PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS (AMENDMENT) BILL (As reported from Select Committee)

Order for Third Reading read. 11.32 am

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

This Bill should be read together with the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore (Amendment) Bill. Both Bills seek to achieve the same objective, which is to ensure that the Singapore Parliament will always be multi-racial in composition so as to reflect the character and values of our multi-racial society. The principles of both these Bills were thoroughly debated by this House on the 11th and 12th January. The Bills had also been referred to a Select Committee.

The Select Committee received 99 submissions and examined the evidence of 12 representors in public. Its Report is now before the House. As the subject has been extensively and exhaustively debated, I shall not burden this House with a repeat performance or repeat the arguments for or against the GRC proposal. I shall highlight only two salient points emerging from the Select Committee hearings. One, whether the Select Committee has found support for the GRC Bills, in particular, from the minority communities and, second, whether the Select Committee has found a better proposal than the GRC proposal to ensure that Parliament would always be multi-racial in character and composition.

From the public submissions to the Select Committee, it was obvious that the Malay, Indian and other minority communities welcomed the Government's initiative to guarantee their representation in Parliament. They left the Committee in no doubt about this. Of the 19 submissions received from Malay representors, only one was against any change to be made to the present parliamentary elections system. Of the 34 submissions from Indians, only two were against any change. I believe that the Malay and Indian representors were signalling strongly to the Select Committee and to this Parliament to proceed with the GRC proposal.

The Chinese representors were more cautious. Of the 34 representations received, 6 were for GRCs, 17 for some changes to be made to the present parliamentary elections system and 11 against. In other words, 23 for changes to be made and 11 against any change. The reservations of the Chinese representors are understandable. The GRCs confer power on the minority communities, disproportionate with their political weight in parliamentary elections. The Chinese form 76% of the population in Singapore. They can easily win power in general elections without having to team up with Malays or Indians. They can do this because there is not a single constituency in Singapore where the Chinese is not in the majority. I am not saying that no Indian or Malay can win against a Chinese candidate. They can, if they have qualities which are seen by the electorate to be superior to the Chinese candidates. But even if they do, the Chinese do not have to share power if they do not want to.

The GRC proposal, which requires some MPs to stand as a team, effectively distributes power between leaders of the various communities. In fact, it favours the minorities. This point was made by several Chinese representors. They pointed out that Chinese candidates could not stand in a GRC on their own. The amendment does not allow it. You cannot have three Chinese candidates standing in a GRC on their own. They have to team up with either a Malay, an Indian or a member from another minority community. On the other hand, the Malays, the Indians or members of other minority communities can stand on their own in a GRC. This is like handing a veto vote to the minority candidates. This accommodation by the Chinese to the minority communities is a real one.

Now, we move on to the second question. Has a better proposal than the GRC been made to the Select Committee? The Select Committee heard views on this from members of the public, including political parties. The proposals received fell into two categories - variations of the GRC proposal and proposals either to allow Malays to elect their own MPs or to compete amongst themselves in reserved constituencies. In other words, Malays will elect Malays or Malays will contest against Malays in reserved wards. These proposals are discussed in paragraphs 24 to 38 of the Select Committee's Report. The Select Committee did not find them to be superior to the GRC proposal. To let Malays elect their own MPs is to perpetuate the practice of communal politics. It will cause Malay candidates to outbid one another, to prove who is the champion of the Malay community. If they do that, it must cause a reaction, a stiffening of attitude in the Chinese and Indian communities. And this can only be to the detriment of the Malay community.

On the other hand, the GRC proposal requires the various communities to accommodate one another and to accept each other's ethnic differences. If a Chinese wants to stand for election in a GRC, he must, under the elections law, first find a Malay or an Indian partner or a partner from another minority community. This requires some accommodation on his part. If a Malay wants to win in a GRC, political realism requires him to find non-Malay partners. The candidates, Malay, Chinese, Indians, Eurasians or others, have therefore to accommodate one another. They have to accept each other's race, language, culture and religion. In other words, they have to agree on some fundamental issues.

Let me deal with the amendments to the Bill made by the Select Committee. The first concerns the definition of a "person belonging to the Malay community." The definition is amended under clause 6 (section 27A (7)) and reads as follows:

'"person belonging to the Malay community" means any person, whether of the Malay race or otherwise, who considers himself to be a member of the Malay community and who is generally accepted as a member of the Malay community by that community;'

This definition is an improvement over the original definition which mentioned some, but not all, of the sub-communities which make up the Malay community. I believe it satisfies my Malay colleagues in this House. It is essentially a self-definition. First, a candidate wishing to contest in a GRC as a member of the Malay

community must consider himself to belong to that community. Second, that community must accept him. The test of his acceptability is left to the Malay Community Committee. This Committee will comprise a Chairman and four other members, all of whom shall belong to the Malay community. This is spelt out in clause 6 (section 27C (2)). They will be appointed by the President on the nomination of the Presidential Council for Minority Rights after consulting such organizations of the Malay community as the Council thinks fits. The requirement for consultation has been put in by the Select Committee as suggested by some Malay representors. It will doubly ensure that all members appointed to the Malay Commu- nity Committee come from the community itself. Consultation is a two-way process. It can be initiated by the Presidential Council for Minority Rights or it can be initiated by organizations of the Malay community.

Several Malay representors and witnesses submitted that to qualify as a member of the Malay community, that person must be a Muslim. The Select Committee, however, concluded that as a secular State, the laws should not prescribe any religion for any individual as the Constitution recognizes the right of individuals to profess any religion of their choice. Anyway, whether a person is a member of the Malay community or not, it is for that person and the community to decide.

Many representations were received from Indian representors to specifically mention the community in the definition of "other minority communities". This is now done in the amended Bill. The definition of an "Indian" and the procedure for nominating members to the Indian and Other Minority Communities Committee follow that of the Malay community.

The original Bill did not specify a minimum number of GRCs, nor how GRCs were to be allocated between the Malay community and the Indian and Other Minority communities. Representations were received that this should be done. The Bill has been amended to ensure that there will always be GRCs to return at least one-quarter of the total number of MPs in a general election. What this means is that there will always be a certain number of MPs coming from the minority communities. This number is seven, on the basis of 79 Members of Parliament.

The Bill has also been amended to provide for the distribution of GRCs between Malays and Indian and Other Minority communities. Three-fifths of the total number of GRCs will go to the Malay community and two-fifths to the Indian and Other Minority communities. The fraction of three-fifths is decided upon because the Malay population make up 63% or about three-fifths of the total non-Chinese population in Singapore. As the ratio of Malays to Indians and Others is likely to change only gradually, the formula for distributing the GRCs amongst them is not expected to change over the next 20 years.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the Select Committee benefited from the submissions it received and in particular from the oral evidence given by the 12 representors and their witnesses. It has incorporated many of the points made in the revised Bill. I thank them all. Not all representors and witnesses agreed with the GRC proposal, as must be expected. But all agreed that a multi-racial Parliament is essential to political stability. These representors who did not agree with the GRC proposal were given the opportunity to propose a better system/scheme than the GRC proposal to achieve this. The Select Committee is satisfied that there is no better proposal than the GRC. In fact, there is merit in the suggestion by several representors that the GRC concept should be extended to the whole of Singapore. There could be 20 GRCs for the whole of Singapore with each GRC returning four candidates. Each team must have at least a member of the minority community. If we have a Parliament of 80 Members, there would thus be at least 20 MPs coming from the minority communities, ie, the Malay, Indian, Eurasian and Other Minority communities. This is equal to the proportion in the population.

The main argument for returning MPs on a team basis throughout Singapore is that it entrenches multi-racial politics in every constituency. It leaves no room for communal politics. It is an idea which we should consider implementing sometime in the future, after we have proven that the election of MPs on a team basis enhances racial harmony and preserves political stability. Our concept of GRC is innovative and, to the best of my knowledge, without precedent. Many countries have multiple-member constituencies, like Japan and Thailand. But none elects them on a team basis. They do not have to because these countries are homogeneous. They do not have cleavages along ethnic lines. They are homogeneous societies in the ethnic sense which, if divided,is divided along socio-economic or ideological lines. In such societies, the Westminster model of democracy by majority rule may work. If there is a change in power, it is between two groups with different socio-economic perceptions. But in multi-racial societies, majority rule is likely to end up with a tyranny of the majority over the minority communities. It is unlikely that there will be alternation of power because numerically the majority community will always win elections on the basis of one-man-one-vote.

Our Team MP concept is to meet a particular problem of a unique multi-racial society where cleavages along racial, linguistic and religious lines are sharper than cleavages along socio-economic lines. It is our modification of the Westminster model of democracy, based on our experience and the dismal experience of many Third World countries which are multi-racial, multi-tribal in nature, which practises the British model of democracy without modifications, our Team MP concept is unique in another way. It is benevolent. The Constitutional change is initiated by the majority to directly benefit the minority communities without any direct benefit to itself. It is our way of sharing our future together, of giving Singaporeans, whether Malays, Indians, Chinese, Eurasians or Others, that feeling of belonging to a single nation.

Sir, I beg to move.

Question proposed.

Dr Aline K. Wong (Changkat): Sir, I rise to support the recommendations made by the Select Committee on the two proposed Bills. I am sure many Singaporeans would also like to thank the Select Committee for its work as well as the 99 individuals and organizations which took the time and trouble to present their views on the two Bills. Sir, the Bills are of extreme significance to our system of Parliamentary democracy and surely deserve the closest scrutiny by the nation.

The greatest majority of the representations, in fact, 78 out of 96, support the concept of a multi-racial Parliament and the need to take immediate steps to ensure representation of the minority communities. So the question is, what form of multi-racial representation would best serve our long-term interests? It is significant that 50 out of the 78 who support multi-racial representation also support the GRC format. Apart from the fact that the GRC format is the best among the alternatives, I think an additional and very compelling reason why this concept should be adopted is its unique ability to allow, indeed encourage, negotiation, bargaining and compromises among the different ethnic groups before the representatives are elected to Parliament. In fact, when I heard this exposition of the unique advantage of this system, my eyes really opened. The GRC will help to avert extremist pressures from the different communities on the respective representatives.

Sir, extremist pressures can emerge again any time. Racial attitudes and ethnic community interests can never be wiped out, no matter how well we succeed in building a Singaporean identity among our people. During the discussions on Team MPs in conjunction with the National Agenda Debate throughout last year, some quarters of the Chinese population were vocalizing their concern that the Malays in Singapore had already enjoyed some exclusive privileges and that, with the Team MP system, the minorities would, in fact, be given a special leverage over political parties. On the part of the Indian community, expectations were also raised. In fact, some quarters among the Indian community felt they had been relatively neglected. Thus it is very prudent of the Select Committee to recognize such feelings among the Indian community and to recommend that it be specifically mentioned whenever reference to the Other Minorities is made in the Bills.

As for the Malay community, there was considerable effort to persuade the Select Committee to include Islam in the definition of Malayness. This is understandable because Islam is an integral part of Malay culture and social life. But I strongly agree with the view of the Select Committee that, since Singapore is a secular state, it is not appropriate to include religious affiliation as a criterion for any of its legislations. Besides, this will create a dangerous precedent, for other religions may also clamour for equal treatment and for exclusive affiliation with this or that particular ethnic community. It is thus wise to let the community of the Malays and the Indians to define the members of their own groups by themselves.

However, it is noted that the definition of ethnic group membership for the purposes of the Bills is actually entrusted to the Malay and Indian and Other Minorities Committees and the decisions of these Committees will be final. While this is a practical necessity, I am afraid some problems may arise in practice. An example is related to our official classification of the population into four races for many administrative and statistical purposes. The official classifications of our population to Chinese, Malay, Indian and Other categories are clearly indicated on our personal identity cards. A very difficult and sensitive situation will arise if a person whose identity card indicates he or she is a member of a minority group yet finds himself or herself unacceptable to the Minorities Committee concerned for the purposes of standing for election.

Sir, the revised Bill provides for a minimum number of minority representatives to be returned at each general election. At least one-quarter of the MPs should be returned through the GRCs. This means the number of Minority MPs in the House will be at least seven out of 79, or roughly 10%, if only one out of three in each team is a Minority candidate. This proportion will be higher if some of the teams have more than one Minority candidate or if some Minority candidates are returned from the single-member constituencies. As for the upper limit, under the proposed system where up to one-half of the total number of MPs can be returned through GRCs, the upper limit for Minority MPs can theoretically, although in practice highly unlikely, be as high as 50% or more. There is one suggestion among the representations to the Select Committee that the GRC system should be extended to the whole of Singapore. But bearing in mind the theoretical upper limit, I think it is advisable to restrict the coverage of GRCs to only half of Singapore at the moment until the system has been tested, and this is also recommended by the Select Committee. Moreover, if GRCs were to be extended to the whole of Singapore, then independent candidates will have to team up among themselves also. That issue has also got to be carefully sorted out.

One cannot help noticing the slight shift in the Select Committee's acceptance of some principle of proportional representation, as in the recommendation that three -fifths of the total number of GRCS should be GRCs with Malay candidates. Also, in the Select Committee's apparent agreement with the view that if the GRC is extended to the whole of Singapore and if each GRC returns four MPs, at least one of which is a minority candidate, then there will be at least 20 Minority MPs reflecting the population proportion of minorities. As I recall, proportional representation was not favoured at the very beginning because of the tendency of this type of system to appeal to communalist sentiments. Fortunately, the teaming-up of MPs under the GRC format will blunt such tendencies. I really agree that the GRC concept is the most innovative one, a highly ingenious idea.

Finally, Sir, the GRC concept has come a long way since it was mooted more than a year ago. The reasons behind the proposal are now much, much clearer. Perhaps in retrospect, the reasons should have been made much clearer to the people so that some of the uneasy feelings and cynicisms regarding the Government's intention would have been avoided. For example, the way Singaporeans have been voting during the last series of general elections all the way from as early as 1955 showed that race was a consideration in the way we voted, and this was shown in Tables 2, 3 and 4 during the Select Committee hearings. I think that kind of information and persuasion should have been done much earlier to avoid some of the misunderstandings already generated.

Another example was that again we cannot help but recall that the GRC concept was originally coupled with the Town Council concept, giving rise to much confusion. But, Sir, the GRC, as proposed, can absolutely stand on its own. It will become an important foundation for our political stability. Once the electorate has had a chance to see how the system works, I am sure it will appreciate much more the foresight of our Government in institutionalizing this system.

Mr Chiam See Tong: Much obliged to you, Mr Deputy Speaker. With the introduction of the GRC, we are actually institutionalizing race as an issue in every election. I think the Government has set a precedent which in the long term may have great problems for Singapore.

I think the Government should look closely at what has happened in Cyprus. As you all know, Cyprus comprises two major racial groups - the Greeks and the Turks. The Greek portion comprises about 70% of the population and the Turkish population is about 30%. When they were given independence to become the Republic of Cyprus, the British gave them a constitution which provided for communal considerations. In other words, in the legislature, they have got 70% Greek representation and 30% Turkish representation and, in fact,this is also represented in every area of official life in Cyprus - the army, the police, government departments, and down the line the division is set at 70:30 for intakes into those organizations.

What happened to Cyprus? Did this communal division create harmony? Far from it. In fact, the situation got even worse. If they had started off like Singapore, just let the population mix and do not compartmentalize, perhaps the situation could have been better. But in 1974, the situation got so bad that there was an invasion from Turkey, and in the end the country had to be divided. So one part comprised mainly of Turkish people and the other part the Greeks. Of course, in Singapore, we are too small to have two parts. I do not think the Malays can be confined to Geylang Serai or to Kampong Ubi.

But the lesson is that if we have got laws based on communal lines, it does not solve the problem. Perhaps the model we should try to follow, or at least try to learn our lessons from, is America. America is the melting pot. I am not saying that we should be like America but we can take lessons from America. They have been successful in creating not only a nation but a very dynamic nation to become a world power, to be a super-power.

The First Deputy Prime Minister has said that countries like Japan are homogeneous. There are no cleavages. I think we cannot use that as an excuse. I think we should look at other countries where there are communal problems. What about Switzerland? They also have got communal problems, and they are getting on just fine because the important thing is not to protect the rights of each individual community but, in fact, the idea of nation building should be inculcated in the whole population. That is the important thing. That is why Switzerland succeeded. The people are taught from young to work and to strive for one nation. They do not think themselves as French or Germans or Italians - those countries are adjacent to their country. But they think as one people - Swiss.

In Singapore, we are already on the road to becoming one nation, as a senior citizen, Mr C C Tan, has said. In fact, he gave compliments to the PAP. The PAP has done a good job in nation building. We are on our way. We have got one education system now. Our children are going to the same school. We are all striving for one nation, in particular, the majority community, the Chinese. When the communists took over China, the Chinese in Singapore got nowhere to go. They cannot return to China, like in the early days. They are cut off. Their bridges are burned behind them. They have to make Singapore their home and we are making Singapore our home. I think we have done a good job of it since 1964. When was it that we last heard of a racial riot in Singapore? When? I cannot think of one.

An hon. Member: 1969.

Another hon. Member: 1964.

Mr Chiam See Tong: Yes, since 1964, that is what I said. 1969 - in Malaysia. So there were really no serious problems in which the Government could not contain. Of course, as the Member for Changkat has said, there will be extremist pressures. There will be, but they will not beof such a national scale that we have to tamper with our Constitution and change it to give a quota of Malay seats in this House. What will be the next step? The Malays will be clamouring, "Well, Parliamentary repre- sentation is not good enough. We also want a quota in the civil service. We want a quota in the statutory boards. We want a quota in the schools. We want a quota in the university." There is no end to it. In fact, they have a right to demand because in Article 152 of the Constitution makes them a privileged group. They are the recognized indigenous people of Singapore and they have a right to special privileges - in education, in economics, social and other areas. So you have started the ball rolling. You have given a quota in Parliament. Parliamentary representation to them is not enough. They will want more because that is the next logical step, and how is the Government going to explain that?

To us in the Opposition we know the true reason why you are going to implement these GRCs. Keep the Opposition away. Perpetuate the PAP rule. The Opposition has got no Malay candidates. They cannot find credible Malay candidates. That is what the Government thinks. But if the people of Singapore do want an opposition, they will return the Opposition, whether there is GRC or whether there is single seat constituency. What happens in the areas where the Opposition are strong? They say in the Bedok area and in the Bukit Merah area the Opposition are purportedly to be strong. You have your GRCs there. Well, Potong Pasir, all right.

An hon. Member: Are you sure of winning?

Mr Chiam See Tong: We are not afraid of GRCs.

An hon. Member: Have a GRC.

Mr Chiam See Tong: You have your GRCs in those areas to preserve your candidates, make sure that they are elected. What happens if they are not elected because the tide is so great that even the GRCs cannot stem the change in voting pattern? What then? You want to think of some other schemes? Again, to quote the Member for Changkat, she says this is a very highly innovative idea. Well, this Government has got all kinds of ideas. What will be the next innovative idea if you continue to lose seats in the next election? The First Deputy Prime Minister has envisaged two scenarios - one, 20-30% losses, and the other one, a freak election, according to him. I do not think it is going to be a freak election. It is the desire of the people if they want to return the Opposition.

In my mind, I do not think that even with this GRC you can stem the tide of the Opposition. We know the Government is nervous. We know the Government is lacking in confidence - the way they have reacted recently with the GRC, one arm of the pincer and the ISA on the other arm of the pincer, they tried to squeeze the Opposition, but I do not think they will succeed.

But I think the most important thing in our mind is nation building. Is it really good for our nation? Do we want to perpetuate racialism as an issue at every election that issue will have to come up, and however you define Malay or who is a Malay, there will always be dissatisfaction. As it is already, there is dissatisfaction because the Malays in Singapore cannot do without Islam. To them, Malay is synonymous with Islam. This is a special feature in Singapore. It is true we want to be a secular state and I support that. But the Government is saying that we want a secular state on the one hand but, on the other hand, you are bringing in religion as an issue. How can you define a Malay, according to the majority of Malays in Singapore, without bringing in Islam? But of course the Government circumvents that by having a Committee. It is not our responsibility. Whenever the Government wants to shift responsibility, it is very easy. Just shift it to a Committee - "We have nothing to do with it. It is the Committee which decides." But who appoints the members of that Committee? So it is for the Committee to decide whether Tan Ah Bah is a Malay or not, or whether Mohammed bin Abdullah is a Malay. But these names can be very misleading. As I have already pointed out in the Committee you can have in fact, under our present amended definition, three, four, five, or in fact more, persons not from the Malay race and are recognized as Malays by the Committee. Then if we look around, we see where are the Malay representatives in this House, we may not see any, if they go just by race. So I do not think you are really fulfilling your aim of wanting to have racial representation or minority representation which in fact is racial representation in Singapore. Hopefully, this amendment to our Constitution and to our Parliamentary Elections Act will not end up as "Cyprus" state.

Mr Abdullah Tarmugi (Siglap): Sir, 99 representations were sent to the Select Committee on the proposed GRC legislation, the biggest number so far received by a Select Committee and representing a good cross-section of the population. That the Bill should arouse so much interest is understandable as it impinges on how the people's representatives are to be selected and elected in the future. Now, whatever imperfections it may be purported to suffer, they do not overwhelm the benefit that accrues to this society, and that is, the institutionalization of a multi-racial Parliament, not racial politics, as contended.

Sir, the need for us to perpetuate this characteristic in this country has been widely accepted and amply argued these past few months and reiterated again during the deliberations of the Committee. If it is a concession by the majority to the minorities, as some representors have stated, it further proves, Sir, the boldness, the seriousness and the commitment that this Government has to multi-racialism and to ensure that every commmunity here has a place in the sun. Then, Sir, there are those who argue that the minorities would, under the proposed system, wield undue political leverage. And while it may seem that way on first examination, it glosses over the more complex and perhaps less pessimistic position. The actual mechanics of getting a minority into a team of three would involve a bargaining process that would mute or moderate extreme political positions among the potential candidates. It has to be, and not as has been suggested by the Member for Potong Pasir that it could lead to an increased clamouring of rights and privileges by any group. This, Sir, is the politics of accommodation by both the majority and the minority, a more rational if not safer brand of politics than the politics of communalism or politics of confrontation, given the sensitivities that exist in and around our nation.

Let me now, Sir, come to two specific issues on the Bill. Sir, as the Committee hearings progressed and after reading its Report and after hearing the Member for Potong Pasir, it occurred to me that there is still some confusion over what is ethnicity or commonly referred to as race and what clause 6, section 27(A), subsection (7) hopes to deal with. The latter, Sir, does not seek to define ethnicity, does not seek to define who or what is a Malay. It merely specifies two necessary conditions to be fulfilled before anyone could be taken as one belonging to the Malay community. These two conditions, Sir, are that the person considers himself to be a member of that community and is accepted as such by that community. To me, it is rather facetious to suggest that a Maori who merely marries a person who leads a Malay way of life would fit the bill, for it grossly over-simplifies the issue. Even if in the remote theoretical realm this could be possible, I cannot see it happening in reality. It is not, Sir, as if one could simply become a member of the community and to be accepted by that community as such overnight and by such simple acts as marrying one from that community or merely declaring that one considers himself to be a member of that community.

Acceptance, Sir, is much more complex. It depends on a whole bundle of values, attitudes and attributes which the community itself, in turn, determines, defines, and accepts. And it is the spirit and intent of the Bill to leave it to the community to decide.

Mr Chiam See Tong: What about religion?

Mr Abdullah Tarmugi: So be it. This is where the Malay Community Committee comes in as the arbiter who have to set its own clear and comprehensive guidelines and endorsed [I repeat "endorsed"] by the community. And for that matter, the composition of this Committee is crucial if its authority and credibility are not to be questioned. It is for this reason that I welcome the proposed amendment to require the Presidential Council for Minority Rights to consult organizations in the Malay community before making nominations as to who should sit in the Malay Community Committee.

I also welcome, Sir, the amendment to the original definition on who could belong to the Malay community in clause 6. Feedback has it that not only it is simpler, but it also removes the unhappiness associated with the lengthier and more contentious definition originally put. I have earlier argued why its apparent looseness and therefore invites the risk of including almost anybody, as some alleged) need not be a worry at all.

Lastly, Sir, I welcome the proposed amendment specifying that three-fifths of the total number of GRCs will have to be those with Malay candidates. This should put to rest any uncertainty on the number of Malay candidates to be in the GRCs. However, I assume that this is not a limiting provision in the sense that there could still be Malay candidates who stand in single constituencies. For while I too accept the argument that they need not be representative, a proportional number of Malays as MPs, if no suitable or quality candidates are to be found, the three-fifths rule should not be taken as the maximum number at this point.

Sir, I support the Bill.

Dr Ow Chin Hock (Leng Kee): ( In Mandarin): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the Report of the Select Committee on GRC contains fourimportant points. First, there were as many as 99 representations from the public, which is the largest number ever received by a Select Committee. The number of representations is unprecedented. This reflects the concern of the people for the political reform and their serious concern for this Bill. However, the ratio of the representations by to race is disproportionate to the racial distribution of the population. Moreover, different races express different views on the Bill. The second point is that the great majority of the representors agree that in an election, race is a factor to be considered. This means that the race of a candidate and the racial proportion of the voters can affect the result of an election. The third point is that the majority of the representations accept the concept that there should be multi-racial representation in Parliament. More than half of the representors also accepted the GRC system. Although there were other suggested alternatives to GRC, the Committee thought that their demerits weighted their merits, or they are no better than the GRC proposal. The fourth point is that the Select Committee, having heard the views of the representors and with the benefit of collective wisdom, amended certain important provisions of the Bill, which include the definition of a Malay, the explicit inclusion of "Indian" as one of the minority communities, and the stipulation of the minimum number of GRC MPs.

As regards the first point, namely, the racial composition of the representors and their reactions can be seen in Tables 2 and 3 of the Report (Pages IV and V). Although the Chinese form 76% of the total population, only 34 submissions were received. This represents 37% of the total number of submissions accepted. Whereas the Malays who form 15% of the total population, submitted 20% of the total representations. And the Indians, who form only 7% of the total population, submitted 37% of the total number. Besides this diverse ratio of representations and what the 1DPM earlier termed as power of the majority, there could be other reasons. This perhaps reflects the different racial characteristics. Generally Chinese do not like to dispute, nor do they want to vent their views in the open with a mass audience. Another interpretation is that most of the Chinese accept, given the political reality, that there is a with need for multi-racial representation in Parliament. However, many Chinese have some reservations about the new system as contained in the Bill; for example, some of them think that this would give too much power to the minorities to bear upon political parties.

Table 3 of the Report shows that out of the 34 representations by the Chinese, 11 are against any change to the system. The ratio is almost 1 to 3. This is higher than that for the other racial representations. So, while attending to the reactions of the minorities to this Bill, we should also be mindful of to the feelings of the Chinese. We should convince the Chinese that for the long-term benefit of the nation and long-term interest of the society harmony of Singapore, it is necessary to give this kind of political concession. This is a price to pay in exchange for racial harmony and political stability. We can come to mutual agree- ment in times of peace and stability when we are cool-headed and rational. This would be far better than being forced to reach a compromise after some racial trouble or turmoil. In the Book of I-Ching there is a saying that "When in peace one should not forget danger, when in a stable situation, one should not forget disturbances. Only in so doing, one may be safe and the nation may be preserved". ( ) I hope all our countrymen will be able to bear in mind this maxim.

On the definition of "a person belonging to the Malay community", there are different views. But the Select Committee thought fit to amend it so that it is left to the Malay community itself to decide. It is a judicious method. Some suggested that religion, language, tradition and customs be used explicitly as criteria. If these were to apply to the Chinese MPs here, I wonder how many would have qualified as Chinese. In fact, it is no simple matter to give a precise definition to a race. Therefore, the said amended provisions are the most practical.

The Select Committee has another suggestion, ie, the number of GRC MPs should be at least one-quarter and not more than half of the total number of MPs. In addition, 60% of the GRCs should include Malay candidates. That means to say that at least one-twelfth or 8% of the MPs should be non -Chinese or at least one-twentieth or 5% should be Malay. On the other hand, although the GRC MPs should not be more than half the total, non-Chinese MPs need not be limited to one-sixth of the total. They can still stand in the non-GRC constituencies. So, compared to a rigid implementation of GRC system throughout the country, this stipulation has much greater flexibility.

Today, after the Bill has passed the Third Reading, it marks a milestone in our political history. This Bill not only protects the political rights and interests of the minorities, hence reducing the unstable factors in the multi-racial politics, but it also goes a step further to institutionalize multi-racial politics, hence strengthening the foundation of our democracy. There- fore, I do not agree with the Member for Potong Pasir's views that this Bill would lead to the institutionalization of racialism. He gave some countries as examples. He mentioned Cyprus. I do not accept his argument because the situation in Cyprus is not the same as what is suggesting in GRC. There, the ethnic Greeks and Turks elect MPs of their own respective races. We have a different ethnic compositions. His example is irrelevant to the contents and concept of this Bill. He also mentioned USA. Although it has a history of 200 years, at its Presidential primary of the Democratic Party held recently in New York, the three candidates had to canvass for the support of the whites, the blacks and the Jews. This shows that race is an important factor in its election.

At the Second Reading of the Bill I had said that we should seek concord among diversities. On the one hand, we should promote national identity among various races. On the other hand, we must also recognize the differences among our different races in language, in culture and in other aspects. Otherwise, if we close our eyes to these differences, we shall be deceiving ourselves. Once we can recognize these differences, we should try to accommodate one another. We should all support this Bill, as it is worthy of our support. There is a saying in the book of history "Lu's Chronicles" that "The world and time change, so must laws change too." ( ) Therefore, in this spirit, I support the Motion moved by the First Deputy Prime Minister.

Dr S. Vasoo (Bo Wen): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I rise to support the Bill. The GRC Bill attracted many representations from individuals and organizations representing the minority groups. I must say that the Malays and Indians were well represented, more so the Indian community. This is understandable because the Bill relates to the future participation of minority groups in the political arena.

Sir, having no opportunity to participate in the political arena can be very dangerous. The Member for Potong Pasir suggested, "Why not allow a free market in terms of political participation?" Free market participation in politics can generate a host of problems. There is no guarantee that minority groups will be represented in Parliament. I think it is crucial that the GRC Bill, which will be passed, should allow minority groups to represent their own groups interests. This does not mean that we will enter into the realm of racial politics. But it is in our interests, particularly our social and political interests, to ensure various community groups be represented in the political arena. Hence, I see that the GRC ensures that minority groups, Malays, Indians and Others, will be able to be heard, their viewpoints considered in parliamentary processes. If we do not allow this opportunity or channel for minority groups to be represented, I think the consequences can be very grave, and it could be very serious in terms of the social, political climate of Singapore.

It is interesting to note that 19% of those who made submissions were against the GRC concept. This is a very small minority. However, Sir, we must note that the majority of the submissions supported the GRC concept itself and this suggests that there is strong support for ensuring multi-racial Parliament in Singapore. I must say that it is the reflections of the sentiments of various Singaporeans to this crucial issue which relates to the representation of minority groups in Parliament.

Sir, I would like to make a few observations on the recommendations of the Select Committee on the GRC Bill. First, the deliberation of the Select Committee was exhaustive and it took into consideration the various definitions and the parameters for participation in the political arena under the GRC. The sentiments of the various community groups were considered and their viewpoints noted. These were reflected in the various aspects of the Report. I do not see that many of the useful viewpoints were neglected in terms of the Bill.

Secondly, I would like to point out that the GRC concept, as proposed, seems to be more feasible than other ideas put forward by individuals and groups who appeared before the Select Committee. Many ideas were floated but these somehow did not provide the basis for clear directions or a clear formulation in terms of the operation of the GRC itself.

Thirdly, the concern of the Indian community was considered by the Select Committee. Indians are now explicitly mentioned when referring to "other minorities". This is indeed a positive decision and certainly welcomed by the Indians as they are now assured that they are a recognized group in the context of Singapore. I am sure fellow Singaporean Indians who have made representations for such a recognition will be happy to note that their views have been considered.

Sir, I would like to draw attention specifically to the new section 8A which has been incorporated in the Bill. The new section 8A apportions the number of GRCs for each minority group, ie, three-fifths for Malays, two-fifths for Indians and Others in terms of the GRC provision. This proportion appears to be adequate for the time being. But what I am trying to foresee is: would such a provision change over time? We note that there will be dramatic changes in terms of the population demography. Will this therefore affect the provision of GRCs in the future? Will the GRC also spread wide into the various new towns with small concentrations of minority groups?

The other issue that I would also like to bring up is: who will decide on the final allocation of GRCs itself, which is currently being spelt out in the Bill? But in terms of future allocation for Malays and other minorities, who will ultimately decide on the allocation?

Sir, in the final analysis, we have to ask ourselves whether the GRC Bill would ensure Singapore's social and political stability. This is a fundamental question that we will have to ask ourselves. Critics will say that the GRC Bill is directed at bringing about racial polarization. It will bring about racial politics. It is not feasible in the context of Singapore. Many of these have been alluded. I think many criticisms have been put forward, for example, the viewpoints of the Member for Potong Pasir. What is most important is to ensure that there are adequate channels for minority groups to be represented, and the GRC Bill provides for this. We cannot allow for free market to enter in the realms of the political scene. If we allow it to chance, then the danger will be that minority groups may not be represented in our Parliament. Is this what we want in the long run - the minority groups to live by chance and ultimately have no representation at all? I do not think that Singaporeans will want this to happen. Therefore, I see that the GRC would allow for the representation of the minority groups and I support the Bill, Sir.

Mr Chiam See Tong: Sir, may I be allowed to make a point of clarification on what the Member for Bo Wen has said? He said that free market type of elections would bring about a host of problems. I would like to remind the Member for Bo Wen that, in fact, we have this system since 1948, For almost 40 years, we have this free market type of elections. I want to ask him: what are the problems that he is thinking of? We have no such problems in the last 40 years.

Dr Vasoo: Sir, in response to the Member for Potong Pasir, I mean free market politics with people who are sensible, people who have a good sense of direction. I do not mean that Singaporeans are not sensible, but I mean sensible politicians who enter the political arena. This is the basic thing. If you have people who are not sensible and who enter politics to drum up racial issues, who talk about rights, who are not sensitive to the communal texture of Singapore, this will lead to a lot of disruptions. I think the Member for Potong Pasir would like to see that there will be this arena for communal politics.

Mr Chiam See Tong: I am not convinced.

Encik Wan Hussin bin Haji Zoohri (Kampong Ubi): ( In Malay): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, in support of the Bill today, I wish to make some observations on the PKMS proposal made in its representation to the Select Committee. The PKMS proposed giving two votes to the Malay community, one of which is to enable the Malay community to elect its own representatives. But if we look at the GRC proposal, its real aim is to ensure multi-racial representation in Parliament. In Singapore the Malay community is not the only minority community. There are other minority communities like the Indians and others. If two votes are to be given to the minority Malay community, would it not be possible that the minority Indian community would also demand two votes? So what would happen is that a few communities will be electing their own representatives. What would be the result? Once they are elected, as has been observed by the First Deputy Prime Minister, it would mean that they would once again raise demands or issues in their communities' interests alone, because they have received the mandate from their community to do so. If this continues, such a stance would draw the attention of the majority, that is, the Chinese and willy-nilly, within the majority there will be groups seeking to protect their interests. Each community, like it or not, would have to put up its own racial defences, and from behind these racial defences each would launch attacks of a totally racial nature. The result would be the creation of three communal groups participating in an arena of communal politics that supersede national political concerns. Mr Deputy Speaker, this formula ie, where a vote is vested in a particular community, would result in a conflagration of communal politics. But the real reason behind the PKMS formula is simply to find an opportunity to bring to a height their brand of communal politics. This is what I call the politics of a wolf in sheep's clothing. On the surface, this proposal appears to be a sound one. Ostensibly, it seems rather safe. But in this formula in fact there lies hidden a smouldering, sinister threat. We do not wonder why PKMS has been taking this line ever since its formation. Because PKMS, besides being the abbreviation of its party name, to my mind, can also stand for the slogan "Politik Kaum Melayu Sahaja" or Malays-Only Politics. Or we can interpret PKMS as "Politik Ketinggalan Masa Sekarang" or Outdated Politics.

Singapore political history has proven that the PKMS political philosophy, this Malays-Only politics, is a failure. Ever since we achieved independence, this philosophy has been rejected by the multi-racial community of Singapore. Ever since our independence, the politics of PKMS has been one of dancing to a discordant political tune; they have been dancing to one and the same tune, a communalistic tune. May I propose that PKMS change its slogan, from the Malays-Only Politics to a new kind of politics, a new slogan, a new PKMS in new clothing, "Politik Keseluruhan Masyarakat Singapura", Politics of the Whole Community of Singapore, not politics of the Malay community alone. And I would also propose that PKMS change its old political philosophy, so that they would be able to dance to a multiple of tunes, instead of to a single tune, that of communal politics. Does PKMS dare to declare that in its existing form, PKMS is outdated and that its political philosophy cannot be validated by the plural society of Singapore? Is PKMS bold enough to declare this and turn into a new PKMS, subscribing to a philosophy that is in tune with the political rhythm of Singapore? Keep PKMS in step with the politics of the whole community of Singapore. And in the final analysis, dissolve the old PKMS and register a new PKMS with a new philosophy.

Mr Heng Chiang Meng (Jalan Kayu): Sir, I was listening to the Member for Potong Pasir when he asked us to learn from the United States. I waited with abated breath to see what we can really learn. He came up with really nothing new. But more importantly, in the next breath, he says that he fears that the GRC may open up a Pandora's box and may lead to demands for quotas, for example, for jobs in the civil service, for quotas for various types of minority races in various organizations.

Sir, I just want to ask him whether he knows that in the US there are such things as minority affirmative action programmes for the minorities. For example, for the negros, for the blacks, for the Spanish in New York, for the Chinese in California, and so on. Does he not know that ---

Mr Chiam See Tong: Can I just clarify?

Mr Heng Chiang Meng: Sir, I will allow him to have ---

Mr Chiam See Tong: As far as I know, there is no affirmative action for Chinese.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Chiam, can you please allow Mr Heng to finish his speech? Continue, Mr Heng.

Mr Heng Chiang Meng: Does he not know that in the US they also have a lot of minority problems, so much so that in the 50s or 60s, they needed things like a busing policy to bring about integration of the minority into the mainstream of the society there? Has he really forgotten the history books telling us about the Little Rock incident, about cases where the system had led to their black sportsmen declaring Black Power in the international sports arena?

Sir, we have only just about two years ago celebrated our 20 years of independence. Let us not forget that the United States in 1976 celebrated 200 years of independence. Sir, perhaps with the GRC in place, in 200 years' time we can say truly that we are a non-racial society. But let us recognize now, after only 20 years of independence, that we are still a multi-racial society and not a non-racial society. And with this multi-racialism as part of our societal fabric, I am afraid we must recognize that there are such things as communal tensions, that 20 years of living together as an independent nation is not sufficient to bring about a solution or to put to rest these communal tensions and problems.

In the GRC proposal, Sir, I think the Government has honestly, sincerely and seriously recognized that there are such problems and has tried to bring about a system to try to contain these problems as much as possible. Sir, I do agree that the system is not perfect but, as the First Deputy Prime Minister has said earlier, in the absence of a better system, why not adopt the best that is possible right now. At the same time, I also agree that the system, even if we implement it to the best of our ability, will not eradicate racialism overnight. There would still be problems. But at least the system gives us the chance to minimize this problem and for that, Sir, I support the motion.

Mr Deputy Speaker: I suspend the Sitting now and take the Chair again at 2 o'clock. Order.

Sitting accordingly suspended at 12.55 pm until 2.00 pm. Sitting resumed at 2.00 pm

[Mr Deputy Speaker in the Chair]

Debate resumed.

Mr Goh Chok Tong: Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, first, I thank the Members of Parliament for their contributions. The PAP Members of Parliament who spoke supported the Bill. They have not raised any substantive points of disagreement or queries for me to answer. They all support the spirit behind the amendments of the GRC proposal as well as the mechanism of the GRC proposal.

The Member for Bo Wen raised three questions which I would like to reply. One, if the population changes in terms of its composiiton, whether there will be changes to the formula for distributing the seats amongst the Malays and Indians and other minority communities. The answer must be yes. But, as I said in my speech, I do not expect that the population composition will change to any significant extent over the next 20 years. So the formula which we have will remain stable for about 20 years. Thereafter, maybe a revision is in order and, of course, Parliament at that point of time has got to debate and see how the allocation will be changed.

Would the GRCs be spread across the whole of Singapore? This is a matter for the Elections Department to decide. I would expect the answer to be so. I would not expect GRCs to be concentrated in one area of Singapore, say, for example, the eastern part of Singapore. I would expect them to be distributed throughout Singapore - GRCs in the east, GRCs in the west, north, south, central.

Who decides on the allocation between Malays and the other communities of GRCs? The President decides. But the President would have, in this case, to take the advice of the Government on which GRCs will be for Malays and which GRCs for Indians and other minority communities.

The Member for Potong Pasir, true to form, opposed the Bill. If you refer to his Second Reading speech, which I did last night, you will find that it was exactly the same speech which he made. The same points were made in January. He has not advanced his arguments further. No new arguments and no new data to back old arguments. He cited again the example of Cyprus to warn us that we are falling into the trap of institutionalizing racialism through the GRC proposal. The Member is less than honest. He is telling us half-truths because he has not told this House that the Cyprus Constitution provided for a system where the Greek Cypriots voted for Greek Cypriots and the Turks for the Turks.

When the British gave independence to Cyprus, that was the arrangement for power sharing. The Greek Cypriots and the Turk Cypriots fought it out and they finally agreed on a constitution which distributed power in accordance with the proportion in the population. Not only were seats in Parliament distributed as per the constitution but seats in civil service, in jobs, and right down to broadcasting. I referred to the constitution when I was working on my Second Reading speech. The bargaining went down to details. In broadcasting, the number of hours for broadcast in Greek, in Turkish, was spelt out in the constitution. But that was necessary because they could not agree otherwise on how to share power. But in 1963, the Greeks, because they are in the majority (forming about 70% of the population) decided to change things in their favour - what I call "tyranny of the majority over the minority". The Turkish Cypriots rioted and that led to intervention by the Turks.

Far from institutionalizing racialism in our Constitution, we are trying to institutionalize multi-racialism. We are not proposing a concept whereby Malays vote for Malays, Chinese for Chinese, Indians for Indians. The Cyprus constitution which the Member for Potong Pasir cited is similar to the proposal by PKMS - a proposal which he himself has rejected, and that is, a constitution which allows voters to vote along communal lines. So this fine distinction between the Cyprus situation and ours must be understood. If you do not understand this, you may think that maybe we are making a mistake. We are entrenching racialism in our Constitution and we will end up the way of Cyprus which the Member for Potong Pasir feared. No such thing. We will not end up the way of Cyprus because we are getting the communities to come together, to accommodate one another, and for the leaders to stand together as a team.

Next, he advised us to look at the USA model, melting pot, where Americans of different races, religions, cultures get together and somehow through the melting pot an American citizen emerges. I do not quite understand the meaning of "melting pot" because watching the current elections in the US for the next President, it is quite clear that Jesse Jackson has got no chance of winning and becoming the next President. His support came from predominantly black areas. Of course, some whites supported him but it is clear that his support came mainly from areas which are predominantly black. If you study the pattern in other parts of the United States, as the Member for Jalan Kayu pointed out, race has not been blurred. So even in the United States, this melting pot concept is only an airy- fairy ideal. When it comes down to real politics, race plays a very important part, and it still does in the US.

He then advised us to follow the Swiss model. The Member for Potong Pasir has got to decide whether we use the Swiss model or the American model because the two models are different. One is the so-called melting pot model. The other one accepts the differences between communities. I think his suggestion that we follow the Swiss model is correct. I have also, before this, done some in-depth research into the Swiss model. The spirit in which the Swiss organized their political affairs applies to us in Singapore. Since we last discussed the GRC proposal in this House to provide for election of MPs on a team basis, the more we discuss the more convinced I am that we are on the right track.

Soon after our debate in January, the Swiss Ambassador sent our Prime Minister an article on "Federalism in Switzerland". It is written by Vernon Bogdanor, a Fellow and Senior Tutor of Brasenose College, Oxford. The experience of the Swiss, as analysed by the author in the article, reinforces our conviction of the soundness of our GRC proposal. The author made three illuminating points which are relevant to Singapore. One, Switzerland succeeds as a politically stable country because it is a state based upon the acceptance of differences between ethnic groups. Acceptance of differences, not a melting pot idea. If you are a Malay, we accept you as a Malay. If you are an Indian we accept you as an Indian. If you are a German Swiss, the French Swiss accepts him as a German Swiss.

Two, in a plural society divided by language, ethnicity, religion or race, the Westminster Model view of democracy of majority rule has to be modified. Three, in a plural society, it is the spirit of the constitution, the informal arrangements, the political culture, that will make or break the society, not the formal institutions. It is the spirit behind the constitution that is important, the informal arrangements, not as in the case of Cyprus, the formal arrangement of power sharing between Greeks and Turks.

Switzerland has a population of 6(r) million. It has four linguistic groups - German, spoken by nearly three-quarters of Swiss citizens; French, spoken by one-fifth; Italian spoken by 4.5%; and Romanche, by just under 1%. So four distinct linguistic groups. The population is more or less equally divided between two main religious groups - Protestant and Catholic. So like Singapore, it is confronted with the problem of building a nation out of disparate groups. We all know that Switzerland is a peaceful country, politically stable. But it has not always been so.

Before the First World War, Switzerland was torn by religious and linguistic tensions - wars between Protestants and Catholics, between German Swiss and French Swiss. And it was indeed the existence of such tensions which drove them to seek solutions to their problems based on the acceptance of their differences. To quote from the article:

'The Swiss Confederation is based upon the cantons, upon territory - it is a territorial state, not, as with Belgium, a state based on language; nor, as with the Irish Republic, a state based upon religion. It is a state based upon the acceptance and entrenchment of differences, not upon a melting-pot conception of pluralism, which seeks to ignore them.'

When the Protestants defeated the Catholics in 1847 in a religious war, they did not push the Catholics down the mountain side. They established a constitution which eventually gave the defeated Catholics equal weight.

The author added:

'Swiss nationality cannot be linguistic, religious or racial; it must, rather, be founded on a subjective political fact - the feeling of belonging to a single Swiss nation. Thus Swiss nationality depends upon competitive co -existence between groups, and is not compatible with the dominance of any single linguistic or religious group.'

Contrast the success of the Swiss example with the failure of examples in Northern Ireland, Sri Lanka. There the respective Protestant and Sinhalese majorities tried to use their political dominance, derived from their numerical strength, to impose their will on the respective minority communities. The result is violence, strife, partition.

The GRC proposal of electing three MPs from at least two different communities as a team recognizes and accepts that there are differences between us, even though we are all Singaporeans. These are differences which even over time will not disappear because each community does not want it to disappear. Each community wants to retain its own ethnic identity.

The author made a point that the Westminster Model of democracy based on majority rule is not suited for a society divided by ethnic differences.

To quote him again:

'Switzerland has carried to the limit its departure from the Westminster Model view of democracy as majority rule. Such a Model may be appropriate in a society in which the main cleavages are based on class or other socio-economic factors, so that there can be a fairly regular alternation of power, or at least the prospect of such alternation. But the Westminster Model has less to offer to a plural society, one divided by language, ethnicity, religion or race; it thus has little relevance to the problem of how to secure democracy in Northern Ireland, Cyprus, Belgium, Sri Lanka, South Africa - or Switzerland.'

Do you remember the poignant letter from President Jayewardene, which I read out to this House sometime in January? After years of dealing with the problem of civil strife in Sri Lanka, the President came to the same conclusion as the Swiss - that the Westminster Model of democracy based on majority rule by a majority community cannot work in a plural society.

We are a plural society comprising people of different ethnicity, religion, race and language. We are in this sense like Northern Ireland, Cyprus, Sri Lanka and Switzerland. We will be wise to learn from the experience of other plural societies, the successful as well as the less successful societies.

The GRC proposal is our institutional mechanism to ensure that the minority communities are able to share power with the majority community. But more important than this formal arrangement, this formal institutional change which we are making to our Constitution and Parliamentary Elections Act is the spirit behind it.

A constitution, declared Charles de Gaulle, in his press conference on 31st January 1964 "consists of a conception (esprit), institutions and their application". Three parts - the conception or the spirit, institutions and their application. The conception is the spirit in which a country organizes its political authority so as to combine freedom with order. You want freedom, you want order, you have got to have a constitution with the required spirit to allow you to achieve this - combination of freedom with order.

Swiss democracy, based on a federal system, works because of the spirit, not because of the formal arrangements or formal institutions. Observed Vernon Bogdanor, the author of the article, I quote:

'It is impossible now to understand Swiss federation by looking at the constitutional framework alone. Moreover, institutional mechanisms must be understood and analysed in terms of the often informal arrangements characteristic of Swiss political culture.'

Switzerland enjoys a high degree of consensus about the fundamentals of social and economic life. The Swiss search for agreement, not differences. Again, to quote from the author:

'The essence of citizenship is the search for agreement, with decisions being made, not by majority rule, but through different pluralities.'

Search for agreement, not search for differences.

The change to our Constitution and Parliamentary Elections Act to provide for election of MPs on a team basis is putting into place an institutional mechanism to ensure a multi-racial Parliament. On its own, it will notensure success in building up or strengthening our multi-racial society. It is a formal institutional arrangement. For us to succeed, we must have the same spirit as the Swiss to search for consensus, to work through informal as much as formal arrangements, to make every citizen, whichever community, he belongs to, feel that he is a Singaporean.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Third time and passed.