, let us look at things historically and get a sense of perspective. I came across an interesting debate by the then Law Minister, E W Barker in 1967, and they were discussing referendums and elections in the context of arguing whether or not there should be a constitutional right to vote in our Constitution. And Mr Barker noted that after one referendum, the 1963 general elections, and the by-elections held after the Barisan Sosialis MPs had resigned, he said, "I feel that our people are a little tired and probably prefer to be left alone at least for several years." Again, I do not think that can be said of Singapore today. We have had debates about how, in a sense, a lot of electoral wards are won in an uncontested fashion and that something might be amiss in the system if all these seats are not regularly contested. Of course, it is not the Government's responsibility to ensure that opposition can fill the team, but it does indicate that we should be looking at the electoral system a little more closely.

Now, aside from that, I was frankly astonished that two minority MPs had actually stood up and were not in support of what I thought was a way to ensure that the whole purpose of the GRC scheme would be secured, which is to ensure minority representation. I take the point that there is no specific quota. I take the point that if you lose one

Column: 3427

minority MP, you would still have a multi-racial Parliament. I might even concede the point that it would be highly unlikely to lose all of our minority MPs at one fell swoop. But I am not talking about Jurong GRC. I am talking about the long term. I am talking about the principles upon which we base our Constitution. Now, the argument I raised, yes, was a constitutional argument but you know that is my business, and it is my job. Why else am I in Parliament but to share my expertise? You can dismiss the expertise, but the constitutional office is for me to do so.

But anyway, the argument was this, and I think it was a little involved. But I suggested that the GRC scheme was potentially unconstitutional – potentially. I did not say it was, because it derogated from Article 12, the equal protection clause. I would say that, if you want to ensure minority legislative representation, that is a good enough reason to justify the exception to Article 12. But if you follow the logic of my argument, what I am then saying is because you have derogated from the fundamental liberties, when you construct your electoral system, it should comport with the principles. The principle is that of ensuring minority representation. So, my argument is that the GRC scheme is constitutional insofar as it serves the purposes of guaranteeing minority MPs.

We may disagree as to how best to implement this but, clearly, I take the position that it is necessary. I disagree with the NCMP on this point. I think minority representation is important. I may not think it is implemented in the optimal fashion but seeing that Mdm Halimah brought up the story of Rwanda, that actually brought back memories for me. I remember I started teaching International Law and one of the first problems I had to deal with was genocide in Rwanda and the agony of International Law not working. We all know that if there is

Column: 3428

racism, it is just a few short steps to genocide. We have seen this in history time and time again. It is not historical, it is still current. So, I am pretty well versed with the fight between the Tutsis and Hutus. And actually in this recent trip to Africa, I met the American Ambassador, Bob Krueger, who was the Ambassador to Burundi. Everybody was focused on Rwanda, everybody was ignoring Burundi. We both got along well probably because we went to the same university but he told me a lot of first-hand accounts of what he did. He was actually very undiplomatic as an Ambassador, because he spent all his weekends, risking his life, going to the countryside to dig up graves, to prove that there was, in fact, genocide going on.

So, I am extremely realistic in appreciating the fact that, in multi-racial Singapore, we must constitutionally make provisions for minority MPs to be represented.

As far as not following the practices of other countries, well, it is interesting that this is not entirely true. The way we construct any law, when you start drafting a new Bill, do you not look at foreign countries as a kind of model? I am not saying import it wholesale. I am totally against that. I think that models are either something to emulate or to reject because we do have to suit it to our local conditions and circumstances. If you look at the Malaysian model, for example, it actually provides for by-elections within 60 days, not three months. And we have, at times, adopted the Malaysian model. The clearest example was in 1995, when we were debating the Constitutional Tribunal. I remember the Prime Minister then said that the Malaysian model states that only the Cabinet can refer a constitutional question to the Constitutional Tribunal. One of the NMPs then had suggested that the President should have the right of initiation. Basically, he said, "Let us follow the Malaysian model." So, at the

Column: 3429

end of the day, when we look at any kind of model, we are trying to figure out what the merit of the argument is, we are not just borrowing things for the sake of borrowing. We need to put aside all these, "Oh, here we are borrowing western models." We are not. Not all western models are good. I would be the first person to say that.

But aside from that, as far as best practices are concerned, I think the debate has brought up something very useful. I was not aware that if, for example – God forbid – Hougang or Potong Pasir becomes vacant, that arrangements could be made to ensure that someone from the Workers' Party or the other party could take over from the Opposition MP, if his seat is vacated. If this is the policy, it is a good thing it was clarified, because that had me worried and concerned. I think I will just say that I do not think that the motion was extreme. I thought it was reasonable and, of course, in a democracy, the virtue of democracy is that everything is kept open-ended and there is always a hope that, even if your argument is rejected today, you might still accept it down the road.

Sir, I think I will only say this: Mr Prime Minister, thank you. I was hoping that we would have a serious, rather than summary, argument, given your considered response, I am satisfied that you have actually addressed your mind very seriously to the issue. I may not agree with you and I do not yield on my arguments. But I will defer to the fact that you are an elected MP and you are the head of the Government. And, therefore, I thank you all for hearing this motion. I am sorry, I do not know the procedure for this. I would like to call for a division on the vote. I am not quite sure how to do it. But with that, thank you very much.

Column: 3430

Dr Loo Choon Yong: Sir, I would like to thank the PM for his very educational speech. I agree with him. We should use and do what works, and not just follow this and that. And we should be very careful when we tinker with the Constitution.

The multi-racial situation in Singapore is very fragile. I lived through the riots of 1963/1964 and I remember 13th May in 1968. Just for clarification, because I may be misunderstood. Because of that, I am for the GRC system because I believe the GRC system is a system that will enshrine our multi-racial system in Singapore. I am not calling for GRC by-election in Jurong GRC and I believe the four Members, eminent Ministers and veteran backbenchers will serve the people well. Despite what the PM said –

Mr Mah Bow Tan: Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I would like to ask whether the hon. Member is allowed to speak. I am not saying that his views are not important but, just as a matter of procedure, whether he is actually allowed to seek clarification after the mover of the motion has already spoken.

Mr Deputy Speaker: The Leader is correct.

Dr Loo Choon Yong: Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I think the Standing Order does not preclude that, as long as it is before you put the question to the House. Anyway, 30 seconds more. Despite what the PM said, I seriously urge the PM, the Government, to think seriously because you have 23 or 24 minority MPs in this House. From a representation in Parliament, even if one or two vacate, you still have representation here. But at the constituency/GRC level, if the minority vacates, you do not have, and I take you at your word, we are trying to entrench multi-racialism at every constituency.

Thank you for your forbearance.

Column: 3431

Mr Deputy Speaker: The Question before the House is:

That this House affirms the importance of representative democracy and calls on the Government to fine-tune the electoral system by introducing amendments to the Parliamentary Elections Act such that (a) a writ for by-election shall be issued in the event (i) a Member of a Group Representation Constituency (GRC) belonging to a minority community within the terms of section 8A(1) of the Act vacates his or her seat for any reason; (ii) half or more of the Members elected on a group basis in relation to a GRC vacate their seats for any reason; or (iii) a Member of a single member constituency vacates his or her seat for any reason; and (b) all by-elections shall be called within three months from the date of vacancy unless the parliamentary term is due to expire within six months from the date of vacancy.

As many as are of the opinion say "Aye".

Some hon. Members: Aye.

Mr Deputy Speaker: To the contrary, say "No".

Most hon. Members: No.

Prof. Thio Li-ann: Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I call for a division.

Mr Deputy Speaker:

Mr Deputy Speaker: The hon. Member has called for a division and the procedure requires that five or more Members need to support this motion of calling for a division. Are there five or more Members who support this?

Six hon. Members supported the call for a division.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Before I proceed to start the electronic voting, Members are reminded that they are to press "Present" on their electronic voting unit, located at

Column: 3432

the left arm rest, before indicating the vote. Those who fail to press "Present" will not have their votes recorded. Voting will be open for 45 seconds from the time "voting in process" is flashed on the display boards. Members are reminded to check their names and vote indications posted on the display board, after the close of the voting. If a Member is of the opinion that his vote has been taken in error or has been recorded wrongly, he may rise and request the Chair to have his vote taken correctly, provided that such a request is made before the Chair declares the result of the division. I will now start the voting procedure.

Division taken: Ayes, 5; Noes, 62; Abstention, Nil.

Ayes

|

Noes

---|---

Loo Choon Yong

|

Low, Penny

Mehta, Kalyani K.

|

Low Thia Khiang

Eunice Elizabeth Olsen

|

Mah Bow Tan

Siew Kum Hong

|

Masagos Zulkifli B M M

Thio Li-ann

|

Mohd Maliki Bin Osman

|

Muhammad Faishal Ibrahim

Noes

|

Ng Eng Hen

Baey Yam Keng

|

Ong Ah Heng

Balaji Sadasivan

|

Ong Seh Hong

Chan Soo Sen

|

Palmer, Michael

Chong, Charles

|

Phua, Cynthia

Christopher de Souza

|

Phua Lay Peng, Denise

Fatimah Lateef

|

Fong, Arthur

|

Foo Chee Keng, Cedric

|

Fu Hai Yien, Grace

|

Gan Kim Yong

|

Hawazi Daipi

|

Heng Chee How

|

Ho Peng Kee

|

Hri Kumar Nair

|

Inderjit Singh

|

Jayakumar, S.

|

Khaw Boon Wan

|

Khor Lean Suan, Amy

|

Lam Pin Min

|

Lee, Ellen

|

Lee Hsien Loong

|

Liang Eng Hwa

|

Lim Biow Chuan

|

Lim Boon Heng

|

Lim Hwee Hua

|

Lim Siang Keat, Raymond

|

Lim Swee Say

Lim, Sylvia

|

Lim Wee Kiak

|

Column: 3433

Seah Kian Peng

Seng Han Thong

Shanmugam, K.

Sin Boon Ann

Tan Chin Siong, Sam

Tan Soon Neo, Jessica

Teo Chee Hean

Teo Ho Pin

Teo, Josephine

Teo Ser Luck

Vivian Balakrishnan

Wee Siew Kim

Wong Kan Seng

Yaacob Ibrahim

Yao Chih, Matthias

Yeo, Alvin

Yeo Guat Kwang

Yu-Foo Yee Shoon

Zainudin Nordin

Zainul Abidin Rasheed

Zaqy Mohamad

Abstention

Nil

Mr Sin Boon Ann (Tampines): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I would like to report that my vote was not registered. I voted a "No" and I believe it is a fault in my system.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Let it be so recorded.

Column: 3434

Assoc. Prof. Kalyani K Mehta (Nominated Member): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, my position is the same as Mr Sin.

Mr Deputy Speaker: And your vote is?

Assoc. Prof. Kalyani K Mehta: Yes.

Mr Deputy Speaker: You voted "Yes".

Motion accordingly negatived.