PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS (AMENDMENT) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

The First Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Defence (Mr Goh Chok Tong): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I bet to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

Objectives of Bill

This Bill, the Parliamentary Elections (Amendment) Bill, and the one following it, the Constitution (Amendment) Bill, will together secure the long-term political stability of Singapore in two ways: first, by ensuring that Parliament will always be multi-racial and representative of our society, and second, by encouraging the practice of multi-racial politics by all political parties.

Multi-racialism - a fundamental axiom of Singapore politics

Singapore is a multi-racial, multi-religious society, but not by chance. For Singaporeans to enjoy racial and religious harmony, the PAP and the Government consider multi-racialism to be a fundamental axiom of politics in Singapore. It is an issue of such vital importance that there can be no room for polite disagreement. It is a key objective in the PAP Constitution, which reads:

"To forge a nation of Singaporeans: to build a multi-racial society, fair, just and tolerant to all, whatever their race, language and religion; to infuse into Singaporeans a sense of national identity and to bind them together by patriotism and commitment to Singapore."

Singapore has always enjoyed racial and religious harmony. Harmony has resulted from the philosophy, policies and practice of the PAP, and the precautions taken by the Government. For example, soon after Singapore separated from Malaysia on 9th August 1965, the Government set up a Constitutional Commission to see how the rights of the racial, linguistic and religious minorities could be protected and adequately safeguarded in the Constitution.

Mr E.W. Barker was then the Minister for Law and National Development. He told this House, on 22nd December 1965:

"Mr Speaker, Sir, one of the cornerstones of the policy of the Government is a multi-racial Singapore. We are a nation comprising peoples of various races who constitute her citizens, and our citizens are equal regardless of differences of race, language, culture and religion.

Whilst a multi-racial secular society is an ideal espoused by many, it is a dire necessity for our survival in the midst of turmoil and pressures of big power conflict in an area where new nationalisms are seeking to assert themselves in the place of old European empires in Asia. In such a setting a nation based on one race, one language and one religion, when its people are multi-racial, is one doomed for destruction.

To ensure this bias in favour of multi-racialism and the equality of our citizens, whether they belong to majority or minority groups, a Constitutional Commission is being appointed to help formulate these constitutional safeguards."

Amongst the recommendations by the Constitutional Commission was one which led to the setting up of a Presidential Council for Minority Rights. The proposal to elect Team MPs or MPs on a group basis in Group Representation Constituencies is to be seen against this backdrop.

When Bill first discussed

The Prime Minister and I first discussed the need to secure a multi-racial Parliament in July 1982. He was concerned at a voting trend which showed young voters preferring candidates who were best suited to their own needs without being sufficiently aware of the need to return a racially balanced party slate of candidates.

Every constituency in Singapore is integrated racially; the majority of the constituents are Chinese. A Malay candidate is disadvantaged against a Chinese candidate on the basis of race, language, including dialects, and religion. If the voting trend continues, there would be fewer and fewer Malay MPs. The problem is not so much with the established Malay MPs, but with first-time Malay candidates. Once an MP is established, his merits are known to the voters. But a first-time Malay candidate would be vulnerable.

The Prime Minister feared that in the 1990s, the Malays could be under-represented in Parliament. He asked me to discuss this problem and also his proposed solution with my colleagues. He proposed twin constituencies as a solution where of the two candidates one must be a Malay.

My colleagues and I agreed that this problem was real. We agreed that we should find a way to ensure that Parliament would always remain multi-racial. But we could not agree on the Prime Minister's proposed solution of twin constituencies.

Dr Ahmad Mattar, for example, was against it. He wrote to me on 30th September 1982:

"I am not in favour of the idea. We should avoid it if we can. As a Malay, I don't think I would like to contest in any Elections where my victory is guaranteed - not because I am a 'strong' candidate but because I have a so-called 'strong' twin brother to lean on."

At the same time, Ahmad Mattar recognized the problem and the need for a solution, for he added:

"If the objective is to ensure that there will always be minimum Malay/Muslim representation in Parliament, I am quite agreeable to the idea of having 'Nominated' seats in Parliament, the filling of which is left to the President."

So I wrote to the Prime Minister on 7th October 1982:

"The younger Ministers are not attracted by the idea of twin constituencies. They think by introducing racial considerations into elections we will be undoing what we have achieved so far, ie, giving all Singaporeans regardless of race a sense of equality and self-respect. They fear that twin constituencies will undermine the self-respect an confidence of the Malays. I share the same misgiving but at the same time recognize the larger problem of a non-representative Parliament."

The Prime Minister replied the next day (8th October 1982):

"I can understand Ahmad Mattar's reaction. He has expressed his feelings at the prospect of his being a passenger in a twin constituency. If the younger leadership does not want to go through with it, I am prepared to live with the consequences of one election where we have lost half the Malay seats and let the lesson be learnt the painful way."

The younger Ministers chose not to go through with it in the 1984 General Elections. We thought we should not rush things. We should take our time to find the best solution.

Review after 1984 General Elections

After the 1984 General Elections, we felt the problem more keenly. The voting in the General Elections of December 1984 showed a continuation in the trend of younger voters preferring candidates who were better qualified and suited to serve their own needs because of their education, abilities, culture and languages, including dialects. The older voters voted for the party rather than the candidate out of experience and habit. They accept the need for a multi-racial Parliament. But the younger voters have not lived through the same excruciating experiences, the acrimony, the racial riots. And at each election, more thousands of first-time voters join the rank.

Chandra Das, the MP for Chong Boon, for example, particularly felt the pressure of this voting trend in 1984. Ling How Doong was Chiam's man, standing for the SDP, whose party constitution does not include multi-racialism as one of its objectives. It was reported that when Ling went campaigning house to house, he would ask in Mandarin and dialects, whether "that Indian man" had visited them. Chandra Das, a strong PAP candidate, got only 55% of the vote. Ling How Doong is now the Chairman of the SDP. The newspapers reported him as being against the idea of Team MPs.

Mr Chiam See Tong (Potong Pasir): So am I.

Mr Goh Chok Tong: Tan Chee Kien, the former Chairman of the Singapore United Front, picked Kaki Bukit. Saidi Shariff was our MP before the general elections. Tan Chee Kien did not know that we were going to change Saidi Shariff for Chew Heng Ching. I am convinced that had we not changed our candidate in Kaki Bukit, and also in Telok Blangah, we would have lost the two seats.

What the problem is

Let me make clear what our fears are. We do not like to lose. Nobody likes to lose, but that is hardly the reason for introducing the concept of Team MPs. If opposition candidates defeat the PAP Chinese candidates, that is a loss, but there is no great problem. There is no trauma for the nation. There will still be many Chinese MPs in Parliament. But if they defeat the PAP Malay candidates, chances are the PAP Malay candidates would have lost to non-Malay candidates. Then a problem is created because there will be fewer and fewer Malay MPs.

The PAP has gone out of its way to find and field good Malay candidates. It has succeeded, but only with great difficulty, because the pool of Malay professionals is so small. Opposition parties are under no obligation whatsoever to make the same effort. The SDP did not field a single candidate from the minority community in the last General Election.

It is make-belief to pretend that race and language do not affect voter preferences. I am not saying that there are no other factors. There are other factors like a candidate's character, charisma and copetence. But race and language do influence boter preferences. It is not so elsewhere in the world, in Britain and United States, for example. Welsh candidates beat English candidates in Wales. And it is no secret that an Irish American stands a better chance of winning in Boston against all others. Even when all the candidates are of the same race and speak the same language, their dialect group or where they come from plays a part in their electoral support. Look at the recent Presidential elections in Korea. The three main candidates drew their main support from their native province.

So we have to find a way to induce all serious political parties to field candidates from the Malay and Other Minorities. This way, whether the PAP loses a seat or wins a seat, there will be an adequate number of Malays and members of the other minority communities in Parliament. Paradoxical as it may seem, to ensure that multi-racialism succeeds in Singapore, we have to openly recognize that race does play a part in politics.

Acceptance of GRCs by Malay MPS

In 1982 our Malay MPs rejected the idea of twin constituencies. Their experience in 1984 changed their views. They now agree with group representation as a safeguard to ensure that Malay candidates, particularly first-time Malay candidates, will be returned in future elections in fair numbers.

In 1982, the Indian MPs did not support the proposal of twin constituencies either. They now support group representation. They, both the Malay and Indian MPs recognize that the problem can get worse with more first-time voters joining the rank.

Town Councils and GRCs

Meanwhile, we were implementing three pilot schemes in Ang Mo Kio to test out the feasibility of forming town councils to manage public housing estates. From the experience gained, we decided that town councils are feasible and beneficial to the residents. We also concluded that an economic size for town councils to manage is a group of three constituencies.

The town council proposal and the team MP proposal are two different concepts. One is to give residents more authority, more responsibility, to manage their own housing estates; the other is to ensure that Parliament would always be multi-racial. But though the two concepts are different, they are compatible. After an election three MPs, although they are voted in separately, can get together to form a town council. Also, after an election, a group of MPs, three in this case, in a Group Representation Constituency, can also form a town council. Thus, though the two concepts are different, they can be worked together. That was how Group Representation Constituencies, each about the size of three single-member constituencies and each to be served by a team of three MPs, came to replace twin constituencies.

Group Strength and Decisive Role of Malay Candidates

With group representation, candidates will contest for election on their strength as a group. Each one of them has to be an asset and no one can be a liability. Whether a candidate is a Chinese, a Malay, or an Indian, he cannot be a weak candidate. Because if he is, he is going to pull down the whole team. The quality of the Malay candidate in the group of three can be decisive. This is so where the non Malay candidates in the two contending teams are of about the same quality and of about the same value to the electorate. Then, the quality of the Malay candidate will decide which team will win the election, particularly if in the constituency there are 20 to 30% Malays. At present, we all know that the Opposition is unlikely to be able to field non-Malay candidates of the calibre of the PAP's Chinese candidates. But we do not make the assumption that they cannot do so in future. When they do, then the quality of the Malay candidate becomes decisive. Because if the two Chinese candidates in each team are of about the same quality, then the Malay candidate will play a decisive part in determing which team wins an election. The Malay candidate helps the team to win, just as the team helps him to win.

Events which reinforced our thinking

Several events in 1987 also influenced our thinking and reinforced our conviction that we should introduce voting on a group basis in certain constituencies in Singapore. Two were external events, and one internal.

(A) External

First was the open war between the Tamils and the Singhalese in Sri Lanka, leading to intervention by Indian troops. The Tamils felt neglected, discriminated against and threatened. Parliamentary democracy, similar to ours, has not safeguarded their interests. They resorted to extra-Parliamentary means to protect their interests. Second was the military coup in Fiji mounted by Col Rabuka against an elected government. The native Fijian-based political party lost the general elections to the Indian-based party. The military, which is controlled by native Fijians, overthrew the newly-elected government because the Fijians, who are in the minority in Fiji, felt threatened by an Indian-dominated government.

These two events highlighted one basic fact of a multi-racial society - that when a minority feels threatened, it will resort to all means, including non-constitutional means, to safeguard its interests. These were external lessons.

(B) Internal

There was also an internal event which brought home the reality that we are a multi-racial society. Do you remember how the Malays and Muslims reacted over the visit of President Herzog? Do you remember how they reacted when Lee Hsien Loong brought up the subject of Malays in the SAF? Suppose there are no Malays in Parliament, how would we have discussed such issues like the participation of Malays in the SAF? Would non-Malay MPs be able to explain the issues to the Malays, and achieve understanding? Would such issues have remained only an amicable debate? Need for Multi-Racial Parliament

We are all Singaporeans, but the fact remains that we are Singaporeans made up of many races. It is harmful for stability and harmony if one important racial community is not adequately represented in Parliament, where our laws are passed, where government policies are debated. That community is bound to feel aggrieved, resentful, and fustrated. And you cannot blame the community. Frustration will lead to communal distrust and distrust to friction. Eventually, sparks will fly.

It would be a disaster for the Chinese community in Singapore if Singapore wakes up one day to find that we have an all-Chinese Parliament.

Bill to establish GRCs

This Bill seeks to prevent such an unhealthy situation from arising. It is the culmination of five years of discussion within the PAP leadership, including the Malay MPs. It is the best mechanism we can think of, amongst all proposals considered. It seeks to ensure that Parliament will always be multi-racial by requiring some constituencies to be contested on a group basis. These will be larger constituencies, each having about three times as many voters as single-member constituencies. They will be represented by three MPs each. Parties contesting in these constituencies or GRCs must put up a team of three candidates. Of the three candidates, one must come from either the Malay community or another minority community. Thus, if there are 13 such larger constituencies, at least 13 Members of Parliament will come from either the Malay community or another minority community.

This way, GRCs overcome the problem of voters picking candidates only on their personal attributes and ignoring the larger need for a racially balanced slate of candidates in Parliament. Whichever group wins, whether it is the PAP's group or the Opposition's group, there will always be a multi-racial group. This way, voters can still vote on the basis of who can serve them best, and yet return a racially-balanced slate of candidates to Parliament. Multi-Racial Politics - Larger Objective of Bill

This Bill also has a larger objective beyond merely guaranteeing that Parliament would always be multi-racial in character. It makes it necessary for all political parties to adopt a multi-racial approach in their competition for seats in Parliament if they hope to form the government. Constituencies to be contested by multi-racial teams of candidates will require political parties and their candidates to take a moderate, multi-racial approach when campaigning instead of a communal or racially extreme approach.

Let me explain. In a GRC, one of the three candidates must come from the minority community. In other words, in a GRC, there will always be someone coming either from the Malay community, Indian or another minority community. There would be at least two ethnic groups in a team of three contesting in a GRC. In fact, it is possible to have a team comprising candidates coming from three ethnic groups. Each will provide a check on other. It will provide a check on another candidate who may be tempted to exploit communal sentiments in order to win votes. For example, if a Chinese candidate were to go around campaiging talking about "that Indian man", that Indian man in his team would also loss electoral support. And the loss of support for that Indian man in his team would also affect him. Ther is therefore a vested interest to force candidates in the team to take a moderate multi-racial line in campaigning. This is a self-check mechanism in the GRC.

Since GRCs will have a multi-racial team of candidates, this Bill, once passed, will require all parties to field a racially balanced slate of candidates if they want to win power. GRCs will produce almost half the number of MPs. Whichever party wants to win power in Singapore must contest in them. It cannot just contest in single-member constituencies. That will be an open admission of its failure to field a multi-racial team. Just like the Member for Potong Pasir who admitted just now that in the last elections, he could only field four candidates from one community. Any party intending to assume office must act and offer itself as an alternative government and must move into centre ground to win Malay votes, and Indian votes besides Chinese votes in order to capture power. A party which does not do so and contest only in the single-member constituencies is unlikely to be able to win power. It is unlikely that such a party fielding candidates from one or two communities only can sweep all the single-member constituency seats. This is the larger purpose of the Bill for Team MPs - to require all parties which aspire to form the government to enhance and practise multi-racial politics and policies. It is the philosophical underpinning for Team MPs.

Details of the Bill

Now, I shall deal with the details of the Bill.

Clause 3 enables the President to declare a certain number of constituencies where Parliamentary elections will be held on a group basis. Such constituencies will be known as Group Representation Constituencies (GRCs). Each group will have three candidates and this clause allows the President to stipulate that one of the three candidates in every group shall be a person belonging to the Malay community, or a person belonging to any other minority community.

This clause also limits the number of MPs to be returned by all GRCs to half the total number of MPs to be returned at a general election. In the next election, if the total number of MPs remains at 79, the number of GRCs will not exceed 13, or 39 MPs. There will be at least 40 seats where opposition parties which cannot field a team of multi-racial candidates can still contest. Such opposition parties are not shut out by this Bill.

Clause 3 stipulates that no by-election will be held to fill any vacancy unless all the three members of that GRC have vacated their seats in Parliament. This is to ensure that no Member who has been elected under a GRC will be forced to vacate his seat through the departure of his team-mates, for whatever reason.

Clause 6 requires all three candidates in a GRC to belong to the same political party, or if they are independent candidates, standing as a group, contesting under one common logo. This requirement is to ensure that each group of three candidates contesting in a GRC share generally the same political values and can work as a team to serve the constituents. It is to discourage marriages of convenience for the purpose of contesting in a GRC.

Clause 6 also defines the phrase "person belonging to the Malay community".

Clause 6 also requires any person who desires to contest as a candidate from the Malay or other minority community to apply to the appropriate committee for a certificate stating that he belongs to that particular community. The appropriate committee shall decide and its decision will be final. The members of the two committees shall be appointed by the President on the nomination of the Presidential Council for Minority Rights. They must also be members of their appropriate community.

The purpose of this certification is, firstly, to ensure that the minority communities are properly represented by people who are accepted as members of their communities and, secondly, that there is no dispute over this point on Nomination Day.

Clauses 10 to 15 spell out the procedure and conduct of an election in GRCs. Each voter in any GRC will have one vote. He votes for a group of candidates and not for the candidates in the group separately. The group of candidates receiving the highest number of votes will be declared elected. The three candidates in the group thus elected will serve as Members of Parliament for that GRC.

Clauses 16 to 26 make consequential amendments to the Act arising from the introduction of the electoral system for group representation.

Clause 17 provides for defeated candidates in a GRC to qualify for non-constituency seats:

(a) If the highest percentage of votes among defeated candidates is from a GRC, all the three non-constituency seats will be occupied by the three candidates from the GRC.

(b) If the second highest or third highest percentage is returned by candidates from a GRC, then the three candidates are to determine which of them should occupy the two or one non-constituency seats (as the case may be). If they fail to agree, the decision will be made by ballot.

(c) If there is a tie between candidates in two GRCs, the decision as to who among them will occupy non-constituency seats will be made by ballot.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, before I conclude, let me reiterate the objectives of this Bill. This Bill seeks to institutionalize the practice of multi-racial politics by requiring all political parties to field multi-racial teams of candidates to contest in Group Representation Constituencies if they aspire to win power. This will at the same time ensure that Parliament will always be multi-racial in composition. It underlines the commitment of the Government to the building of a multi-racial society through representative and democratic government.

Strengthen multi-racial framework of Parliament

All multi-racial societies contain underlying forces which, if not wisely managed, will tear them apart. Loyalty to one's own community, to race, to one's religion and language is stronger than loyalty to the nation, particularly if that nation is a new one and has many races.

Singapore is a beautiful, peaceful country, but the same primordial human emotions exist here as elsewhere in other multi-racial societies, like Sri Lanka, Lebanon, Fiji, Cyprus, Northern Ireland. For Singapore to remain a beautiful, peaceful country for many more generations, it is wise of us to strengthen the political framework before it is weakened by disillusionment, despondency and despair when one community finds itself thrown out of Parliament by the electoral system.

Questions to ask yourselves

The questions you have to ask yourselves, and answer, when debating this Bill are:

(1) Do you believe in taking steps to encourage the practice of moderate, multi- racial politics and to discourage the practice of extreme, communal politics in Singapore?

(2) If you do, should we not take precautionary steps to ensure that Parliament will always remain multi-racial?

(3) If your anser is "yes" to both questions, can you think of a better alternative than Team MPs in Group Representation Constituencies to achieve these two objectives?

Better alternative than GRCs?

GRCs stand for multi-racialism. If any of you have a better suggestion to achieve this objective, we are ready to listen. We have always been prepared to hear you out. That is why we discussed the concept of Team MPs publicly for about a year before introducing this Bill in Parliament.

The Issue

The issue before us is not GRCs per se. It is whether we should entrench in our Constitution the right for all communities - Chinese, Malay, Indians and Others - to be always represented in Parliament. The GRC is only a means to an end. It is the best means we can think of. It is democratic. You retain the right to elect the government you want. You still have your one vote. You still choose the MPs you want to represent you except, in the case of the GRCs, you elect a group of three MPs. All three MPs in the group will serve you, and not just one of them. Whichever group of MPs you vote in, whether it is the PAP's or the Opposition party's, the result is a multi-racial Parliament; always. Your democratic right remains intact. Singapore's future is safeguarded.

Relationship with Constitution (Amendment) Bill

Sir, the provisions of this Bill are closely related to the provisions in the Constitution (Amendment) Bill which is next on the Order Paper. Much of what I say on this Bill will therefore also be relevant to the Constitution (Amendment) Bill. To avoid having a repetitious debate later, I would urge Members who wish to speak on the concept of GRCs and multi-racial Parlia- ment to make their substantive points in this debate on this Bill.

As the Bill is politically important, I intend to refer the Bill to a Select Committee.

Sir, I beg to move. [Applause.]

Question proposed.

Mr Abdullah Tarmugi (Siglap): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, when I first heard of the intention to introduce this Bill, my reaction, rather similar to the reaction of many Singaporeans then, was: do we need to resort to this? Have we as a country which has accepted and practised multi-racialism all this while suddenly begin to realize that we can't maintain such an environment? Have we failed as a Government and as a people?

Sir, for one who has grown up in a multi-racial setting and living in such a setting now, I see others not in terms of people of different races, of different colour, but as individuals, each with the good and the bad that exist in all human beings. Therefore, the given reasons for the introduction of this Bill appeared to me, then, too far-fetched, too improbable. But then, Sir, it dawned on me that perhaps I have taken our racial harmony for granted. That perhaps my own experience and hopes and my wishes for my country have distracted me from seeing what reality can be. Like in Fiji, Sri Lanka and other countries that we have read of in the papers and mentioned by 1DPM just now, where one's inherent differences, one's beliefs, are causes of conflict, of havoc, of pain. And all these, Sir, have taken place when man's civilization, man's reason and knowledge, have reached a point higher than he has ever been before, when his ability to communicate has gone far beyond having to stand in front of each other and speak a common language. This, Sir, is reality.

We in Singapore have our realities too. Not only do we have different languages, different dialects, different groups, one of which is the majority, we are also cut vertically by differences in culture, differences in religion and marked again, mind you, Sir, horizontally by differences in economic, political and social achievements. Now, add to these a relatively short history and set against a backdrop of different pulls, different pressures, different influences from outside and without the region, ours, Sir, must surely be one of the most fragile of nations.

People have attributed our success, even our survival, to many things, ranging from the presence of a good, stable, strong, continuous government to the mere existence of fortuitous events and circumstances. But whichever reason is true, Sir, one thing is certain, and that is, we would not have reached where we are now had it not been for the relative absence of civil strife brought about by our differences and our diversity. This, Sir, we must bear in mind. Always. So then where do we go from here? Do we go on as we have done contented and comfortable in our belief that such troubles will never come to us and that reason, goodwill and good sense will always prevail to ensure that we will always live happily together ever after? Or do we put together safeguards to ensure that the voices of each community, big or small, are heard, dealt with and resolved by constitutional means rather than leave things as they are and hope and pray that any communal discontent will never erupt into fighting in the streets. Or do we wait until such horrors are imminent before we hastily come to this Parliament to pass a Bill such as this one, only to find that we have acted very much too late.

Sir, this Bill, as mentioned by 1DPM, seeks to institutionalize a multi-racial Parliament in this country regardless of who forms the government, be it the PAP; be it a coalition; be it a non-PAP Government. This point, Sir, I think must be stressed and must be fully understood. The end effect, Sir, will be the presence of minority MPs in Parliament, even though governments may change.

But then, one may ask: what is wrong with a mono-racial Parliament so long as Members are elected fairly and through the usual democratic process; so long as we have the best men and women in this House, who are sensitive enough to the needs and concerns of the minorities and can adequately represent them? Sir, the signals such a Parliament sends to the country's minorities will be a far-reaching one because it is tantamount to telling the Malays, the Indians and Others, that they count for little, that they have no part in governing the country. If Parliament is to be a symbol and a reflection of Singapore's society, then it is only logical that the various communities will have to be in it. But more than this, Sir, such a Parliament ensures that the minority communities also have a stake in running the country and that every community counts, that each community has a contribution to make to the country. Sir, what better way to maintain racial harmony here?

It is therefore perfectly clear to me, Sir, that this Bill intends to entrench the concept of a multi-racial Parliament for generations to come. This objective, Sir, I fully support and I see no reason why every well-meaning Singaporean should not support this aim.

At this point, Sir, let me say a few words about the contention that Minority MPs will, under the Bill, be second-class representatives of the people. Pause for a while, analyse the sentiment that lurks behind this belief? Is this not confirming the argument for this Bill? And why not? If there is no doubt that Minorities can enter Parliament unless they are, to quote some people,"piggy-backed", "coat-tailed", or "carried in the arm-pits of their team mates", then this contention does not arise at all. For those who condescendingly argue that the Bill would make us Minority MPs feel second-class, I can only wish that they take the trouble to be familiar with what we have to face every day. For example, Malay MPs, just like any other MPs, are elected by their constituencies and will have to represent the interests and look after the welfare of their constituents, the majority of whom are on-Malays. And like any other MPs too, they have to take cognisance of the national interest which has to supersede sectional interests. And yet, Sir, the Malay community expects us individually and as a group to provide the leadership, the direction for the community's development. They expect us to represent their interest and bring up their concerns to Government. Because we have to balance the Malay community's interest with national interest, deal with contending, sometimes even conflicting issues or demands, out jobs become that much more arduous. And for us, it will be pure preceived as a communal MP by the electorate. It would therefor be a grave insult to any Minority MP, be it PAP or non-PAP, and to the community he comes from, that he is merely playing second-fiddle to his term-mates.

Sir, the objective of this Bill is a political one. As I see it, it seeks to tackle a potential problem that can have wide political implications locally as well as geo-politically. It does not impute any grade or stigma to MPs elected under the Team MP system. Therefore, any allegation of inferiority must either contain some mischievous intent or show a dismal lack of understanding of this Bill altogether. But, Sir, the Bill before us is by no means perfect, despite being an important and unique one. There are issues attached to this piece of legislation which I think Government ought to turn its attention to. For instance, some say that we seem to be in such a hurry to push this Bill through regardless of the viewpoints of the public and seeing that many Singaporeans appear to be still unclear about how the Team MP system will operate or even the concept of the Team MP itself. It has been said that the Bill attempts to overcome the trend towards ethnic voting. We have been told that this is the very premise for the introduction of this Bill, but some people in Singapore still doubt that this trend exists at all. Some say, why don't we continue with our tested ways and in the meantime explore other, perhaps better, measures? Are we afraid of our own shadow that we should panic; that we should rush into something which we may not need but which instead introduces contentious and divisive issues? Will this Bill not accentuate our ethnic differences? Will it not make it difficult for the Opposition to take root in Singapore? Then, Sir, there had been calls for a referendum or for the Bill to be committed to a Select Committee. I am glad that the First Deputy Prime Minister has announced that the Bill will be committed to a Select Committee.

Sir, as a responsible Government, we must give these views due regard and due consideration and I hope the First Deputy Prime Minister will give this House full and satisfactory answers to all our questions. Certainly, Sir, more public discussion and education is necessary to convince everyone of the need for and the benefits and merits of this important and far-reaching Bill.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Order. It is 1.00 pm. I suspend the Sitting and will take the Chair again at 2.00 pm.

Sitting accordingly suspended at 1.00 pm until 2.00 pm. Sitting resumed at 2.00 pm.

[Mr Deputy Speaker in the Chair]

Debate resumed.

Mr Abdullah Tarmugi: Sir, actually I was about to make my concluding remarks when we broke off for lunch. All I would like to say, Sir, is that in our debate today we must think of our country's future seriously, not tomorrow, not next week, not next month, but 10-15 years down the road. As I said, Sir, on my part, I would be more than happy to do away with this Bill altogether if I can assured, my children and my children's children can be assured ed that this country will always have a multi-racial Parliament and that our commitment to multi-racialism as a Government and as a people remains intact. If not, then surely my support must be for this Bill unless there is a superior one or a less imperfect one available.

So the crucial question which we may wish to debate on today is: Will there be such an alternative to this Bill?

Mr Lim Boon Heng (Kebun Baru): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the First Deputy Prime Minister asked us when we consider this Bill to ask ourselves the question whether we believe in taking steps to encourage multi-racial politics and to discourage extremist racial politics. I think in considering this Bill and the one to follow we should ask these questions perhaps also in different forms. First, do we believe that Parliament should reflect the multi-racial character of our society? Do we want to ensure that all the principal ethnic groups in our society are represented in Parliament? In particular, do we want to see that minority groups always have a voice in Parliament? These are questions we all have to ask ourselves when we examine the intent and the contents of the two Bills before us. These are questions which we have asked the people in the past year's National Agenda discussions. I think what the people have told us is that we want to have multi-racial representation in Parliament and these are also questions that I posed to more than 300 Muslims, mostly Malay Muslims, on 24th January 1987 at a function to celebrate Prophet Mohammad's Birthday.

I told our Muslim friends that in our multi-racial, multi-religious society, all groups must be integrated into the mainstream of society. All groups must feel that they are active participants and not mere observers. To me, the highest level of participation is in Parliament. We need to ensure that there will always be minority representation in Parliament. To them, I outlined the concept of electing MPs in teams, say, of three, of which one must be from a minority group. All political parties should be required to compete on the basis of multi-racial slates and let the people choose the team most worthy of their support. Electing MPs in this way will ensure that there will always be minority representation in Parliament.

It was the second time that evening that I had outlined the concept of Team MPs to my constituents. An hour earlier I had explained the concept in relation to Town Councils at an RC Senior Citizens' Club inauguration ceremony. The press were present at this Senior Citizen's function but not at the Prophet Mohammed's Birthday function. So the public heard of the Team MPs concept only in relation to Town Councils when the concept was first made public. It was not the negligence of the press. I had not intended my second speech that evening to be publicized. This was because our internal discussions within the People's Action Party had yet to reach a consensus. We were still debating whether Team MPs or GRCs is the best system to ensure minority representation.

It was only about three months earlier that the Minister of State (Home Affairs) and I had discussed in his office the problem of Town Councils with MPs from different political parties. We discussed the multi-seat constituency idea and the Team MPs concept. We agreed that the concept provided a neat solution to keep Town Councils free from political teamsmanship. We both also agreed that more importantly the concept provides a solution to the problem of ensuring minority representation in Parliament, a problem that had been discussed within the PAP for several years. It was because of the overwhelming merit of the concept in respect of enshrining multi-racialism that this idea was further pursued.

Sir, the single-seat constituency, first-past-the-post system, bears a high risk of political exclusion of minority groups because of the natural affinity that goes with race and this natural affinity influences voting behaviour. We cannot deny that even in Singapore this is so and the risk rises when, in the passage of time, younger voters who have not experienced the race riots of the 1960s ignore the need to vote in minority candidates.

Older generations of Singaporeans know that racial feelings are latent, easily aroused, and can be quicky fanned to dangerous emotional levels, if politicans take a wrong turn. And wrong turns have been taken. The evidence abounds. Ethnic problems plague many countries with multi-racial populations-Sri Lanka, Fiji, Guyana, Cyprus, Spain- just to name a few.

There are countries with longer histories and higher levels of education than ourselves, but they are not free from ethnic problems because in spite of the higher level of education, it is still evident that blacks vote for blacks, and whites for whites a tendency noted even in an advanced country like the United States. Where in countries the race consciousness is lower, we find the main political groups do not use race as a means of obtaining the voters' support. But where racial tensions are high, political parties tend to be racially based.

So far, we have a multi-racial Parliament because the PAP believes in multi- racialism. Since its inception, the PAP has consciously presented to the electorate a balanced mix of candidates at every general election, even from the first time the PAP contested in elections with only four candidates, the PAP presented a multi-racial slate to the people. In earlier years, there were constituencies for fielding minority race candidates. The experience of ract riots drove home the lesson that we must have a racial balance in political representation. Our older voters still remember, and they now constitute a counter-balancing force. In time, however, this counter-weight will be proportionately smaller. So far, this counter-weight, and the strength of PAP minority candidates, has been able to ensure us a multi-racial Parliament.

Do we want to wait until the day when the counterweight is ineffective? Do we want to wait until the day comes when minority groups find themselves excluded from political expression in Parliament before we decide to address the issue? By then, the division may be deep and blood may be spilled once again on account of race. The sheer logic is compelling that we must enshrine in our Constitution and in our electoral laws the sacrosanctity of multi-racialism.

If we believe in multi-racialism, then we must support the intent of the Bills, otherwise our words will ring hollow. At a time when all is well and calm, we Singaporeans can consider the intent of the legislation before us and I think all thinking Singaporeans will conclude that we should have multi-racial representation in Parliament. That we are born Chinese, Malay, Indian, Eurasian or others is determined by hereditary factors. We cannot help being born the way we are or the colour we wear. So how can we assure that the majority group does not, intentionally or unintentionally, exclude the minority groups from representation in Parliament?

There are a few options: proportional representation, communal-based elections, reserved wards for specific ethnic groups, nominated MPs if an insufficient number of minority MPs are voted in, or the group representation constituency system. Personally, I have weighed the pros and cons of each.

Proportional representation will lead to racially-based political parties, and religious based political parties too. There are examples in other countries, both near and far. What it would mean is the polarization of racial and religious groups and this goes against our intention of building mutual tolerance and respect and down-playing race and religion. Furthermore, proportional representation as a system has been shown to paralyze governments even in developed Europe because of the inability of parties to win a majority in Parliament.

Communal-based elections mean defining and allocating seats in Parliament based on racial groups. It means Chinese will vote for Chinese, Malays vote for Malays, Indians for Indians, and so on. This will forever enshrine racialism in politics. It is against what we want. The reserve ward system means that specific constituencies will have minority MPs only. But I do not think that voters in such constituencies, granted the spread of our electorate at the present moment, will be happy to be restricted in their choice.

The nominated MP system, if an insufficient number of minority MPs are voted in, would give these minority MPs the status of runners-up MPs, or worse, labelled as second-class MPs. If we are to judge the reaction and the action of people to the non-constituency MPs system, we would conclude that the nominated MP system would be an unsatisfactory system. The runners-up minority candidates may not take their seats inParliament.

The Group Representation Constituency system, or Team MP system, however, will pit one multi-racial team against another multi-racial team. Those who are elected would be endorsed by the electorate, by the people as the team of their choice. So all have contributed to the success of that team; all are duly elected as champions and not runners-up.

The Team MP system will require serious-minded political parties to include multi-racialism as a principle of their organization. If all political parties are multi-racially based, then the foundation of our society will be strengthened and the fabric of our society will have stronger bonds. We are aiding the process of integration and not polarization.

The Team MP system, therefore, offers us the best method of enshrining multi-racialism in our society. It is the best method of ensuring that Parliament will be multi-racial and no minority group will run the risk of political exclusion.

There is, as the First Deputy Prime Minister said, a larger purpose, that is, to make all political parties multi-racial or multi-racially based, to make this a moderating influence on politics in Singapore. Then the question is, that being the wider objective, why do we not extend GRCs to all constituencies rather than limit it to less than 50%? Perhaps the reason may be that there may be over-representation of minority groups in Parliament. Any- way, I think that the multi-seat GRC system would dovetail in very conveniently with the implementation of town councils. We have operated town councils in Ang Mo Kio. I have direct experience. I think it is a good system. I hope that those constituencies that will not be considered as GRCs will get together to form town councils.

Those political parties who argue against the Group Representation Constituency system either have leaders who cannot see the risks and dangers of racial division or are unable to accept multi-racialism as a fundamental principle of their organization. Some argue that the system has worked well, why change now? All Singaporeans regard themselves as Singaporeans and not Chinese, Malay, Indian or Eurasian. To those who think that all is well now and will forever be well, I ask them to look at the case of Lebanon. For many years, over a hundred years, Lebanon was a place of harmony, a place of vitality and a thriving tourist resort. After over a hundred years of this experience, Lebanon today is so sharply divided. Before the last war, would we imagine that in Lebanon we have a situation it is today. I think that lesson tells us that whilst all is well with us now in Singapore, there is no guarantee, unless we take steps to integrate our population, that this will remain forever so. For those parties that cannot accept multi-racialism, I think we have to ask them the question: are their parties based on race? Do they or do they not, like the rest of us in Singapore, accept multi-racialism as the basis or our society.

Sir, on that note, I support the Bill. 2.20 pm

Mr Chiam See Tong(Potong Pasir): I am much oblidged to you, Sir. First of all, I am thankful that this this matter which has very far-reaching implications is now placed before a Select Committee. I think the PAP has wisdom after all.

Sir, may I be allowed just to refer to what the First Deputy Prime Minister has said. He says the purpose of this Bill is to ensure a multi-racial Singapore and that there will be practice of multi-racial politices in Singapore. He is going on an assumption. The assumption is that in time to come the Chinse will vote only the Chinese. And because the Chinese are in the majority, the other minority groups will be edged out. And because the fear of such an event happening, as he has said, one morning we get up we find the whole of our Parliament just Chinese faces. Because of that fear, the Government now is introducing law to ensure minority representation. I shall be happy if he can convince me that such an event will happen. Because Singapore's history does not show that we are racial, it does not show in any way that we vote according to racial lines.

Sir, I have taken the trouble to compile the election results in Singapore since 1955 during the British colonial days when there was only Legislative Assembly elections. You will note that in every one of those elections, all the minority races were well represented. In fact, the Chinese were under-represented. You will find that the Indians all always over-represented. In 1955, 12%; 1957, 12.5%; 1959, 11.76%; and 1963,11.76%. Indians again at 1968, 8.62%. But of course from 1972 onwards, it dropped to about 6%. But in 1980, it jumped to 9%, and then again dropped to 7%. But what about the Malays? The Malays are also always well represented. In fact, during the Colonial days, they were over-represented. Malays in 1955, 12%; 1957, 9% --

Dr Ahmad Mattar: How come you say that the Malays are over-represented when you say it was 12%?

Mr Chiam See Tong: No, 9%.

Dr Ahmad Mattar: There was already a drop.

Mr Chiam See Tong: All right, there was a slight drop. But in 1959, it was 19%. So it was over-represented there. And since then, the number is around 11%, 12%.

Dr Ahmad Mattar: Still under-represented.

Mr Chiam See Tong: In the last two elections, there was an increase. In 1980, the representation of Malays was 10%, but in 1984 it jumped to 11%.

Sir, in human affairs, as long as there is adequate and effective representation, that is what we want. We do not want to have a mathematical 100% direct representation.

The point is that the Malays have always been adequately represented in Parliament. There is no need for alarm bells to be sounded. There is no drastic drop in Malay representation in Parliament. So why all the alarm now? PAP Ministers, Backbenchers, the lot, are very fond of comparing Singapore to Sri Lanka, Fiji and other palces which, I think, cannot be compared to Singapore. We are a more enlightened people. I think we should compare ourselves with more enlightened countries. It is a continual insult to compare us with people who are worse off than us and who have a system which is inferior to ours.

So, why do you highlight Cyprus? Lebanon has cited from a prosperous, happy place to a place which it has now engulfed itself in a kind of civil war. Why do we not look at Cyprus? What is the fault of Cyprus? What happened in Cyprus was that there was this movement of enosis, the Greek majority want to join with Greece. And if they had the forsight to call an independent Cyprus and have a multi-racial Parliament or an assembly or legislature, they would not have ended with the ultimate result of partitioning their country. [Laughter] Don't laugh. Because you are going the reverse way. We are starting off with multi-racial and you are going into the reverse. You are going into communal representation in Singapore. Now, what happened was they have a communal representation in their Parliament. They said, "All right, we give 70% seats to the Greeks, 30% to the Turks, and we have got 70% for the Armed Forces, for the Civil service." And they go down the line. That is their big mistake. Because if you start on communal basis, you will remain that way. But if you start, like in America, a melting pot, all come together into one nation and start off like that, you see how prosperous America is. So if we want to reverse our process and go along communal lines in our Parliament, this entrenchment of communalism in our Parliament will be more enhanced. You will just get the reverse result. You would not get racial harmony. In fact, you will get racial strife. But I think Singapore is too small for partition. But in any event, the problems that you sow today will wreak very serious consequences from this policy.

As regards the comments made on the SDP, I am surprised that the First Deputy Prime Minister has made those remarks. Sir, I think strategically speaking, in every of our elections, the SDP has done very well. We started off in 1980 and we always improve with at every general elections. We have not gone down. So that is a good sign. We did not chicken out at Anson. I have to tell you that. If you think that we chickened out at Anson, you are a very poor strategist. Because if we did chicken out, as you say at Anson, the result would be exactly like in South Korea - none of the Opposition would have come in. Because we on our own accord took a positive step not to split the Opposition votes. As a result, we had an opposition in Parliament. Do you not think that is good strategy?

Sir, much has been said about SDP fielding four candidates of one race. Because the circumstances dictate. The PAP had four candidates at the 1955 elections and they had one Malay, I think. It is because in those days the unions were strong. But where are the unions today? I think the hon. Member for Kebun Baru would know that the unions are all properly muzzled. And what representation do you have in Parliament from the Unions? You tell me, where around us is anyone representing any unions here?

Mr Chandra Das: Next to you and behind you.

Mr Chiam See Tong: Sir, I say that it is important that the PAP must prove and show by concrete evidence that their assumption is correct first, their assumption that in future elections the people of Singapore will be voting according to racial lines. They have to prove to us. Unless they can show that, I think this whole GRC system will fall flat.

I rise to oppose the Bill because it will introduce communalism in our statute books. If I had advocated that we have communal representation in our Parliament before 23rd December 1984, I would surely be arrested. We can all recall that it was in the very early hours of 23rd December 1984 after the general elections' results had been announced that the Prime Minister gave his press conference. In that press conference, he questioned the one-man-one-vote system. He was very annoyed because there was a huge swing of 12.3% of votes towards the Opposition. The PAP think tank has been working extra hard from that day on to devise a way to stop the move or enlargement of votes in favour of the Opposition. I believe that this Bill is the PAP's answer to the prevention of a further move towards the Opposition. That is the real reason for this piece of legislation. The PAP thinks that with the concept of the Group Representation Constituencies (GRCs), they will not only ensure electoral victory at the next general elections but also hopefully to edge out the sole Opposition in Parliament and regain a 100% PAP representation in Parliament. The ultimate purpose is to achieve such an overwhelming majority so as to dispense with the necessity to hold a referendum to amend the Constitution with a view to provide an elected Presidency with executive powers. That is the real reason of all this law that is being introduced here.

I am opposing this Bill certainly not because I think that the Opposition will be disadvantaged. Far from it. With the present mood of the people's support for the opposition, this GRC system may even favour the Opposition. Perhaps this is the reason that prompted the PAP to refer this piece of legislation to a Select Committee. Instead of getting one Opposition Member voted into Parliament, we may get three Opposition members returned to Parliament in one constituency.

Mr Chandra Das: Why oppose the Bill?

Mr Chiam See Tong: I oppose this Bill because I believe it is going to be bad for our efforts in nation building and it is going to be a threat to our racial harmony. The Government has given a very flimsy reason, namely, to ensure Malay and other minority representation in Parliament. This must first assume that for the next and other coming general elections the voting trend in relation to Malay and other minority community candidates of the past 32 years since 1955 will suddenly change. This cannot be because there is no evidence to show that Singaporeans will become racialists overnight and will vote only a candidate belonging to his own race.

In the 1959 general elections, when the PAP first took office, the Malays were over-represented in Parliament. And in subsequent general elections, up to the last one in 1984, they have always been adequately represented in Parliament. Their representation for the period 1963 to 1984 was about 80% of their quota. Effective representation need not be 100% mathematically matching between the percentage of the number of minority MPs and the percentage in population. In the case of the Malays, no alarm bells need be sounded. It is not a case where Malay representation in Parliament has suddenly dropped drastically. There is no such sign that Malay representation in Parliament has this trend. In fact, Malay representation in Parliament has increased from 10.81% in 1980 to 11.39% in 1984. There is no proof at all that the Malay representation in Parliament has dropped to such low levels that we need to amend the Constitution and other laws to introduce communal representation in Parliament.

It must also be noted that if there was a drop in Malay representation after the 1968 general elections, it was not due to electoral defeats but it was due entirely to the selection policy of the ruling party. A former Minister of State, Haji Yaacob Mohamed, has pointed out that no PAP Malay candidates standing in a non-Malay constituency was ever defeated in general elections since 1959. Haji Yaacob also pointed out that in the general elections of 1984 both PAP Malay and non-Malay candidates suffered a decline in votes. So it is not just the Malays alone. Haji Yaacob does not believe that Singaporeans were voting along racial lines. There you are. There is already a difference within your own ranks.

The effect to forge Singaporeans into one nation and become one people is real. At one time, Chinese parents were sending their children to Chinese language medium schools rather than to the English language medium schools. By 1954, the pattern of enrolment was reversed and far more children were sent to English medium schools than to Chinese medium schools. Now, in Singapore, we practically have only one common type of school with the bilingual policy as its cornerstone.

According to the Ministry of Education's statistics, it can be noted that in 1986 out of a total of 268,820 pupils in primary schools, 266,396 of them, comprising 99.09%, were enrolled in English language medium schools. And the balance of 2,424, about 0.9%, were enrolled in Chinese language medium schools. There were no Malay or Tamil language medium schools. It is inevitable that even the 0.9% of those studying in Chinese language medium schools will be absorbed into the English language medium schools. As time goes on, the racial differences will be less marked, as all school children will be attending a common type of school undergoing the same experiences, speaking the same language. If this educational policy is not changed, then Singapore shall become a melting pot of all races, and I for one am all for it. This is the only way to forge a cohesive and united nation. Mixed marriages in time will increase. Even today in this House, we can note that a few hon. Members by entering into mixed marriages have already paved the way for Singaporeans to be one people.

The assumption that in future Singaporeans will vote according to their race is ridiculous. This is particularly so when Singapore in the 1980s has already gone through over two decades of nation building and the Singapore identity is already established. The last two National Day celebrations clearly demonstrated that the majority of Singaporeans, especially young Singaporeans, recognize that we are all Singaporeans. We are one nation, one people, and we are not Malay Singaporeans, Chinese Singaporeans, Indian Singaporeans or Eurasian Singaporeans. Anyone who says that Singaporeans today and in future will vote according to racial lines is actually insulting Singaporeans because we do not think so. Singaporeans, in fact, in the past and up till today have never voted any candidate in any Legislative Council in the time of the British or parliamentary elections when we became independent by the colour of the skin of the candidate but by his ability, good name and character and the credibility of his party.

We can recall that Singaporeans voted Mr David Marshall who was of Jewish stock to be the first Chief Minister of Singapore. He was the best man and the Chinese in Singapore voted him at that time. And also Mr J.B. Jeyaretnam who is of Sri Lankan descent at Anson in 1981, after 15 years of PAP one-party rule. If anyone put forward the theory that Mr Jeyaretnam won in Anson in 1981 was due to Indian support from Blair Plain, that theory can easily be proven wrong. Because in 1984 when all the PSA flats at Blair Plain were demolished, Mr Jeyaretnam was returned with an even greater majority. All the Indian voters at Blair Plains by that time had already moved away. Yet he polled a greater majority of votes. This proved that the Chinese voters were the ones who cast their votes in favour of Mr Jeyaretnam. So that is proof enough for you that even the Chinese preferred a non-Chinese in preference to a candidate who was a Chinese. So it can be seen that Singaporeans never voted a candidate purely because of his race.

This Bill requires a Malay or other minority candidate who intends to stand for elections in a GRC to appear before a special committee. In the case of a Malay, he needs to appear before a Malay committee to prove that he is a Malay and a certificate to the effect that he is a Malay will be issued to him. In the case of a non-Malay minority candidate in a GRC, he is required to obtain a certificate from a non-Malay committee certifying that he is from a minority community other than the Malay community. This would mean that at every general elections the issue of race will be brought up again and again at every parliamentary elections. This will make the people of Singapore more race conscious. For this reason, I say that this Bill when it becomes law will be racial in nature. For the first time in our history, certain citizens will have to prove that he is of a certain race before he is allowed to contest in a parliamentary elections.

I oppose this Bill because it will introduce communalism and racialism in our electoral system. The Member for Kebun Baru has said that last January he saw 200 over Malays-

Mr Lim Boon Heng: 300.

Mr Chiam See Tong: 300 over Malays just supported the GRC. But my feedback is just to the contrary. The major Malay parties have, in fact, urged me to ask this House to put it before a Select Committee because they say that the Malay community generally are against this Bill and not for this Bill. Malay will feel insulted to be made a second-class Member of Parliament. Yes, they will have to be a passenger to two other Chinese candidates to get into Parliament. Of course, hon. Members who are from the Malay community here will have to reject his Bill on this score, just as the Opposition MPs have rejected the Non-Constituency Members of Parliament. Why? Because they have honour, they have pride and dignity in themselves, they do not want to come into Parliament by the back door. They want to walk in proudly through the front door. So in future, all of you, hon. Members from the Malay community, when you sit here, you are not walking into Parliament by your own steam. You are walking into Parliament by the grace of two other candidates. Do you have that honour? Do you have that pride to reject the GRCs? I hope Malay MPs here will speak up on this very point. I think we know from the Malay culture, they are a very proud people. When you hurt their honour, they will go to the full extent to deal with you.

Some hon. Members: They will deal with you.

Mr Chiam See Tong: I am not hurting their honour. I am against this Bill. It is said that the Government is unwilling to hold a National Referendum to determine whether or not the majority of the people of Singapore want minority representation in Parliament under the proposed law. It is not true to say that since the majority of Singaporeans are Chinese, therefore, they do not want minority representation in Parliament. This law will affect all Singaporeans, both the Minority as well as the majority communities in Singapore. Therefore, it is only fair that the majority have a say also in it, since this will have such far-reaching effects on Singaporeans. The Government says that they shall probably have 10 - 13, GRCs. If that is the case, the number of Malays and other minority representation in Parliament will even be less than today. On the other hand, the Government says, "Well, the minority can stand in the single MP constituency." If that is the case, then their assumption is wrong. Because on the one hand, you say that they have got no chance of getting elected when they stand in single seat Members of Parliament. Therefore, we musthave GRCs to ensure that we get representation. Then in the same breath, you say they can also stand in the single Member constituency. This is a contradiction. So your assumption on the one hand says that Malays cannot get into Parliament by their own effort and on the other hand you say they can get elected if they stand in single Member constituencies. This is a contradiction which you have to answer. So if the PAP does not believe that in future voters will be voting along racial lines, if Singaporean Chinese are not going to vote for the Chinese, then they should not have this Bill or options. I think this is a contradiction which, in the present state of the law, cannot be resolved at all.

Of course, the other contradiction we can see is with regard to the Independent candidates. In fact, the First Deputy Prime Minister has said that by virtue of the fact that they are independent, they do not want to be affiliated to any party, they do not want o be disciplined or to have the values or policies of that single party. If three Independents do get elected and they want to manage a town council, what then? Assuming that the three Independents, one is an ultra-conservative, one is an ultra-leftist and one takes the centre line, you will have a carriage pulled by three horses in three directions. So how are they going to manage the town council? You have to resolve this problem of independents. Again, as regards by-elections. You say that unless the whole lot of them, three of them, resigned or something happened to them, then they can have a by-election. What happens if two of them through some events are kicked out of the GRC and only leaving one of them? The poor fellow, the single MP, will have to carry the burden of three MPs. This is another problem area. You say that this system does not hurt the one-man one-vote system. I say it does, because the one-man one-vote system implies that one vote you elect for one person. Even in the proportional representation, one vote you can have multiple choices. You are putting the first choice for one man, second choice for another. But in this case one vote is voting for three. In other words, the value of that one vote is only one-third. So it is not a whole one vote. In fact, somebody has said that PAP has offered a cheap sale. With one vote you can vote in three candidates.

Now there will be polarization of the races because in the implementing of the GRCs, say, you have got a Malay MP there and every one of the Malays born to speak Malay and they all gravitate to the Malay MP, and all the Chinese ones will gravitate to the Chinese. So you have this polariza- tion in the working of the GRCs. So again it is bad. Now, a more important one. I suppose we will be debating the Amendment to the Constitution. We note that you have an amendment there to keep out Article 12 and Article 78 in regard to equality before the law, and if there is a provision in this Amendment that is inconsistent with Article 78, then it will not be invalidated. So this is an admission of the fact of the Government that the law that we are going to pass is not equal before the law. How can it be?

Mr Deputy Speaker: Order. Your time is up, Mr Chiam.

Mr Chiam See Tong: Sir, I am a single Opposition Member here with only half an hour, and other hon. Members have more chance to speak. I think you should ---

Mr Deputy Speaker: Sorry, your time is up.

Encik Ibrahim Othman (Tanah Merah): ( In Malay): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I support the Parliamentary Elections(Amendment) Bill moved by the First Deputy Prime Minister. The Bill would ensure a multi-racial Parliament as it provides for candidates from the minority communicates to be fielded in a group of three in constituencies proclaimed as GRCs or Group Representation Constituencies.

With this Bill the people of Singapore are being reminded of the Government's multi-racial policy. The PAP, which has been in power since 1959, has been fielding candidates from all the communities in every election held since then. The multi-racial policy has received the support of voters and in every Parliament so far we can find Members of Parliament from the Chinese, Malay, Indian and also the Eurasian communities. But would it continue to be so in future? We cannot guarantee that such a multi-racial composition of the Parliament will remain in future. But with this Bill we would be able to ensure that Parliament in future will have Members from all the races in Singapore. Whichever political party that governs Singapore will have Members of Parliament from the minority communities. Indirectly, extreme communal politics would be avoided by all political parties contesting in future general elections.

This Bill is unique in that it creates a "compulsion" on the minority communities to participate in governing the country and in determining its future directions. This "compulsion", I think, will create a good atmosphere in the country's political arena. Members of Parliament from the minority communities would be able to express their views and comments on matters relating to their communities. Indirectly the Government or the governing party would act with more care and sensitivity in matters relating to the minority communities. This, I feel, would bring about a situation of more stability, tolerance and harmony in our multi-racial community.

Sir, the Malay community is the largest minority community in Singapore. Up to June 1987 the Malay people numbers 393,800 or 15% of the total population of Singapore. Since the Bill was first tabled in Parliament, many issues have been raised on the definition of a "Malay". Who actually is a "Malay"? Who is the person qualified to stand as a candidate representing the Malay community? And who should be appointed as Members of the proposed Malay Committee? These are among the questions raised. Although we know who a Malay is, if we study the definition in more detail, we will find a number of different descriptions. Although our Constitution provides for the special position of the Malays as the indigenous people of Singapore, the definition of "Malay" is not given. Nevertheless, the Ministry of Education has laid down certain criteria to determine pupils who are to be included in the category of the "Malay" to qualify for free education. Among these are (a) Malay pupils who fulfil the specified requirements of birth and citizenship; (b) Pupils of Indonesian origin, like the Boyanese, the Banjarese, Javanese, Sumatrans, Bugis, people of Minangkabau, Achinese and other communities of other areas in Indonesia, who fulfil the following conditions: that he is born in Singapore, that his father is a Singapore citizen and that both the pupil and the father are Muslims.

When the Bill was first introduced, there were attempts to define the people who should fall under the category of Malay. But the definitions given received a lot of protest from individuals. Amont the questions raised was: why is the element of Islam not included as an important criterion in determining candidates to represent the Malay community? There were also non-Malay Muslims who expressed dissatisfaction that they were being categorized as Malays. In any case, I think an explanation of who a Malay is must be provided to define, firstly, who should be elected as members of the Malay Committee, and secondly, who may be fielded as candidates for election to represent the Malay community.

I would like to propose a number of criteria for the Government to consider:

(a) they must be a Malay or a person of Indonesian origin as provided under the Ministry of Education criteria in determining Malay pupils and they should, of course, be Singapore citizens;

(b) they must speak Malay, practise Malay customs and be of the Islamic faith;

(c) They must consider themselves as Malays and be accepted as Malays by the Malay community in order to represent them.

As for members of the Malay Committee, in addition, they must be people who have done service to the Malay community and to Islam. The element of Islam is an important factor in determining the identity of a Malay. According to the 1980 Population Census, almost 99% of Malays are of the Islamic faith. Islam, as we know, has enhanced the Malay value system and non-Malays who are converted to Islam are described as "become Malays". This shows that Malay and Islam have blended together. Although our country is a democratic and secular country, I could understand the reasons why the element of Islam is not included in the definition of a Malay. However, in the context of our country where almost all the Malays are Muslims, I think it is only proper that Islam be included as an important criterion in determining whether someone should be accepted as a representative of the Malay community in Singapore. The Malays have made Islam an important part of their identity. Although there are some who are less than devout, ie, failure to observe the precepts of the religion, such as praying, fasting and giving zakat and so on, they still affirm themselves as Muslims and will not take the prohibited items of food. In the same way, if they accidentally touch things deemed foul in Islam, they will have to cleanse themselves in the way prescribed by the religion. The idea of defining a Malay as a Muslim is also well-known to all the other communities in Singapore.

On the whole, in determining whether someone is qualified as a representative of the Malay community in Singapore, in addition to the definition given to the Malay origin, three important criteria should be considered, ie, his own affirmation as a Malay, his acceptance by the Malay community and the element of Islam, that is, he must be a Muslim.

In view of the fact that this is a very important issue, I would support that the Bill be referred to a Select Committee. It would enable the people of Singapore of all communities to contribute their views to refine the Bill further. With that, I support this Bill, Mr Deputy Speaker. 3.04 pm

Mr S. Chandra Das(Chong boon): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, thank you for giving me this opportunity to participate in this debate.

Sir, sitting down and listening to the Member for Potong Pasir, I expected a very fiery speech opposing this Bill. What we actually heard from him was really a rehash of an article that appeared in the "Hammer". I was equally disappointed that he did not even rebut some of the points which the First Deputy Prime Minister made regarding his own party. Nevertheless, this debate did not begin today. In fact, this has been going on for quite some time and many of the issues have been voiced out both publicly and privately.

Sir, in debating this Bill, it is important to ask two basic questions. Firstly, is a multi-racial Parliament good for Singapore?

Mr Chiam See Tong: Of course.

Mr Chandra Das: Secondly, if it is yes, how do we go about doing it?

Mr Chiam See Tong: Scrap GRC.

Mr Chandra Das: That is your view. Sir, given the population structure and the geopolitics of the region we are in, the answer to the first question, including my friend, Mr Chiam See Tong, is a big 'Yes'. We then come to the next question as to how we go about achieving this. Here I am prepared to accept the Government's position that our present system of elections cannot guarantee multi-racial Parliament in the longer term. Like many Singaporeans, I also agree that it will not be a problem in the next one or two general elections. But, Sir, who will guarantee that things will be the same in 15 years' time?

Sir, the Government has two options. Firstly, to do nothing and pretend that there is no problem and wait till the problem explodes in our face - as it happened in Fiji recently. Everyone knows the outcome. Secondly, it can recognize the problem and find suitable solutions.

Sir, I am satisfied that the Government has examined the various options available - proportional representation, reserved seats, creating an Upper House, and introducing this GRC concept. The GRC, I believe, is the best option for Singapore. The only snag is that it is unique and has not been implemented elsewhere. Surely, this is not the reason for its rejection. In fact, I am reminded of the time when this Government introduced the Central Business District concept to control the flow of vehicles into our business district by imposing a levy. It was unique. No one else had tried it before. There was a lot of hue and cry and even a magistrate in our courts ruled that it was ultra vires the Constitution. But subsequently his decision was over-ruled in an appeal. Today, Sir, the CBD is working well and many countries envy this system of ours. Only recently, I read in the Straits Times that London is looking at the Singapore system as a model for implementation. I am making this point to illustrate that if something is new and unique, it is no reason to reject it.

In fact, some of the learned pundits opposing GRC have not offered alternatives. They say it is wrong. But what are the alternatives? The Member for Potong Pasir seems utterly confused. One day he says that it is not to the advantage of the Opposition. On a GRC basis, he feels he will lose his seat.

Mr Chiam See Tong: I never said that.

Mr Chandra Das: The next day he seems to welcome it and says that it will give him an opportunity to defeat the Second Deputy Prime Minister.

Mr Chiam See Tong: I have to interrupt here, Mr Deputy Speaker. When did I say that?

Mr Chandra Das: Refer to your TV interview on Team MPs.

Mr Chiam See Tong: Please. I said that the PAP think that we will lose.

Mr Chandra Das: You refer to your interview.

Mr Chiam See Tong: No, don't misquote me.

Mr Chandra Das: No, I am not quoting you. You can check the tape.

Mr Chiam See Tong: You are quoting me.

Mr Chandra Das: I think he should make up his mind whether GRC is good for Singapore or not. Whether he wins his seat or not is not the issue, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir. The issue is whether he believes in a multi-racial Parliament in Singapore. The PAP believes in a multi-racial Parliament and has always fielded a multi-racial slate in all these elections since the inception of the Party.

Sir, I also believe that the timing of this legislation is appropriate. It is better to introduce changes now when there is no problem than to wait for it to arise and then to come to this House to seek solutions. In fact, this Bill aims to ensure that the minority interests must be protected and places reserved for them in Parliament. This in itself is quite unique because, for the first time, the majority are guaranteeing the rights of the minority which, in actual fact, they do not have to do it. Every reasonable person must applaud this move.

The Member for Potong Pasir has mentioned about referendum. He tried mass signature campaigns. Referendum to do what, Sir? Ask the majority, or ask the minority? One would like to know what has happened to his signature campaign. Nothing has been mentioned about it lately.

Mr Chiam See Tong: We are going on.

Mr Chandra Das: Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I have discussed this GRC concept with my constituents, community leaders and some of the Indian community leaders. All of them are in agreement that we have to ensure that our Parliament remains multi-racial at all times. Some even felt that the introduction of GRC is to take a step backward in order to stand still, otherwise we will fall flat on our faces.

Sir, I have discussed this matter in some detail with the Tamils Representative Council which represents 18 affiliated Tamil organizations. At the end of the discussion on 8th January, 1988, the Council issued the following statement.

"After seeking clarifications, the Singapore Tamils Representative Council endorsed the view that multi-racial representation in Parliament is essential for preserving inter-racial harmony and that the proposal would enshine in the Constitutency minority representation in Parliament.

The Council further emphasised that in line with the recognition of Tamil as an official language, Tamils shuld be specifically mentioned as a minority group."

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, in conclusion, GRC and Team MPs is a new political formula not introduced in any other country. I am satisfied that the Government has done an exhaustive comparative study of the various systems of the various countries practising a mix of both Westminster style and continental European democracies. On balance, I am prepared to accept the findings of the Government. But I would like to add a word of caution by asking a question. Where do we stop, or is this the beginning of a potentially dangerous practice of multi-racial representation in every facet of our daily life? Let this not lead to clamour or calls for allocation of jobs, scholarships and public office on ethnic grounds.

Sir, the Team MP and the GRC concept is not designed to entrench the PAP as a ruling party forever. The Member for Potong Pasir strongly believes that this concept was thought out after the last general elections. In fact, he said "23rd December 1984". The First Deputy Prime Minister has taken great pains to explain in this House his correspondence with the Prime Minister, his correspondence with the Minister for the Environment, Dr Ahmad Mattar, and these dates do not show "1984" at all. They were well before 1984.

Mr Chiam See Tong: Before it was formalized.

Mr Chandra Das: Sir, it is the Government's long-term strategic approach to an imminent problem. In short, the GRC and Team MPs is an additional ballast to the political and social stability in an increasingly turbulent geopolitical environment.

Sir, I support the decision to refer this Bill to a Select Committee so that whatever reservations and queries some may have, there is still an opportunity for them to air their views.

Sir, I support the Bill.