PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS (AMENDMENT) BILL

Debate resumed.

Mr Chew Heng Ching (Kaki Bukit): ( In Malay): Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise in support of this Bill. Sir, the First Deputy Prime Minister stated that the real objective of this Bill is to ensure Malay participation and the participation of other minority communities in Parliament. It is aimed at enshrining multi-racial politics in Singapore. This is important condition for political stability in multi-racial Singapore.

The Team MP concept is not new. It is a system that has been practised in democratic countries. The system has been discussed in Singapore for the past one year. For the last 12 months, this subject has been widely discussed. In changing the parliamentary election system, Singapore will be moving away from the British Westminster system. However, it will not be deviating from the fundamentals of democracy - government by the people through the one-man-one-vote system. We must remember that we cannot run away from what is happening in our neighbouring countries. Unless the multi-racial society that is the foundation of political stability in Singapore is secured, the country might face problems. For the last 28 years Singapore has undergone many tests that have given us anxious moments. Now we have succeeded. We have succeeded because of the far-sighted vision and the ability of our Government to guide our society along the right path.

Today, Singapore is highly regarded by other countries. Today, we live in a multi-racial and a multi-cultural society. Today, we recognize ourselves as Singaporeans. As Chinese Singaporeans, some of us can speak Malay. As Malay Singaporeans, some of us can speak Hokkien, Mandarin, or other Chinese dialects. There is no doubt that today we are a cohesive multi-racial society. In view of this you might ask, "Why do we want to introduce GRCs in Parliament?" Our future is full of uncertainties. The system to be introduced is meant to protect our multi-racial infra- structure. It is a guarantee that would help us face an uncertain future that could destroy our infrastructure. Introducing GRCs in Parliament now is timely because we have political stability. To wait until problems crop up or until our multi-racial infrastructure is destroyed, I think, it would be too late. Our Government is far-sighted in dealing with national problems and it has been introducing policies to ensure peace, harmony and political stability in a multi-racial society.

I do not agree with the Member for Potong Pasir who said that a Member of Parliament elected from a minority race will find himself being belittled in the Team MPs System. The question of weak Members of Parliament does not arise unless political parties field weak candidates. On the other hand, this system requires them to ensure that qualified candidates from minority communities are fielded in the elections if they want to win. If the Opposition parties wish to participate in the elections, they should field capable candidates from the minority groups, just as the PAP has done. PAP Malay MPs or MPs from other minority communities have shown their abilities, just like PAP Chinese MPs. I appeal to good and capable leaders from the minority groups to come forward to participate in the elections and serve our nation.

Finally, we should understand our situation and learn from the mistakes of other countries. Our Government plans to strengthen the multi-racial political system in Singapore as a precautionary measure. The GRC is a good system and serves our future interests.

Mr Deputy Speaker, I support this Bill.

Mr Lai Tha Chai (Henderson): ( In Mandarin): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I will speak on certain problems of racialism as reflected in this Bill. Let me recount some stories relating to the challenge of racialism which we are often confronted with. From these stories, we know that the measures taken by the Government to prevent racial problems well in advance is very appropriate and important.

Some two decades ago, I had the occasion to meet a Malay friend from Johor Baru who came to my office. I was acquainted with him when I took part in the 1964 general election in Malaysia. We talked about many things. Finally, he told me that his Malay colleagues had accused him of being a traitor to the Malay race, for selling out Malay rights and interests. So he was very embarrassed. But he still stoutly supported the PAP's multi-racial policies and principles of nation building. Yet he was faced with pressures of Malay racialism all round. Finally, when he and his family could not live in peace any longer, he withdrew from PAP. After that, Singapore was separated from Malaysia.

From this episode, I was reminded of my own position when I was once accused of being a traitor to my race, for selling out the interests of my race. At a general election in the 1970s, I in particular and the PAP were accused by an Opposition candidate at a mass rally in Henderson for selling out Chinese culture as I was from the Chinese education stream and yet joined the PAP which espoused the policy of selling out Chinese culture and that, as a PAP candidate, I was therefore a traitor to Chinese culture. But I was not ashamed by this accusation. I was still very proudly living the way I have been and stoutly supporting the PAP policies and principles.

I remembered when I was a Nanyang University student, one night I visited a teacher who was the Dean of Arts Faculty and an advisor to the Chinese Teachers' Association of Malaya, Dr Yen Yuen Chan. We talked at length about the future prospects of Chinese education and culture. This teacher whom I most respected gave me a very good impression. He was serious and careful in his choice of words. When I left his house at midnight, I had a very clear mind that if you want to seek basic rights of the Chinese through such a racial political party as the Malayan Chinese Association, then it would cause the Malays also to seek special Malay rights through UMNO. This would lead to perpetual racial disputes and political instability in Malaya (there was no Malaysia yet). In such circumstances, as a Chinese, what should I do? I remembered my teacher's words, "If you have read all the books and teachings of the sages, what do you learn? All those who have the will and ambition should try to seek a practical way out to enable the Chinese also to share on this common land he basic rights and interests of a multi-racial country." So this talk enabled me to separate from a very close friend and colleague in the 1964 general election. He stood under the banner of MCA and was elected. Later, he became a leader of MCA in Johor. So we went different ways.

However, my failure in the election had redoubled my conviction in multi-racial line of nation building, particularly in view of the racial turmoils which I went through in 1964, and the May 13 communal incident. I was perturbed and it abhorred me to see the savage behaviour of extreme racialists towards whom they considered to be enemies. I hate this kind of behaviour. I remembered one day just before the Japanese surrender in the Second World War, my mother and I together with all the villagers were brought to the countryside. All of us gathered round and squatted on the grass. What did we do there? We were watching the Japanese soldiers cutting heads off with their sword. I was too young then to understand what was going on. After the Japanese surrendered, the village elders disclosed that the Japanese had asked all the Chinese to turn up to see how their soldiers kill people. The Japanese had a very intense feeling for communalism. In fact, as we all may know, everywhere in the world there is such a thing as the fire of racialism. As some people may know, on 20 October 1943, some 14 missionary Bishops of the Church of the Province of South Africa issued a joint declaration saying that the Bible espouses universal love and against racial prejudices. Therefore, the 14 Bishops jointly condemned the apartheid racial policies of the South African Government. What kind of country South Africa is today after these 40 odd years we all can see. In this world, at the present moment, there is still the ubiquitous existence of the superiority complex of the universal white supremacy. There was one Miss Lillian E. Smith, an American black, in 1944 who wrote a book called "Strange Fruit" which was all about the whites and the blacks. Later many whites destroyed the books or prohibited the book from being on sale. Why? It was because of racial prejudice. I will give another example for all of us to think about.

When entering the 20th century, there was a Sir Wilfrid Laurier who was the first French Canadian to become a Canadian Premier. He fervently called upon the French Canadians to be loyal to Canada not to France. He also said that in the coming 20th century there would be a bright and prosperous era for the Canadians, not the French. However, half a century later when General De Gaulle became a French President, he not only wanted the French to be strong and to support Franch, very good, but he also wanted the Canadian French to be stout and strong and to be be firm. This was in the 1960s. He said this at the time when some parts of Canada were having some intense racial partition campaign on in the country. Until 1974 the Canadian Federalgovernment had to concede to even allow French to be an official language in the province of Quebec where the French were in the majority.

Talking about language, we all know it is a very sensitive issue. In Malaysia recently, there was an atmosphere of racial tension. We all know that it was closely related to language. I can recount a story. In the 1963 general elections, one night at the height of campaign Mr Ho See Beng who took part in the elections in Bras Basah Constituency who had left, this Chamber few years ago, happily coming to our PAP Waterloo Street office. He was very happy. He took out a piece of document full of signatures to show us. I have also saw this document. He said with full confidence that he had got very popular support and was absolutely sure of becoming an elected PAP Member two days later. He said a very important reason was because the Opposition candidate was a Hainanese who professed at a rally that he could not speak Hainanese, he could only speak in Hokkien. That had caused the voters in that constituency, the majority whom were Hainanese to sign jointly to support him, a PAP candidate.

Ostensibly, in the United Nations Declaration, all men are born equal. However, we are living in a practical world, a world of cold reality where we strive for survival and preservation, not a halcyon world of fancy and idealism with blissful living. In the human history of several thousand years of civilization, there are several countries which have a few thousand years of experience. We do not have to talk about Sri Lanka, Fiji and such small countries with only a few decades of history. We can look at those countries which have a few thousand years of history like China which is growing stronger day by day and India, countries with a long history of culture. Today, even in China which has 5,000 years history, there is still the Tibetan revolt or opposition. Why? It is because of racial question. In India, there is the Sikh rebellion and opposition also. This is also a question of racialism. So it is high time that we should discard any fanciful thinking or self-delusion and take up and meet the challenge of communalism.

Now we already have this sytem of non-constituency MP besides the elected MP. The GRC system will add a new dimension to the picture. This new system will ensure that every political party which wants to be the government will have to ensure that they are going along multi-racial line, reflecting the characteristics in our multi-racial Parliament. What is wrong? So if the Member for Potong Pasir wants to be the government, if he is going along with multi-racialism in Parliament, I will also welcome him, if he is able to. So this is a measure by the Parliament to chart the course which will ensure future peace and prosperity for Singapore. As for personal interest, whether this constituency or that constituency, or whether one wins or loses, it is of individual and minor interest which is a small matter and does not matter. What is important is to enable the Parliament to look after the interest of the whole country and we all should support the measure whole heartedly. Don't you think so? Thank you.

3.38 pm

Dr Arthur Beng Kian Lam (Fengshan): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of this Bill.

Sir, I support this Bill because the main purpose of the Bill is to ensure the representation in Parliament of Members from the Malay and other minority communities. Multi-racialism, as the First Deputy Prime Minister has said this morning, must remain a cornerstone in our Constitution. And this Bill will ensure multi-racial representation in Parliament. One may disagree on certain clauses in the Bill. But I am confident that few Singaporeans will disagree that multi-racialism is essential to the survival of Singapore as a nation.

Sir, our Constitution is adopted from the Westminster system. The Westminster model is not especially geared to the protection of the minorities. The concentration of power that it allows in the hands of the parliamentary majority may work against minority interests. Thus there is a need for the constitution of multi-racial societies to tackle this problem in different ways. Some examples of this have been cited and can be seen in the constitutions of New Zealand, Cyprus, Mauritius and Fiji.

Sir, in our concept of GRCs, in each of a team of three, there will be one MP representing the Malay or minority community. The Singapore Democratic Party in its publication says that this will "enshrine racialism in our Constitution". Is this really true?

Mr Chiam See Tong: Of course.

Dr Arthur Beng Kian Lam: I disagree with this. Let us just for a moment compare other models with the Bill presently before us, before we make sweeping and emotive judgments such as this. No country enjoys racial strife.

Mr Chiam See Tong: Prove your case.

Dr Arthur Beng Kian Lam: Each of those that I will cite have tried different methods. Some are more successful than others. Let me categorically state that my reason for making these comparisons with other nations is not to criticize their system, for each of them have their own historical reasons and special problems to deal with, just as we have ours. Yes, I will prove my case.

Sir, the first example is that of Cyprus which the Member for Potong Pasir himself has cited.

Mr Chiam See Tong: It ended up with partition.

Dr Arthur Beng Kian Lam: The total number of elected representatives is 50.35 or 70% shall be elected by the Greek community and 15 or 30% elected by the Turkish community. Thus each community elects its own representatives. Which system is better? Ours or theirs?

Mr Chiam See Tong: The effect is the same - communalism.

Dr Arthur Beng Kian Lam: Example two is New Zealand. The electoral Act here provides for four Maori representatiaves, one each for four Maori electoral districts.

Example three is Fiji. Sir, I must emphasize that this is the constitution before the military coup. This constitution is a rather complex one. May I have your permission to have the Clerk distribute a summary (Cols. 271 - 272) of this constitution? summary - Fiji (Cols. 271 - 272)

Mr Deputy Speaker: Yes.

Dr Arthur Beng Kian Lam: Much obliged, Sir.

Sir, in this system, there are 52 elected representatives in the House of Representatives. They are elected on the basis of two main electoral rolls. Firstly, a communal roll and, secondly, a national roll. From the communal roll will come 27 representatives to the House. The communal roll has again three sub-rolls, a roll for voters who are Fijians, a roll for voters who are Indians and a roll for voters who neither Fijians nor Indians. Then there is a national roll from which will come 25 representatives. This is an additional roll. All voters who are registered on the communal roll are also registered on the national roll. Allocation of seats in the House

Under the communal roll, the Fijians will have 12 seats, Indians 12, Others 3. Under the national roll, Fijians 10, Indians 10, Others 5.

What does all this mean during an election? What it means is, firstly, that there are four electoral rolls or registers, three on communal or racial lines, plus one national roll. Secondly, that voting will be on communal lines. How will this work out? Let us take an example. For example, 22 members of the House of Representatives shall be elected from among members who are registered on the roll of voters who are Fijians, ie, the Fijian communal roll. And of those members, 12 shall be elected by voters only on the Fijian communal roll, 10 shall be elected by voters registered on the national roll.

When we compare our proposed system of GRCs to any of these, it is my opinion that we have a far better system, the one that is most importantly best suited to our local context. Why is our system better? Firstly, minority representation will be ensured in the House. Secondly, the one-man-one-vote system remains. Thirdly, on the ground, to hold the ground and serve the people, a team of MPs of various races will have to work closely together.

Mr Chiam See Tong: Polarization.

Dr Arthur Beng Kian Lam: This will lead to better rapport and understanding. Unless the Team MPs who are expected to provide leadership and direction on the ground can work together, they will undoubtedly lose the next time around. Fourthly, as has been mentioned by the First Deputy Prime Minister, any party that refuses to contest in a GRC will obviously be one that cannot field a multi-racial team regardless of whatever execuse they may want to give.

Sir, I would next like to raise several questions as to how a GRC will be administered, as this is not mentioned in the Bill. These are issues that are being asked by our grassroots organizations. Firstly, will every GRC also be a town council? Secondly, will the component constituencies of the GRCs maintain their present names? Thirdly, will the GRCs be carved out into three separate areas, one MP being responsible for each area? Fourthly, how will responsibility be shared among the MPs? Fifthly, has the Government considered the problem that may arise and probably will arise that the residents will surely want to see the MP with the highest stature in the team, namely, a Minister, if he has a problem? Will grassroots organizations in the GRCs continue to exist in their present form or are changes to be expected?

In closing, Sir, I would like to make reference to only one clause of the Bill for clarification, clause 6 (new section 27A (5). In this subsection the minimum time for application to the appropriate committee is stated as two clear days before nomination day. My fear here, Sir, is that as an election strategy most parties may submit their application at the latest possible time. Will there be sufficient time for the committee to scrutinize these applications as the committee will have to issue a certificate to the candidate not later than the day before nomination day? Thus the committee must make their decisions in actuality within a day.

Dr Aline K. Wong (Changkat): Sir, I think it is important for us, before we go into the details of the various clauses of the Bill, to sort out the more fundamental question of why this Bill is necessary as well as to answer some of the points, in my view rather serious points, made by the Member for Potong Pasir. Unless these questions are settled in our minds, I think the public may be confused over details.

I would like to put my position across from the beginning. I support this Bill and my position is simply this, that the multi-ethnic mix of our population is a fact of life. By institutionalizing multi-racial representation we are no more than giving a recognition to the differences that exist among our different ethnic groups, not only in terms of language, religion, cultural values, but also in terms of the different levels of achievement. To me it is also a rational step, not just logical but also rational, because it is far better to discuss these differences and how Government policies affect the different ethnic groups in an open, rational manner than to pretend that such differences do not exist. And what better ways to hear these differences out than to let representatives from the different ethnic groups speak from the perspective of their own communities. So I support this Bill.

I would like to address the two points which have been repeatedly harped upon by the Member of Potong Pasir and which, in my mind, are serious and must be answered. First, he said that by institutionalizing multi-racial representation we are heightening the racial consciousness of Singaporeans and therefore we may be doing away with, completely demolishing, the 22 years of nation building efforts that we have made. I do not dispute that building a Singaporean identity is very important. We should continue every effort to help Singaporeans feel Singaporean first and foremost. But 22 years of nation building have not obliteratedour cultural differences.

The member of Potong Pasir mentioned something about mixed marriages as a good method or an indicator of improving ethnic relations. I would like to remind the House that for the last 20-25 years, the rate of ethnic inter-marriage or inter-racial marriage in Singapore has not increased. In fact, it just remained within 6%. There has been no trend of increase whatever. Now, of this 6%, half,or 50%, actually come in terms of inter-ethnic marriages among Muslims only. These differences have not been obliterated. I want to make the point that neither do we want to obliterate our cultural differences. In fact, we want all Singaporeans to retain as much as possible their cultural roots. Our policies on bilingual education and our policies on art and culture are geared towards instilling in our young people's minds a consciousness of the cultural roots. It is important to stress that a national identity is not at odds with a cultural identity. At times the two objectives may pose some strains in our policy. But this is a dilemma posed by the fact of a multi-ethnic mix. This is a dilemma which we must live with and no simple solution can be found.

Next, I want to move to his point of enshrining racialism. Sir, I react very strongly to the word, or his use of the word, "racialism".

Mr Chiam See Tong: Call a spade a spade.

Dr Aline Wong: In ordinary language, we often use race and ethnic group interchangeably. But this is actually not accurate. "Race" refers to differences based on biologically inherited traits or genetic make-up, whereas ethnic group refers to differences in social characteristics such as language, religion, birth place and culture.

Mr Chiam See Tong: Let us not split hairs.

Dr Aline Wong: That is not splitting hairs. Because what I find in the Member for Potong Pasir's statement that "we are enshrining racialism" a very insidious intention. Racialism implies that instead of treating everybody on an equal basis, we are treating people based on the biological make-up.

Mr Chiam See Tong: Right.

Dr Aline Wong: But how can this be true where in Singapore all the ethnic groups are equal before the law? How can this be the case when educational and occupational advancement is based on merit and, in addition, all the ethnic groups use the same housing, medical care, social and cultural amenities?

Mr Chiam See Tong: Why are you taking away Article 12?

Mr Deputy Speaker: Order. Mr Chiam, I must warn you not to interject.

Dr Aline Wong: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker.

Mr Deputy Speaker: You had hardly any interuption just now.

Dr Aline Wong: To suggest that multi-racial representation means racialism is to stir the darker emotions and to vilify the good intentions of the Government. May I ask the Member for Potong Pasir, if it not not clear -

Mr Chiam See Tong: Sir, she is asking me a question.

Dr Aline Wong: May I ask the Member of Potong Pasir, rhetorically, a question that, if it is not clear that open but sensitive and responsible discussion of ethnic differences and different perspectives is for the long term good of the nation, which government would want to make this move? I welcome the 1DPM's intention and resolution to commit this Bill to a Select Committee. I think it is very important to let the public speak up its mind and to really come to grasp with the issues at hand.

Still, I believe the reasons for not conducting a referendum must be explained very clearly to the people. By the way, I do not understand or I do not really know why the Member for Potong Pasir has come down so much from his past demands for a referendum to accepting a Select Committee now. But I think his point about referendum must be addressed, and must be addressed adequately. It is no good, it is not sufficient, to say that because we are all duly elected representatives and since Constitutional amendments only require a two-thirds majority in this House, therefore a referendum is not necessary. Because many people believe that the changes proposed are major changes and that they involve changes in the ground rules. So I believe the need to explain to the population why a referendum is not instructive, is not useful, and in fact can be confusing in this case, must be clearly explained. The need to explain this issue, Sir, does not lie in the number of people who call for a referendum. Petitions and the number of signatures are never accurate indications in such kinds of campaigns. What is important is to understand why there is a demand for a referendum at all, and I think we must read this population sentiment right. We are seeing in this demand the same desire among the better educated, more politically conscious, young Singaporeans who wish to have a say in policy-making and not just to exercise a vote during election time.

Mr Chiam See Tong: Right. Well said.

Dr Aline Wong: It is therefore very important that we must listen, continue to listen, and of course we have listened. We have listened throughout the last year during our Feedback sessions, during our National Agenda discussion. But it is very, very important that the people must be convinced that what they tell us have been taken into consideration, that the suggestions that they have given us have been carefully considered, one by one, and what we have now, what we propose now, is the best of the alternatives and still it is necessary to let people speak on the Bill as it is now sitting before us. Give them every opportunity to come to the Select Committee and say their piece. But if they do not say so, they will have missed the chance and they have nobody to blame but themselves.

Mr Heng Chiang Meng (Jalan Kayu): Sir, the hon. Member for Potong Pasir is not too happy about us using Sri Lanka or Fiji as examples. Actually there are examples in the Western developed countries like Holland and Belgium where there are also institutionalized power-sharing arrangements amongst the different communities there.

Sir, many countries in the world with pluralistic community of any significance have, in fact, adopted many types of power-sharing arrangements in order to ensure communal harmony. Perhaps only Switzerland does not have any formal power-sharing arrangements. Sir, in this respect, why Switzerland? I would like to read a quotation from a report done by Prof. Claire Palley of Oxford University.

'Only in Switzerland has power-sharing developed organically over a century. The Constitution provides for a 7-man federal council holding office for a fixed term of four years. By convention, proportionate representation is used by the federal assembly to elect council members. The effect is that there are usually four or five German speakers, one or two French speakers and one Italian speaker. Power-sharing with voluntary acceptance of the principle of proportionality and a stable fixed time coalition together with an attitude of compromise prevalent since 1874 has resulted in relatively good inter-communal relationships.'

Sir, perhaps 100 years from today we do not need the Team MP proposal. But with our short history, Sir, I am afraid that what we fear most, and what we do not want most to come about, may come about if we do not take steps to prevent it.

Sir, the Member for Potong Pasir again touched on Cyprus and showed in his example how communal politics has split the country. Sir, I must add here that he is correct in that in Cyprus, communal politics has indeed split the country. But then, Sir, he is talking about communal politics, not multi-racial politics.

The First Deputy Prime Minister has taken great pains to explain the difference between communal politics and multi-racial politics. And even after such explanation, I am afraid the hon. Member has found it difficult to understand. So I would like to add my simple explanation, which is, communal politics is politics based on the appeal to one race and on that appeal a government can be formed, to the detriment of the other races in the community. Multi-racial politics must appeal to as many races as possible because without that appeal, Sir, no government can be formed. Surely, any intelligent Singaporean can see that the Team MP concept is therefore multi-racial and not communal.

But most important, the Member for Potong Pasir has missed the crucial point of the issue before us. This issue is not that the candidates from the minority communities can be elected on their own steam and thus an arrangement such as the Bill before the House is not necessary. Sir, the issue is, what happens to Singapore if they are not elected. What if one day, due to reasons beyond our control, say, internally, such as a party appealing to the chauvinism of the majority or, even externally, such as events or actions in neighbouring countries causing our people to react in an emotionally realistic mannar. Sir, what if one day all returned candidates in a general election are Chinese? Then what happens? How will our neighbours react? What will be the geopolitical effect in our region?

But more importantly, within our country, how would each and every one of us react? How will we face our Malay neighbours or our Indian friends? Can we ever have the same trust and belief in our hearts that as Singaporeans we will always look after one another as true Singaporeans if that happens? Because then, we will ask: are we really Singaporeans or are we not Chinese, Malay, Indian first, and then Singaporeans second?

Sir, we must remember that if such an event happens nothing in the world can erase it. Even if the winning party refuses to be the government and calls for a fresh election with fresh rules to prevent such a thing from happening, it will be too late. We will all know what has happened.

Sir, my point is, and I suppose this is the point in the mind of the Member for Potong Pasir, what is the chance of this happening? One in a million? One in ten million? Or even one in a billion? Even if it is one in a trillion, can we afford to take the risk of this unimaginable event happening? Some of the arguments put out by the Member for Potong Pasir may be considered rational, even sometimes sound, but of all persons, Sir ---

Mr Chiam See Tong: Always sound.

Mr Heng Chiang Meng: Sometimes sound. But, Sir, of all persons, he should be the first to realize and to know that voting in a general election is just as emotional. The fear is not so much the normal emotional reaction to a ruling party who has given Singapore its prosperity and progress for the past 30 years. Sir, the fear is that there may be a more basic emotional response to fundamental instincts, such as race, religion and culture.

Mr Chiam See Tong: What about your case?

Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Chiam, I must warn you to stop interrupting. If you want to say anything, rise from your seat and seek the permission of the Chair.

Mr Heng Chiang Meng: Thank you, Sir. Maybe what we fear can happen may not happen. But then what is so wrong as to enshrine in our law to ensure that it shall never happen?

The principle of ensuring multi-racial representation for the Malay and the minority communities is, I believe, accepted by the majority of Singaporeans. I fully support this principle just as I support the move by the Government to enshrine this principle in our Constitution. However, Sir, I would like to ask the Hon. First Deputy Prime Minister that in selecting the Team MP and the GRC concept as the most appropriate and best system for Singapore, has he looked at other systems being practised by other countries with similar problems? My point is whether the Government has looked at all alternatives before selecting on the present one.

Sir, I know that Members before me have already given some examples, such as communal system that has been given by the Member for Kebun Baru and the Member of Fengshan and these systems are being practised in some Fengshan and these system are being practised in some respects, in some modifications, by countries like Cyprus, Fiji, New Zealand or even India until 1985 where there were some seats reserved for the Untouchables. We have also touched on Fiji. They have a system where they have more than one electoral roll and where communal seats can be elected by the national voting population.

However, I would like to touch more on the concept of proportionate representation. There have been many variations being used in this system, such as the list system, the single transferable vote system or even the alternate vote system, and there are many methods of calculating the voting weightage, quota, etc. Unlike the Member for Kebun Baru I would not like to dismiss it out of hand because there are obviously some merits in this particular system. We must remember there are many variations under this system of proportionate representation.

In this respect here, I would like to touch on the example of Mauritius. But before I do, I would also like to ask the First Deputy Prime Minister to consider the possibility of a bicameral system where we can have an Upper House based on a multi-racial voting basis.

Coming back to Mauritius. Mauritius has a similar problem, such as ours, of ensuring multi-racial representation. There are basically three main communities. Their Constitution divides the people of Mauritius into the Hindu community, the Muslim community, the Sino-Mauritian community and the general category called "Others". In their system, the voters return three successful candidates from each constituency. Therefore, if we look at their system which is already being practised, our GRC with the Team MP proposal is not unique to us.

They have 21 constituencies of which one particular constituency only returns two. Why? I do not know. Perhaps it is because the population there is lesser. But other than these 62 elected representatives from the constituencies, they also have eight other members of the Assembly. There are eight seats allocated to the most unsuccessful candidates in a general election. Again, this is very similar to our Non-Constituency MPs. However, their allocation is based on a formula to ensure that the additional seats are given in such a way that they ensure a fair and adequate representation of each community in the Mauritian Assembly.

Here you also have a system where they face problems like Singapore and by all accounts so far, their system has been working fine for them. In fact, what we are doing perhaps is that we have adopted two features of that system, ie, the Group Representation Constituency as well as the Non-Constituency MPs.

Sir, I know I have taken a bit of time going into this example of the Mauritian Assembly but I believe that the Bill before us is an important one and will affect all of us. Like the member of Changkat, I heard many have asked for a referendum to be held on this issue. However, I am not too sure whether she favours or does not favour a referendum, although I do agree with her that the issue is complex and very emotive. Perhaps here, my view is that a referendum may not be the best way. In this respect, Sir, I commend the First Deputy Prime Minister on his proposal to put the Bill before a Select Committee.

However, I would like to propose another dimension to the Select Committee. Just to receive comments, views and ideas from the general public may not be adequate. Sir, constitutional law is not an easy subject to grasp. Unfortunately, too, the emotive content of this Bill is very high. As such, I would like to propose that a special parliamentary committee be formed to examine other alternatives and to determine from a rational, logical view- point that the proposed Team MP system is the most appropriate for Singapore. This committee could even be a sub-committee of the Select Committee and, if necessary, this committee can visit those countries with multi-racial legislation to see at first hand the workings of such legislation.

Sir, in concluding whether or not Singapore should have legal rights of ensuring minority representation in Parliament it may be worthwhile for the House to note the conclusions of the report that I have earlier quoted. In the study, the professor noted the presence of institutional arrangements to regulate and clamp down inter-community conflict in many countries with a mixed population. The most important conclusions she reached are:

1. In countries where such institutional arrangements have been introduced, the institutional arrangements have progressively been accompanied by accommodating attitudes between different communities; and

2. The fewer the presence of such institutional arrangements the more intense is the conflict between communities, whereas the more such arrangements are present, the more accommodating are the attitudes of the different communities.

On this note, I would like to support the Bill. 4.13 pm.

Dr Tan Cheng Bock (Ayer Rajah): Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, for allowing me to join in this debate.

From the many discussions I had with the ground I cannot help but come to the conclusion that many are still unclear about the Team MP proposal. Therefore, lest we get detracted from the main purpose of this Bill, I think it is of utmost importance that we should try to win the hearts and minds of our people on this very important and fundamental issue of racial representation in Parliament by further discussion and explanation and to allow representations by many interested groups, interested parties, to air their views to the Government. I therefore welcome and support the move to let this Bill be referred to a Select Committee.

Members of this House will recall the Howe Yoon Chong Report on the Problems of the Aged, how it was focused primarily on the CPF issue, thus detracting most Singaporeans from the real issues presented in the Report. Similarly, let us not get detracted from issues such as the definition of who is a Malay, and concentrate on the main issue, ie, multi-racial representation in Parliament. We should let our Malay community decide who is a Malay. They know better and we must abide by their decision.

Let me now give some feedback from the ground to this House on this issue. We met many people and the participants agreed that it was necessary for a multi-racial society like ours to have a multi-racial representation in Parliament. But they were divided in their views as to whether there was really a need to tinker with the existing electoral system in order to ensure multi-racial representation. One participant wondered why the subject was being broached now. He felt that multi-racialism has always been a feature of politics in Singapore even before the PAP. All parties, except the communal-based ones like UMNO and MCA, were multi-racial in nature. Moreover, considering that the PAP had been so succcessful in blurring communal differences and had through its dominance attenuated communal-based politics, there was really no need to tinker with the present system. And in his words, "If it works, why fix it?" He felt that the solution was to develop a national identity so that all Singaporeans could feel as one regardless of race, language or religion. Only when racial differences were blurred, would there be real political stability.

Other participants supported his views. They felt that the fear of the Government that the minority race might not be represented was unfounded. One participant commented that this view could imply that minority candidates were incompetent and there was a need to tamper with the system in order for them to be elected. The participants supporting this view felt that the solution laid not in tampering with the existing system but to entrench it as it had been working so well. One participant further noted that the PAP should revive the enthusiasm of the voters and prove its worth.

Another commented that there was a lot of cynicism about the Team MP proposal. Many Singaporeans wondered whether the proposal was a guise by the PAP to ensure its dominance or was it a genuine effort to ensure minority representation?

Some others supported the need to modify the existing system in order to ensure there would always be multi-racial representation. In fact, one thought that there was no immediate problem. One could never be sure about having continued multi-racial representation in the future. He said that the recent controversies illustrated vividly that despite 20 years of independence and nation building, there were still many emotional issues which ran along racial lines. Examples in other countries, such as Fiji, reminded us that it was better to put ground rules in place to prevent racial polarization rather than wait for the problem to erupt and then to think of a solution. Any solution then would always be too late, too inadequate and viewed with great suspicion. He felt that as a start, there should be an amendment to the Constitution to require all political parties in Singapore to be multi-racial in make-up. While this in itself would not assure a truly multi-racial political party nor ensure multi-representation in Parliament, it was a necessary first step. In the long term, the real solution was to ensure integration and the development of nationhood.

The participant added that the Team MP concept was a workable one and should not be confused with the town council concept. He added the town council concept was to develop estate management responsibilities to the residents, and that was a good idea. After all, estate management was delegated to the HDB, why not let the residents decide? However, the Team MP concept was for a different purpose. He felt that the earlier linkage between the two concepts had confused people. While the Team MP concept was acceptable, he felt that if the ground rules were to be changed, then this should be subject to the approval of the population, possibly through a referendum. Otherwise, there would always be accusations that the ground rules were changed to ensure continued dominance of the PAP.

Another participant supported his view. He commented that based on his experience with the ground, there were still considerable emotional differences among the races. It was naive for anyone to assume that there was complete integration and that we were all one people regardless of race, language or religion. He added that all that was needed was a spark to ignite the dormant but not defused forces of racial polarization. He added that the older generation was different and was grateful to the PAP for the prosperity it brought to them. But the younger generation took things for granted and were more assertive of their rights. Not only was the minority questioning the perceived discrimination, but even the majority was asking why special privileges were given to the minority. For example, poor Chinese were asking why they should not be assisted in the same way that the Malays were.

One participant commented that the adoption of one political system or another would be a result of political motivation and consideration. He felt that the solution offered was a technical one and did not address adequately the fundamental issue. The more fundamental questions were whether there was really racial integration and whether in fact the elected minority MPs were looked upon as leaders by their own race. He felt that recent events indicated that there was still no integration and as long as this remained so, there would be need for some modifications to ensure multi-racial representation.

The participants agreed that at the end of the day, it was a political judgement, whether there was indeed a problem. If the consensus was that there was a problem, then there would be a need to do something now to defuse the problem and not to wait until the problem really surfaced before trying to solve it. From the discussion, it would appear that many of the racial differences were simmering below the tranquil facade and these forces could erupt into ugly incidents with the slightest provocation.

Those were the views of those I met. I would like now to express my views. If we all believe in multi-racialism, we must ensure that every race in Singapore, irrespective of whether he belongs to the majority or minority group, must have a place here. In my opinion, throughout our years of independence, we concentrated and achieved good economic growth to provide the basics for our people, like housing, clean water supply, roads, hospitals and schools. And in spite of the fact that we were so busy getting our people housed, clothed and educated, we did not take for granted our multi-racial society. We may have overlooked some aspects but we were aware of the problems. And we did try to lay the foundations of a multi-racial society by ensuring the majority race, Chinese, from imposing its language and way of life on the minority. We set up a Presidential Council for Minority Rights. We dispersed concentrations of Malays into housing estates so that different races will have a better chance of mixing and understanding each other. And above all, we adopted a neutral language, English, at the expense of alienating the majority. Therefore, this attempt to ensure multi-racial representation in Parliament is nothing new. We have done this in the public housing estates, we have adopted a neutral language, English. So I am surprised that there are people who said that this is wrong. Like some of the measures taken, this will also not be perfect. It will have its flaws. But one thing is important - we make attempts to try to make multi-racialism work.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, believing in multi-racialism is one thing, making it working is another. There are many countries which want to believe that they are practising multi-racialism in their society, but make no attempt to actually get it working. I think we are different. We are brave to face the realities of multi-racial living. To avoid this is to court trouble later on. The outside influence through the television and the mass media has a profound effect on our young, who like one of the participants in the forum questioned: why should we give the Malays special privilege on education and land for mosque? My answer, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, was my generation and my father's generation accepted many aspects of multi-racial living without question because we know the alternative is chaos and bloodshed. But our young are a different breed. It is not that they are wrong in asking such questions but the influence they had through the television set their inquiring minds ticking and wondering. Therefore, unless we put the ground rules in order for multi-racial harmony in Singapore, we may face problems later on. In attempts to do this, the Government has been accused by one of the participants in the forum for having taken a step or two backwards as a result of this move. My answer is simple. So be it. If we are seen to have taken one step backwards as a result of this legislation, I see no harm. I would rather we take a step backwards as a result of this legislation, I see no harm. I would rather we take a step back than take two steps forward. We are consolidating our position on multi-racial living in society. I think this is not only being pragmatic but realistic.

The people of Singapore must try to understand that this Government did not only consider the Term MP proposal. The First Deputy Prime Minister has listed out all the proposals and I shall not go over them again. If we did not consider all thses proposals, then they have every right to condemn us for just pushing this through. Consultation in public on this was started as early as 1986, but in private I think we started as early as 1982. And if more is needed, then I am sure this will be done at the Select Committee stage where anyone not happy with this must make his views heard.

The Member for Changkat has called for more in-depth explanation as to why a referendum is not necessary. I think we should give adequate explanation on this. As for my view, I think this Bill is for multi-racial representation in Parliament. To askfor a referendum against multi-racialism, I think is not correct.

Lastly, let this Team MP proposal be but one of the ways to achieve a multi-racial society. Now that we are a more matured society and are more open in our discussion on race and religion, we must take a critical look at ourselves to see where we have made oversights in planning. It calls for a concerted effort by all - the Government and the private sector. We must break down certain prejudices about race. We must not stereotype certain race. In the schools we must avoid situations like putting all Tamil students in one class for administrative reasons. But whatever change we may want to make, it must not be done at the expense of meritocracy because it was through the principle of meritocracy that has brought Singapore this far. While the majority has a moral obligation to look after the minority, the minority also has a moral obligation to understand the constraints and limitations of multi-racial living. In the end, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, it boils down to trust - trust in each other, in believing that the intention is for the overall good and not for the betterment or the putting down of a particular race. 4.30 pm

Encik Wan Hussin Bin Hj Zoohri (Kampong Ubi): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, after five years of intellectual incubation, this GRC egg, so to speak, has now hatched. In hatching this egg, the First Deputy Prime Minister in his press statement underscored the main thrust of the Bill. I quote:

'It is to institutionalize the practice of multi-racial politics in Singapore, a necessary condition for political stability in a multi-racial Singapore.'

In other words, this Bill seeks to ensure that the minorities will be represented in Parliament. The logical extension of this is that by having minority representations in Parliament, the welfare and interests of the minorities will be appropriately heard and advanced. This also means that by institutionalizing multi-racial politics, it would also institutionalize the mechanism by which the minorities will have a guaranteed political avenue for the advancement of their interests.

As minorities, the Malays in particular, may have interests that could be of special nature to them. It is again logical to assume that only members representing their respective minorities or the Malay Members of Parliament can best appreciate what these special interests are and have them properly presented in Parliament.

Sir, allow me to elaborate further on this question of representation of minority interests in Parliament, with particular reference to the Malay community. It is my thesis and my belief that the interests of the Malay community can be better served through political representation in Parliament than otherwise. In other words, some form of political linkage is necessary in the advancement of Malay interests.

I would like to substantiate my thesis. But before I do that, let me first state the constitutional position of the Malays in Singapore. I think, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, this is necessary as it would help us focus the advancement of the Malay interests in its proper national perspective. Article 152 of the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore on minorities and special position of the Malays states:

'The Government shall exercise its functions in such manner as to recognise the special position of the Malays, who are the indigenous people of Singapore, and accordingly it shall be the responsibility of the Government to protect, safeguard, support, foster and promote their political, educational, religious, economic, social and cultural interests and the Malay language.'

It must be pointed out ---

Mr Chiam See Tong: Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I wonder whether the Member would allow me to ask him to clarify what exactly are Malay interests.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Encik Wan Hussin, are you giving way for clarification?

Encik Wan Hussin bin Hj Zoohri: Let me hear what he wants to say.

Mr Chiam See Tong: I think this is an important issue. We are talking about Malay interests. Perhaps the Member could tell us what exactly are Malay interests in Singapore.

Encik Wan Hussin bin Hj Zoohri: I thought it is plain and simple.

Mr Chiam See Tong: What are they?

Encik Wan Hussin bin Hj Zoohri: The Malay interest is, of course, the overall well-being of the Malays in all spheres of life.

Mr Chiam See Tong: What are they? We want to know.

Encik Wan Hussin bin Hj Zoohri: I have just stated the educational, religious, socio-economic, cultural and the well-being of the community as a whole constitute the Malay interests. I thought it is so simple. I am not sure why it has been so perplexing to the Member.

Sir, it must be pointed out that this constitutional status of the special position of the Malays in singapore is not similar in intent, interpretation and in its implementation with Article 153 of the Malaysian Constitution regarding Malays or bumiputras in Malaysia. This distinction is important to note because it is this apparent misconception of the constitional weightage of this Article amongst the general Malay public that made them want to equate the special position of the Malays with that of the bumiputras in Malaysia. As I see it, the translation of this Article into practical terms must, whilst taking cognizance of the special position of the Malays, take into account the interests of the majority of the non-Malays. In other words, there must be a blend or a judicious balance of minority and majority interests in a manner that is seen to be fair and just to the electorate. Thus, decisions that are to be taken by the Government will have to be based on a balance of all interests, ie, the special position of the Malays and also the legitimate interests of the non-Malays in Singapore.

This approach of advancing the interests of the Malays in Singapore repudiates the model or approach of giving special privileges to the Malays. This stand, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, was clearly enunciated by the Prime Minister when Singapore was in Malaysia then. I quote:

'There shall be no reservation for Malays in accordance with Article 153 [of the Malaysian Constitution] of positions in the public service to be filled by recruitment in Singapore.' (Source: The Battle for Malaysian Malaysia, Lee Kuan Yew, Vol. 1, pp. 29.)

In a multi-racial context such as Singapore, it is necessary to fully appreciate and understand the political undercurrents that are operating in the society. This is of re-emphasize the point that there are certain constraints and necessary restraints existing within the practical sphere of multi-racial politics in Singapore.

Sir, with this political reality as our backdrop, let me now return to substantiate the thesis of the need for some form of political linkage in the advancement of Malay interests in Singapore.

(1) Since 1965, when Singapore became independent, free education from primary to tertiary level was accorded by the Government to Singapore Malays.

(2) In 1966, the Administration of Muslim Law Act (AMLA) was enacted which resulted in the establishment of the Muslim Religious Council, better know as MUIS, in 1968.

(3) The establishment of MUIS made it possible for Muslims to subscribe to the Mosque Building Fund by the check-off system through the Government CPF machinery starting in 1975.

(4) In 1982, the Muslim Members of Parliament together with the Muslim community leaders created the Council on Education for Muslim Children or better known as Mendaki. This was well received by the Government.

(5) In 1984, the Government expanded the Mosque Building Fund into Mosque Building and Mendaki Fund to provide financial strength to Mendaki through voluntary contributions by Muslims in Singapore, again through the CPF machinery.

(6) Hopefully, by the end of 1988, the Malay Members of Parliament's idea of a new concept of a Malay kampung in Geylang Serai will be a reality when its construction is completed by the HDB.

(7) Going back a little into history, in the colonial days of 1920s and 1930s, the Malay settlement or kampung Melayu, through the effort of Encik Mohamed Eunos, President of the Singapore Malay Union or Kesatuan Melayu Singapura who was then a member of the Straits Settlement Legislative Council. He was also instrumental during his tenure as Legislative Councillor in securing English education through the special Malay class and the establishment of a trade school for Malay children.

These assisted programmes seen from the proper national perspective are directed towards multi-racial ends and not as special privileges to the Malays. The point to note is that it is the general community that benefits from these programmes and not individuals.

Let me now show the antithesis that efforts which had no political linkage and initiated outside Government or quasi-government machinery were not followed through and did not achieve their desired results.

(1) In 1964, when Singapore was in Malaysia, the then UMNO Singapura which was at its high point in terms of Malay support held a Malay Convention to press for special Malay privileges for the Malays. This was rejected.

(2) In 1968, the Singapore Malay Teachers' Union organized a seminar on Malay education and called on the Government to establish an elite Malay medium school that would help boost the standard of Malay education. This remained unresolved.

(3) In 1970, the Singapore Malay Teachers' Union again proposed to the authorities its version of the national system of education. This was unacceptable.

(4) Also in 1970, the Central Council of Malay Cultural Organizations or Majlis Pusat organized a multi-racial seminar entitled "Malay Participation in the National Development of Singapore". Its submission of the seminar findings received no official response.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, from the above choronological accounts, I have shown that my thesis stands, ie, the interest of the Malays in Singapore is better served with the existence of a political linkage. As the aim of this Bill is to institutionalize Malay representation in Parliament, it also leads to the institutionalization of this political linkage. In that sense, this Bill is worthy of support as it will contribute to the maintenance of this judicious balance of minority and majority interests so essential in multi-racial politics of Singapore.

Sir, I would now like to make some observations on the Bill regarding the Malay Committee. This Committee consisting of a chairman and four members shuld rightly be persons belionging to the Malay Commity. My observation is that just as this Committee would have its own guidelines and criteria as spelt out by the Member for Tanah Merah in determining the status of a prospective candidate to be a person belonging to the Malay Community, the Presidential Council for Minority Rights which would be given the task of nominating members of this Committee must logically be guided by certain criteria which would then be the basis for the guiding principles for the Malay Committee. In other words, the criteria to be used by the Malay Committee must be in consonance with those of the Presidential Council in determining the status of a person belonging to the Malay community. It is therefore my hope that both the Presidential Council for Minority Rights and the Malay Committee be properly advised by competent authorities on this matter. I am glad that interested parties will now be able to submit their submissions to the Select Committee on these two items.

The other observation is regarding the mode of decision made by the Committee as specified in the Bill. The Bill states that a decision of the Committee is by a simple majority. I take it that this would facilitate the practical aspect of the Committee's deliberations. However, in spirit and in essence, such a decision would appear a little strange. If the Malay Committee, which is supposed to be the constitutional macrocosm of the feelings and aspirations of the Malay community, reflects a division in its decision, this can signal an anticipated division in the degree of acceptability of the prospective candidate by the Malay community at large. It is therefore in my opinion essential that decisions of the Committee should be unanimous or on a consensus rather than by a simple majority. It is important that the Malay community should have no qualms or reservations on the decision of the Committee in determining whether a prospective candidate belongs to the Malay community or otherwise.

Mr Chiam See Tong: Mr Deputy Speaker, I think there is one very important issue to be clarified. Since time is coming up ---

Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Chiam, you already had your say. Are you going to clarify something which has been said?

Mr Chiam See Tong: No. I would like to ask the Malay Members here, do they feel that they are just passengers ---

Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Chiam, you have already made your points. Can you resume your seat?

Mr Chiam See Tong resumed his seat.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Yes, Encik Zulkifli.

Encik Zulkifli bin Mohammed (Eunos): ( In Malay): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the basic question that should be asked by the people of Singapore after detailed and thorough consideration is whether the Bill now being debated upon will have more positive effects or otherwise for the future, that is, for the sake of our future generations. I believe the people of Singapore would be able to consider all aspects of this Bill and would be satisfied. In my judgment, a responsible Government will not neglect something which in its opinion should be given serious consideration and will seek a solution before it is too late. It is unthinkable that a responsible Government would table a Bill that would bring forth problem. The task of governing a country is not an esay one, especially if the country is a multi-racial society like Singapore. Each community has its own special problems and its own priorities. From this it is clear that there will be competing interests among the different communities. This kind of situation can bring about communal strife if one community feels that they have been alienated from the national mainstream.

The noble aim behind the GRC concept is to ensure through legislation by enshrining it in the Constitution of Singapore the representation of minority groups in Parliament. Is there anything wrong to move towards an objective that is based on the principle of multi-rationalism? I cannot understand the reasons given by the Member for Potong Pasir. As a Member of Parliament who comes from a minority group, I understand the implications of this Bill. And I feel the Member for Potong Pasir is not qualified to voice the anxieties and fears of the minority groups in Singapore, in particular the Malay community. I consider this issue a crucial one and, looking far ahead, I am convinced Singapore cannot afford to be trapped in a situation where the minority groups are not adequately represented or perhaps not represented at all in the legislative process. If this is allowed to happen, the consequences will be very serious, protracted and would affect our political stability.

Mr Chiam See Tong: Can I clarify, Sir?

Encik Zulkifli bin Mohammed: ( In Malay): I am not giving way, Sir.

Mr Deputy Speaker: He is not giving way, Mr Chiam.

Encik Zulkifli bin Mohammed: ( In Malay): Sir, the people of Singapore should support this Bill, which also is proof that our national leaders are leaders who are fully committed to the concept of multi-racialism, multi-religionism and multi-lingualism. Although the GRC concept is still open to some questioning and inadequate in some respects, without a better alternative, it is only proper for us to experiment it with the hope that it would offer us long-term solutions to the issue of Malay and minority representation in Parliament for the sake of the stability and well-being of our nation.

Sir, with that, I support this Bill and I am happy that the First Deputy Prime Minister intends to commit the Bill to a Select Committee.

Dr S. Vasoo (Bo Wen): Sir, I think we have to examine the Bill from a wider perspective. I feel that a very narrow examination of the Bill in terms of doing the Opposition in, doctoring the electoral boundary and creating second-class MP, is indeed a parochial orientation. The acid test of examining this Bill is to ask ourselves whether the Bill is in the long term good of Singapore. This is a fundamental question that we all have to address.

I personally feel that the Bill ensures a multi-racial Parliament. And if this is the case, is it necessarily bad for Singapore? I assert that by having a multi-racial Parliament, it provides a conduit for minority groups to express their aspirations and their feelings in terms of issues which are specific to the minority groups. Unless such a conduit is available, it will spell danger in the longer term, and in many situations and in many countries I see the problem has arisen. We all know it. And if we can learn to avoid this from happening to Singapore, I think we have taken the right step in the right direction.

Sir, a Parliament without the presence of the minority group does not provide a multi-cultural orientation to the communities' issues and problems. One would perhaps look at things from a mono-cultural point of view. I am of the opinion that a bi-cultural focus will be provided if we have a multi-racial Parliament. Therefore, I see that in terms of Singapore's long term survival and healthy development, it is necessary to ensure that we have a multi-racial Parliament.

However, Sir, I have a number of observations to make which I hope the First Deputy Prime Minister will provide the necessary clarifications. First, Sir, the Bill enshrines minority representation. Though it is good, in the longer term it might create some racial differences if it is not carefully tackled at the earlier stage, in the sense that one might heighten ethnic sensitivity and differences. Unless and until we tamper this and ensure that Members of Parliament look at issues broadly and represent the community on a broader basis, then any ethnic sensitivity can be minimized to a great extent.

Sir, being a minority representative, the danger is that one might expect pressure from minority groups to get minority-elected members to articulate opinions in terms of their needs. I feel that we must find ways to maintain a sensible balance such that Parliamentarians themselves will look at things on a universal perspective.

Sir, secondly, the Bill suggests a slight departure from the original Parliamentary voting pattern. We now vote for a team of three persons instead of one Parliamentary candidate. Sir, would such a change reduce the status of the MP who belongs to a minority group? Sir, there is a need to clarify and ensure that the roles and responsibilities of the MPs in the GRCs are clearly spelled out so that they can have a better perspective of their work.

Sir, thirdly, the Bill seems to be silent in defining Indians as a distinct minority group. Instead, Indians are lumped under a definition of "minority community". It is interesting to note that in dealing with the Indian community, there is this articulation of concern from them. They were thinking and wondering, what is the rationale for leaving them out specifically in the definition? There are more or less no obvious reactions from this community so far. But I feel there is a need to provide some clarification as to why they have been excluded from this definition.

Sir, under the Bill, if a Member of the Team resigns or dies, there is no need for by-elections. This seems to be acceptable if the MP of the Team is not from a minority group. In the event he is not from a minority group. In the event he is an MP from a minority group, it does pose a dilemma. Logically speaking, a by-election needs to be called. However, the Bill does not take this into consideration. Why is this so? I hope the First Deputy Prime Minister will be able to explain that. In the event a minority Member resigns or dies, the prin- ciple underlying the Bill itself would be affected and this needs to be looked into.

Sir, finally, some quarters think that the Bill tries to subtly whittle down the Opposition. I gather this has been the trend of public opinion from various quarters. I feel that this perception has to be erased. The Bill is basically an answer to the long-term interests of Singapore, and we should bring this message across to this quarter which has stated a whispering campaign that we are whittling them down. Sir, why not leave out the Opposition constituencies out of the GRCs and be gracious to let them be as they are? This would then erase the possibility of people saying that they are being done in with.

Sir, in conclusion I support the Bill to be referred to the Select Committee.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Order. It is approaching 5.00 pm. Debate to be resumed on what day, Mr Goh?

Mr Goh Chok Tong: Tomorrow, Sir.

Mr Deputy Speaker: So be it.