PARLIAMENTARY MEMBERSHIP BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

3.32 p.m.

The Minister for Law and National Development (Mr E. W. Barker): Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

At the sitting of Parliament on the 31st October, Government announced in a White Paper (Cmd. 22 of 1967) the acceptance of the recommendations of the Electoral Boundaries Delineation Committee with regard to the subdivision of 10 large constituencies and the creation of 8 new constituencies with consequential adjustments to 3 constituencies, and the decision to merge the electoral division of Southern Islands with the electoral divisions of Jurong, Pasir Panjang and Telok Blangah.

The reasons for Government's acceptance of the recommendations of the said Committee were explained in the White Paper. The boundaries of the present 51 electoral divisions were demarcated in 1957 and have remained unchanged for the last 10 years. Due to major housing developments and urban renewal and large population shifts, the population ratios in the 51 constituencies have become quite disproportionate, and to ensure that there is more equal representation throughout all constituencies in the Republic, the 10 largest constituencies, with an electorate of more than 18,000 electors each, have been subdivided, resulting in the creation of 8 new constituencies.

In deciding to merge Southern Islands with the mainland electoral divisions of Jurong, Pasir Panjang and Telok Blangah, the Government had in mind the desirability of eliminating the tendency for the Islands to develop into an isolated constituency. This division has a very low electorate, namely, 4,273 electors, and this number is likely to dwindle when more people shift to the city. These Islands would have a better chance of achieving a quicker rate of development after merger with the more developed constituencies of Jurong, Pasir Panjang and Telok Blangah, as in the case of the islands of Pulau Tekong and Pulau Ubin in the constituency of Changi.

The number of electoral divisions will be increased from the present 51 to 58. The Singapore Parliament Elections Ordinance (Cap. 53) provides that each electoral division shall return one Member to serve in Parliament. The Constitution of Singapore stipulates a Parliamentary membership of 51 until other provision is made by law. Accordingly, it is necessary for a Bill to be passed to provide for an increase in the number of elected Members to Parliament.

The Parliamentary Membership Bill provides that so much of clause (1) of Article 23 of the Constitution of Singapore as prescribes a limit of 51 on the number of elected Members shall cease to have effect, and that as from the time of the election of Members to serve in Parliament at the next general election, and hereafter until such time as other provision is made by law, Parliament shall consist of 58 elected Members.

This Bill also provides that, for the purposes of the next general election, power is given for all things to be done under the Singapore Parliament Elections Ordinance as if Parliament already consisted of 58 elected Members. This would enable various matters to be carried out for the purposes of the next general elections; for example, the naming and delineation of the boundaries of electoral divisions by notification in the Gazette under section 8 of the Singapore Parliament Elections Ordinance, and the exhibition of the 1967 registers of electors for public inspection under section 10 of the same Ordinance.

Sir, I beg to move.

Question proposed.

3.38 p.m.

Inche Rahamat Bin Kenap (Geylang Serai): (In Malay): Mr Speaker, Sir, in my opinion, the White Paper which was introduced in this Parliament on 31st October last is very fitting in the present situation in Singapore. Although Singapore is a small country, the number of inhabitants is proportionately large, consisting of various races and religions. I feel that the demarcation of every constituency should not be based on the size of the area but on the number of inhabitants.

As Singapore has become the centre of attention of many countries, it can be said that Singapore can be likened to a beautiful woman who has caused others to be mad about her and people of other countries have left their homes to stay here forever. One of the responsibilities of the Government of Singapore is to give social assistance, and as such constituencies should be changed to increase the Parliamentary membership in order to balance the number of inhabitants with the constituencies from time to time.

Every Member of Parliament does not only represent his constituency but also the inhabitants of that constituency. Also, he has not only the responsibility to attend sittings of Parliament but also the responsibility to help solve whatever difficulties his constituents are faced with.

There are certain political Parties which use constituencies as a stepping stone to obtain seats for their candidates in Parliament where they can boast and behave like heroes but meantime ignoring the fate of their constituents. This had happened before the P.A.P. came to power, especially in the Geylang Serai constituency. I believe that the candidates of these political parties who were not elected to Parliament in the last elections are rather anxious about their future because of these changes. They know that they do not have the support of the people and therefore their future might be worse off than what they were in the last elections. That is why all this while they have been saying all sorts of things to confuse the minds of the people, particularly after the announcement of this White Paper on 31st October last. The tactics which they have carried out are the same as those of the Malayan Communist Party during the Emergency, and it is possible that we here would also be anxious if the Malayan Communist Party were also present in Singapore.

However, for the good of the people, we should be firm in facing this situation. Considering the ever-increasing number of our population, the increase of Parliamentary constituencies is also necessary. This is to improve the work of Members of Parliament in their respective constituencies. Constituencies in Singapore are different from those in Malaysia which consist of jungle areas and inhabited by wild animals, with very few human beings living there. But in Singapore the situation is different because our constituencies are full of housing estates accommodating all races. This is a big problem for Singapore and should be borne in mind by the people and the political Parties. They should not work for personal gain but for the prosperity and safety of Singapore.

Considering the recent changes in Singapore and the increase in population as time goes by, I support this White Paper.

3.45 p.m.

Dr Chew Chin Han (Tampines): (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, in the past few years because of the increase in industrial development and the renewal of the urban areas, there has been an increase or shift in population in our country. In some places there are less people because they have gone to other housing estates, and in some areas, because of the former demarcation of constituencies, there is some inequality. Now we are going to divide the State into 58 constituencies. It is proper to do so. The division into 58 constituencies will make our work as Members of Parliament easier and more effective. We must know that Members of Parliament are elected not just for politics. Their main purpose is to serve the people. Otherwise the people will not support them. So more constituencies will mean that we have more Members of Parliament to serve the people better. Someone has asked, why is it necessary to divide the State into 58 constituencies? Is it for political interests? Or for what interest? What we say is that the division into 58 constituencies is to enable the Members of Parliament serve the people better. For the past few years the standard of political consciousness of the people has been raised under the present Government.

Someone has said that having more constituencies will mean more expenditure. Our Members of Parliament get the lowest allowance in the world. Therefore, an increase of seven Members will mean a very little extra expenditure. Therefore, I hope that, in addition to the increase in constituencies, the number of Ministers should also increase so that they will serve the people better and more efficiently.

3.48 p.m.

Mr Teong Eng Siong: (In Mandarin): Sir, I fully support the Parliamentary Membership Bill. The history of parliamentary democracy in our country is not long. It is only 12 years. Since 1955 there have been only local and partial elections. But judging from the healthy manifestation of progress of our parliamentary democracy, we are not less democratic compared with any other country. The success of our parliamentary democracy is due to two basic factors. First, our citizens have a rather high standard of political consciousness and they understand the true meaning of democracy. Second, in recent years, the Party to which I belong has made great achievements in nation-building and in various other spheres. As a result, the voters have more faith in democracy.

Sir, with regard to the increase in constituencies, I feel that it is very apt and proper. As I have just pointed out, there has been a great increase in our population, and accordingly there are more voters. Judging by our present achievements in housing and other fields of activity, we have made great changes in recent years. At the moment, we have quite a number of satellite towns, such as Queenstown, Aljunied, Kallang, and Toa Payoh. Hence, the population in certain areas has increased. So if today our constituencies have the same boundaries, will that be in keeping with our present changes? In certain constituencies there will be more voters. For instance, in Queenstown at present there are more than 100,000 residents, but the number of voters in the last elections was 40,000. In Mountbatten there were 28,000 voters. In Delta there were 26,000 voters. Because of the shift in population, some constituencies will have more voters, whereas others will have less. For instance, in Geylang, Crawford and Havelock, the population is crowded there. If we do not make any adjustments in the boundaries of the constituencies, we may not be able to serve the people better.

Sir, ours is a non-Communist democratic country. We have an enlightened policy of equal treatment for all streams of education and all races. This policy has welded our races together and is the basic factor in our nation-building. I believe we will soon set a very good example in South-East Asia as a democratic, multi-racial country. We will also set a leading example to all the multi-racial countries in the world.

Sir, let me now consider certain views expressed by some of the Opposition Parties. I think their views are not constructive. For instance, U.M.N.O. have said that the Government has not allowed them any time to express their opinions. This is not true, because in a democratic country everybody has the right of free speech. Whether or not their views will be accepted by the Government will depend on whether they are constructive and whether they meet the wishes of the people. For instance, certain political parties want us to do away with parliamentary democracy. They do not want general elections. Does it mean that we are bound to accept their anti-national policy or views? I would ask them whether they have the interest of the people at heart, or whether they are just making noises before the general elections, and when the elections are over they will take to their heels. They will close up their party offices. Our people know these adventurers very well.

The Singapore Chinese Party has suggested five points, one of which is to ask when the Government will hold general elections and also to give them sufficient time to prepare themselves. This would set the people guessing as to their true intention. But these people should not forget their past evil records which are well known. The people know they are adventurers. They cannot fool all the people all the time.

As regards the Alliance Party, this is a Party that was discarded by the electorate in the 1959 and 1963 elections. So their policy is not new. One of their requests is to prolong the period for campaigning in the general elections. They think that by this they can get more people to support them. I would say that they are day-dreaming. We know that the support which a political party can get from the voters depends on whether they have served the people well and have an efficient democratic system. In other words, basically the question is whether they have come close to the people and have helped them to solve their problems and difficulties. If they have done so, then when the general elections come along, the people will vote for them on the basis of their record. If certain political parties normally close up their offices for the most part of the year, and in their branches not anyone of their members can be found, how can they expect anybody to vote for them? Naturally the masses will cast their votes in such a way as to wipe off such political rubbish from the political scene, such as the Lim Yew Hock regime and the anti-national elements -

Mr Speaker: Order. Mr Teong, I am afraid you are getting away from the scope of this Bill. The purpose of the Bill is to increase the membership of Parliament from 51 to 58, and what Tun Lim Yew Hock did in the past has nothing whatsoever to do with this Bill.

Mr Teong Eng Siong: (In Mandarin): Sir, thank you for your reminder. The Opposition Parties have made certain statements, so I feel that I must rebut their arguments. Now I would like to touch on the editorial in the Sin Chew Jit Poh on the 7th of ---

Mr Speaker: Mr Teong, I do not know whether you were here at half-past two this afternoon, but I made an announcement which contains a preliminary ruling by me on this editorial. I also stated that I have referred it to the Committee of Privileges which will consider the matter and I am afraid you are not permitted to say anything at all about that editorial at this stage.

Mr Teong Eng Siong: (In Mandarin): Thank you for your direction. I have prepared my rebuttal to the editorial but I have no chance to do so now.

Sir, finally, I feel that this amendment Bill to re-adjust the constituencies is in keeping with our changed conditions. The constituencies can be better developed and can serve the people better. This is something that should not be delayed. As a responsible Government, we must introduce this Bill at the present juncture. We cannot allow the present situation to continue because it will lead to chaos. If we are not doing what we are now doing, then it will mean that we are negligent. So any criticism of the change in the constituencies is baseless and malicious. On the other hand, I think this action on the part of the Government is most judicious and farsighted. It is a necessary step in the history of our parliamentary democracy.

The Minister of State for the Prime Minister's Department (Tuan Haji Yaacob Bin Mohamed): (In Malay): Mr Speaker, originally it was not my intention to speak on the Bill, but because in the process of increasing the Parliamentary membership by eight, and my constituency, the Southern Islands, is no more, that is why I am now speaking on this Bill. Of course, Mr Speaker, I have been working hard for the last four years in my constituency, i.e. Southern Islands, and I believe that in the next elections, I will be returned unopposed. Even if there is opposition, I believe I can beat my opponent with a majority vote. But because this constituency has been deleted, I am obliged to reiterate my stand that I fully support the Bill which has been tabled by the Government.

A Member of Parliament will feel ashamed if he represents only 4,000 voters while other Members, like the Member for Queenstown, may represent more than 40,000 voters. The purpose of merging the Southern Islands into the three mainland constituencies of Jurong, Telok Blangah and Pasir Panjang is to reallocate the responsibilities of Members of Parliament. Hitherto, the inhabitants who occupy 22 islands of the Southern Islands have been looked after by only one Member of Parliament, but in future they will be looked after by three Members of Parliament. When I bring up the problems of the Southern Islanders, I find it difficult at times to gain support for the reason that I am the only representative. However, in future, if one Member of Parliament puts forward his proposals, he is sure to get the support of the other two Members of Parliament who represent the Southern Islands. Therefore, I feel that it is more to the advantage of the Southern Islanders to be represented by three Members of Parliament instead of one member of Parliament as at present. Although I may not be representing the Southern Islands in future, these three Members of Parliament will have to look after the 22 islands which are inhabited by a small number of voters. The expenses are high for only one Member of Parliament to look after the Southern Islanders, but it will be to their greater advantage if they are looked after by three Members of Parliament. I am of the opinion that if the Southern Islands are not merged with the mainland constituencies, the residents will be neglected especially if their Member of Parliament does not have good financial means. The reason is that he will incur an expenditure of about $30 for a visit to the Southern Islands, and hon. Members can estimate how much expenses will have to be incurred by a Member of Parliament who pays visits 7 or 8 times a month. If a Member of Parliament who gets an allowance of $500 a month were to incur expenditure for the purchase of petrol and an outboard motor and other incidental expenses, it would mean that he would not be able to visit his constituents regularly, as evidenced by the fact that my two predecessors in the Southern Islands had failed to discharge their duties. For that reason, people have been asking me about my stand. Once again, I reiterate my full support for the White Paper in the hope that the residents of the Southern Islands will be better looked after after the next elections.

Inche Mahmud Awang (Kampong Kapor): (In Malay): Mr Speaker, Sir, we will not compromise in our struggle. We will not budge from our stand of creating a prosperous, free, democratic and socialist Republic of Singapore. We believe that an increase in the number of Members of Parliament will better weld together our multi-racial population. This is our main aim and we will strive to the best of our ability to achieve it.

Mr Speaker, Sir, as we all know, the total of 58 Members of Parliament is arrived at as follows: 51 plus 8 totals 59; 59 less 1 equals 58. The constituency which has been deleted is the Southern Islands.

[Mr Yeoh Ghim Seng in the Chair]

4.05 p.m.

Mr Speaker, Sir, as we all know, the total of 58 Members of Parliament is arrived at as follows: The people of that constituency know one another very well. They live in peace and harmony and enjoy prosperity. As elected representatives, we have always striven to achieve this basic and fundamental aim. However, that particular constituency has been deleted. I share the same belief as that of the Minister of State for the Prime Minister's Department, the Member for Southern Islands, that it would be better to have three Members of Parliament to cultivate a multi-racial spirit among the people of the Southern Islands. This will be the responsibility of the future Members of Parliament representing the Southern Islands.

In addition to Geylang Serai, there will be another constituency, Kampong Ubi. Although the White Paper has been tabled and we will approve this Bill, I feel that Kampong Ubi is not a proper name in our progressive world and that it should be renamed, for instance, Geylang Bahru or Geylang Maju, because it is not our intension to recall the past.

Sir, the increase in the number of Members of Parliament to 58 poses a question. First, the people will think that there are eight new constituencies to be won by political leaders in Singapore. I would like to express my view that the progress achieved in our Republic has necessitated an increase in the membership of Parliament. We are well aware that we will have to face trials and tribulations not only from political Parties in Singapore, but also from outside political ideologies, in order to fulfil the needs of our people. We must shoulder our responsibilities to the people and not think of our own benefit. When the people go to the polls, they will be the final arbiters. They will decide whether or not this increase is justified and whether or not the elected representatives will look after their interests.

Mr Barker: Sir, may I thank the Members of the House who have spoken on the Bill for their views and their support?

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

4.13 p.m.

Mr Barker: In particular, I would like to thank the Member for Southern Islands who, though naturally sorry that his Islands will find no seat for him, has supported the Bill without any reservations.

As to the Member who would rather have Kampong Ubi called Geylang Bahru or Geylang Maju, I do not see anything wrong in the name. There have been, in fact, some objections to the English names, for example, Alexandra and Macpherson, but these new constituencies have been named Alexandra and Macpherson for so long that all you have to do when you take a taxi is to say, "Alexandra" and the taxi-driver will bring you there. So these place names have grown up with the town and though they may be foreign names, we are certainly not ashamed to use them.

As far as the Bill in general is concerned, I have only one more point to say and that is this: there have been criticisms that the purpose of this Bill is to "fix" the next election for the People's Action Party. Sir, whether the next election is for 51 seats or 58 seats will make no difference. I am confident that it will be a walk-over for the People's Action Party.

Mr Sim Boon Woo (Changi): Hear, hear!

Mr Barker: So on that note, Sir, may I end?

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House.

The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill.-[Mr Barker].

Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed.