CONSTITUTION OF THE REPUBLIC OF SINGAPORE (AMENDMENT NO. 2) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

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

The aim of this Bill is to further strengthen our political system by offering Singaporeans more opportunities for political participation and to evolve a more consensual style of government where alternative views are heard and constructive dissent accommodated. It is part of a broader vision which we in the PAP Government painted in 1984, and which led to the introduction of Non-Constituency MPs, and the establishment of GRCs and Town Councils. It should therefore be seen in this wider context.

The Government's programme to achieve this was spelt out by the President when he opened the Seventh Parliament on 9th January 1989. On "Building Consensus", he said, (and I quote from Hansard, Vol. 52, No. 1, Col. 14):

'The Government will systematically create more opportunities for Singaporeans to participate actively in shaping their own future.'

On "Encouraging Participation" and "Accommodating Dissent", the President said:

'Singaporeans have shown that while they value good government, they also increasingly want alternative views to be expressed and dissenting voices to be heard. The Government will listen to alternative views and dissenting voices, and accommodate them where they are constructive.

The first step towards this accommodation was the Non-Constituency Member of Parliament scheme.... Such non-government MPs can question Government policies and argue for alternative courses of action. The Government will review the NCMP scheme and increase the number of non-government MPs to achieve this.' (Hansard, Vol. 52, No. 1, Col. 15)

When the President's Address was debated, not a single Member of Parliament objected to this political vision. They all supported it, including the opposition MPs. Note that the President used the words "non-government MPs" advisedly, and not "opposition MPs".

We can increase the number of non-government MPs, including opposition MPs, in a number of ways. The simplest is to increase the number of Non-Constituency MPs. A more radical way is to change the rules and have proportional representation. But I do not recommend this. It will quickly lead to politicking on racial and even religious grounds, and weakened social structures.

We could also have a second round election for opposition MPs if opposition parties fail to secure a minimum number of seats in a general election. This could be an alternative to the NCMP scheme.

We could also have an Upper House, with all the Senators elected, or some Senators elected and some appointed, or all Senators appointed.

All these methods will either alter radically the present electoral processes or change drastically the basic structure of our legislature which consists of a single Chamber. They should not be embarked upon without the most compelling reasons. Our present system is basically sound and there is no need to consider such radical changes.

However, we can improve the present system simply by Parliament itself, ie, we, the elected representatives, nominating a number of politically non-partisan Singaporeans who can contribute to good government as MPs. Parliament can consider itself as an 'electoral college' vested with the powers to nominate a number of politically non-partisan Singaporeans to help it in its work. Parliament does not have to, but it is a special privilege it can extend to those Singaporeans who can contribute, but who for good reasons, have no desire to go into politics or to look after a constituency, to enter Parliament. These MPs appointed by Parliament can be people who have distinguished themselves or have special knowledge and practical experience in the professions, commerce, industry, cultural activities, social service, or people from an under-represented group of the population, eg, women.

Bill

The Bill before the House seeks to amend the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore to provide for the appointment of a maximum number of six Nominated Members of Parliament. The appointment will be made by the President on the nomination of a Special Select Committee appointed by Parliament. The Special Select Committee, in preparing the list of nominees to be appointed by the President, will invite the general public to submit the names of suitable persons.

The procedure for doing so is spelt out in the proposed Fourth Schedule to the Constitution on the "Appointment of Nominated Members of Parliament" (clause 5 of the Bill).

Persons to be Nominated Members must have the same qualifications as those who stand for election to Parliament and are subject to the same disqualifications.

The Bill requires Nominated Members to be appointed within six months after the first meeting of Parliament following a general election. For the purposes of the present Parliament

, such appointments will be made as soon as practicable after this Bill takes effect as law.

All six Nominated MPs need not be appointed at the same time. Their appointments can be staggered. The term for each Nominated MP is two years unless before then Parliament is dissolved or he resigns or his seat becomes vacant in accordance with Article 46 of the Constitution. A Nominated MP can be re-appointed after the expiry of his term. He can also stand for any election to Parliament. But if he is elected, his seat will become vacant, ie, he cannot be a Nominated Member and an elected Member at the same time. This will also apply to a Non-Constituency Member.

If the seat of a Nominated MP becomes vacant, on the expiry of his term, it will be filled as soon as practicable. If the seat becomes vacant for other reasons, it may be filled at the discretion of the Special Select Committee.

A Nominated MP will have the same voting rights in Parliament as a Non-Constituency Member, ie, he can vote on all Bills and motions, except money and Constitutional Bills, and motions of no confidence in the Government. He is, however, free to participate in the debate on such Bills and motions.

Sir, let me add here that it is not the intention of Government that Nominated MPs should be eligible to become Ministers or other office holders. The principle that office holders must come from the ranks of elected MPs will remain. If the provisions of the Bill are not specific on this point, suitable amendments can be made.

Why the Bill is introduced now

It is timely to introduce the Bill now and have some Nominated MPs in this House before the middle of next year. As I have said on another occasion, I intend to let this Parliament run its full term, ie, until end 1993. This means that, unless we do something, there will be only two Opposition MPs for the next four years. After nearly one year's experience, the feedback is that the two of them, ie, the two Opposition MPs, do not adequately express significant alternative views held outside this Chamber.

Indeed, we have encouraged the PAP MPs to play the role of a constructive Opposition to ventilate alternative and even contrary solutions to our problems. They have done this well, but no matter how vigorously they speak on an issue, the point is that they are Government MPs. Moreover, on important issues like this one, they are not allowed to vote against the Government unless the Whip is lifted. And we do not intend to do so, except in matters of conscience, because of the system of collective responsibility. PAP MPs often vote on issues, but this is done in closed-door party meetings. Once a vote is taken and the decision made, they are expected to abide by the majority decision. Therefore, some members of the public have felt that non-government viewpoints have not been adequately aired and pressed.

This is a misconception which it is in our interest to remove. We are not afraid of dissent. In fact, we welcome alternative solutions to our problems, and want to be seen doing so. If we add six Nominated MPs to the two Opposition MPs, there will be eight non-government MPs. This is a sizable presence. It is 10% of the number of Government MPs.

Even if more Opposition MPs are returned at the next General Election, it is still to Singapore's interest and advantage to have six Nominated MPs. Although the PAP has done its best to persuade the best to serve the country, there are always Singaporeans who can contribute but who are not able, or prepared, to take part in elections and look after a constituency. For example, many foreign companies, in particular multi-national companies, do not allow their staff to take part in elections because they want to retain a neutral position in their host country. Oil companies practise this policy. For the same reason, some local companies do not allow their staff to stand for elections. The Straits Times, for example, does not allow their journalists to do so.

I hope that these companies will allow their staff to become Nominated MPs because such MPs will not be politically partisan. Then we can have a group of Singaporeans hitherto not available, who can make a significant contribution from their wider experience, expertise and insights into our economic and social problems.

Women are another category of Singaporeans who can contribute to public service but who are under-represented in Parliament. There are only four of them. Most women who can contribute are immersed in their careers and with families to look after. Few women will want to handle three full-time jobs - elections and a constituency, plus a career, and family. They may be willing to become a Nomi- nated MP if they do not have to look after a constituency. And that way, we can have more women in Parliament.

Nominated MPs

Note that Nominated MPs are not Opposition MPs. Those who want Opposition MPs to represent them can still vote for them. The Nominated MPs proposal does not take away their freedom to vote for the candidate they want, whether PAP or Opposition.

Nominated MPs are not Government MPs either. They should and will be people who will vote as they think right. The PAP, with 80 out of 81 seats in Parliament, does not need six more pro-government MPs to strengthen it.

The Nominated MPs are politically non-partisan. They should not belong to any political party. Then they can give voice in Parliament to the views of the protest-voters, those who are unhappy with the Government over certain policies but want the PAP to form the Government. Many such voters do not identify themselves with the Opposition even though they do not think that PAP MPs can speak out convincingly enough on their behalf. They can now turn to the Nominated MPs.

Nominated MPs can fulfil a constructive role which the Opposition is not providing. Indeed, they will say things which no Opposition Member will. The reason is simple. The objective or aim of the Opposition MPs has been not to help find the right solution or settle correct policies, but to embarrass the Government and trip it up in order to discredit the Government so that they can win office for themselves.

Nominated MPs, unlike Opposition MPs, can concentrate on the substance of the debate rather than form and rhetoric. They do not have to play to the gallery. They can be constructive while dissenting, thus contributing to good government.

The New Parliament

In Singapore, the Parliament should represent the views of the people. At the same time, individual MPs should speak their convictions, as PAP MPs do, rather than echo what they hear others saying outside the House, seeking popularity by following the crowd.

The PAP sets out to represent the mainstream of political opinion in Singapore, and to field as representative a range of candidates as possible during General Elections - unionists, professionals, academics, grassroots leaders, different races, sexes, and so on. Still PAP MPs are unlikely to succeed completely in representing every legitimate viewpoint. Furthermore, not all its candidates may get elected. For example, the women candidates, who despite the PAP's best efforts are relatively few, may by chance all be defeated, leaving this an all male House.

The Opposition parties do not set out to field candidates to complement the PAP candidates. People who stand as Opposition candidates usually feel strongly that the PAP government is bad for Singapore, and should be thrown out of power. This in itself limits the range of people likely to be elected to Parliament as Opposition MPs.

There will be an intermediate range of opinions, people who may disagree with the PAP on certain issues, and therefore do not wish to stand as a PAP candidate, but who despite this do not believe that throwing out the PAP is necessarily the best solution. There will also be people who for legitimate reasons are not able to stand for election as MPs, but who can make valuable contributions in public policy debates. They should not be shut out of the political process, as to a certain extent they are now.

Neither the PAP nor Opposition MPs (nor NCMPs who are also partisan) can adequately represent the views of these people. Not necessarily from lack of ability, but because they hold a different set of convictions. Nominated MPs can make our political process more representative and policy debate more thorough by reflecting such strands of opinion.

With Nominated MPs, Parliament will have three distinct groups of MPs to represent all interests:

(1) the ruling party representing the large middle-ground;

(2) the Opposition, whether directly elected or NCMPs, representing the anti-establishment voters; and

(3) Nominated MPs who are independent of political parties and speaking for those who feel that their interests are not adequately represented by the ruling or Opposition parties.

For the next election, if we decide to increase the number of NCMPs to six, ie, from three to six, there will be at least 12 non-government MPs. This is 15% of the number of Government MPs, a good balance. Such a Parliament will be more broad-based than the present Parliament.

Nominated MPs in other countries

We will not be the first to have Nominated MPs in Parliament. At least 20 other countries have them in their House of Representatives. Fourteen of these countries belong to the Commonwealth. For Members' information, I shall ask the Clerk of Parliament to circulate a list (Cols. 773 - 780) of these 20 countries. [Copies of list circulated to hon. Members.] Each of them has some special circumstances. list - SOME COUNTRIES WITH APPOINTED MPs IN LOWER HOUSES (Cols. 773 - 780)

Let us take the case of Botswana. Botswana is a member of the Commonwealth. The President of Botswana, Dr Q K J Masire, was in Singapore recently to attend the Commonwealth Heads of Governments meeting in Kuala Lumpur. He told the Minister for Trade and Industry who escorted him that Botswana has a system of "Specially Elected MPs", almost identical to the Nominated MPs scheme we have in mind.

Botswana has a multi-party parliamentary system. The country is divided into 34 single-member constituencies, but the Parliament has 40 members, including 4 Specially Elected Members of Parliament. After general elections, when Parliament meets, the first order of the 34 MPs is to elect the 4 additional Specially Elected MPs.

This system, introduced by the Botswanians themselves, has been in existence since their independence in 1966. The rationale is two-fold: (1) in a newly independent country, one cannot be certain that all the able people with relevant experience and abilities will contest elections; and (2) it was considered desirable that the Parliament always contain a clear majority of the ruling party, and to avoid a hung Parliament. I am not saying that these two reasons for Botswana are applicable to Singapore.

These four Specially Elected MPs can vote in Parliament and can hold office in government. The other MPs in Botswana naturally did not welcome the addition of these four MPs. Hence the term "Specially Elected MPs", to reassure them that the four are not superior to them. The President was quite proud of his country's innovations. He told BG Lee that I could quote him.

Now, look at Pakistan and Bangladesh. These are Muslim countries where traditionally women do not stand for election. So their Parliaments elect a number of women MPs to represent the women. In other words, Parliament functions like an electoral college and elects the required number of women MPs to represent the women in Pakistan or Bangladesh.

Singapore's Special Circumstance

Our special circumstance is the similarity of our constituencies and the dominance of the PAP. Although Singapore is divided into 55 constituencies comprising 13 GRCs and 42 single-member constituencies, each constituency is electorally similar to another. With the possible exception of Tanglin, there are no distinctly conservative or liberal wards because each constituency's demographic, economic and social profile is typical of the national profile. We have spread out, as a matter of public policy, Singaporeans of different social and racial backgrounds over all the public housing estate. Each estate has its fair share of rental blocks, 3-room flats, 4-room, and so on, and Malays, Indians and Chinese. Whether it is Toa Payoh, Marine Parade or Yishun, the voter profile is about the same. Singapore is, therefore, like one big constituency, not 55 different constituencies, with election results affected more by national mood and Government policies than by local problems. With the first-past-the-post electoral system, a dominant party like the PAP will win decisively leaving very few seats to the opposition.

To illustrate my point, let us look at the election results of the last two general elections, 1984 and 1988. In 1984, despite a sharp drop in national support for the PAP, a drop of 13%, the PAP lost only two seats. In 1988, though the support level went down by 1% from 1984, the PAP lost only one seat. In fact, it recovered one from the two opposition seats which it lost in 1984.

I believe that what the people really want is, one, a strong, capable Government which can deliver what it promises -a high standard of living, a peaceful society, and a secure future - and, two, a sizable number of non-government MPs who can present alternative views from time to time on specific issues and policies. We have the first but we do not have the second.

For many years, from 1966 to 1981, the people were happy with the total dominance of the PAP in Parliament. But they have shown in recent years that they want alternatives to the Government views to be aired, whilst wanting the PAP to continue as the Government. We must take cognizance of this. The PAP has no desire to shut out sensible, constructive criticism, or prevent alternative and dissenting views from being expressed in Parliament. Parliament is the supreme law-making body in Singapore. Since the normal electoral process does not result in such views from being represented, we take steps to ensure that they are represented. We have already introduced the NCMP scheme to ensure that there will always be some Opposition Members in Parliament. The Nominated MP scheme is an extension of the NCMP scheme. It broadens our political system and makes for a better Parliament.

We have to evolve a system which meets the special needs of Singapore. The Westminster parliamentary system we have inherited is flexible enough to be the basic framework on which to gradually evolve a system suited to our own needs and arising from our own political experience. Our constitutional position has to evolve with our social, economic and political circumstances. It cannot be static, because a society is dynamic, not static. We must make changes to meet changing circumstances and expectations. For example, we introduced provisions for Non-Constituency MPs in 1984, and for Group Representation Constituencies in 1988.

Such changes represent different facets of an evolving Constituton. They are constitutional improvements to meet our special circumstances.

I intend to refer this Bill to a Select Committee. The mechanics of how the MPs are to be nominated and other technical details can be taken care of by the Select Committee.

At this point, concentrate on the purpose of the Bill. The principle underlying this Bill is simple. First, to build consensus. Second, to encourage political participation and contribution, to get those who can contribute to good government to serve. And, third, to accommodate constructive dissent and alternative views.

The challenges and problems which Singapore will face are formidable. The solutions open to us are not many. Whichever party is in charge of Singapore faces these same challenges and problems. It is in our national interest to get our people to rally around a common cause, to work together, because after all the discussion and arguments are fully aired in Parliament, we have to choose between alternative solutions and to make the solution we have decided upon work. We have to get our people behind it and to make it succeed. Hence this Bill to enable Parliament, through its special Select Committee, to bring in 6 nominated MPs.

Sir, I beg to move.

Question proposed.

2.05 pm

Mr Bernard Chen (Pasir Panjang GRC): Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to support the Bill moved by the First Deputy Prime Minister.

Before we get into the details of the Bill, we have to ask ourselves one fundamental question, and that is whether the proposals contained in the Bill will result in an improvement in, firstly, the deliberations in this House and, in general, to Singapore. We have 81 Members in this House. The question to ask is whether these 81 people represent all the views, constructive or otherwise, that we can garner, or whether we could benefit from having more views expressed in this Chamber. The proposal of Nominated MPs will result in the injection of additional views and opinions which will complement the present elected and Non-Constituency MPs. If there is an improvement to the discussion and debate, then we should not, as elected MPs in this House, object to any improvement that may be brought into this House by these MPs. With due respect to my colleagues, I do not think that we in this House can claim to represent to know everything there is need to know in Singapore and that we cannot benefit from views, especially from specialists, professionals, in their own fields and endeavours.

We in Singapore are also faced with rather reluctant politicians. I think in the past 20 - 25 years, I am quite sure that my fellow colleagues will agree with me that a running topic is always, "Why should we become politicians? Why should we invite trouble on to ourselves?" And many MPs, past and present, have at one time or other expressed that they are actually reluctant MPs, because the demands made on elected MPs are tremendous. The sacrifices made by elected MPs are also very substantial.

There are people in Singapore who have the ability to contribute constructive views, specialist views, but are constrained in one form or another from participating in the elected process. This constraint could be business, family, and a whole host of other reasons. It will be a pity if we were to let this pass by without having an opportunity to tap their expertise and their contributions.

As we progress into the 1990s, our problems are going to be more complex, more involved, and the more views we have in contributing to effective solutions, the more important it is for us to have these views expressed publicly.

I think at the moment, as the First DPM pointed out, there are certain perceived disadvantages of Government MPs - I refer specifically to PAP MPs - for being unable to take issues with the Government. In the last year, in particular, there have been a few major Bills coming before this House where PAP MPs expressed their views rather vehemently, strongly, against the Government. But in the end they all have to eat humble pie. Because of Party discipline, they are forced to vote in line with the Government. In fact, some constituents have complained to me. It seems a rather difficult situation, is it not? You can breathe fire and brimstone, but at the end of the day you go quietly and cast your vote the right way. I think the credibility gap is there and given the Westminster system that we are running, it will be very difficult for Government MPs, whether they are PAP or otherwise, to go too strongly against the Government in terms of making constructive views known, as long as they remain members of the Party.

It can be argued, of course, that NCMPs, and indeed opposition MPs can fill the role. But as the First DPM pointed out just now, opposition MPs by virtue of their positions are constrained to be anti-government, anti-establishment, for it is their prime responsibility to bring down the Government so that they can be the Government themselves. But what we look forward in this House is a situation where we can have constructive and alternative opinions which will then enable the Government to go along and arrive at a consensus in terms of policy implementation.

Perhaps at this stage I can make a suggestion that instead of defining the number of Nominated MPs to be six, we could conceivably consider whether it is possible to follow the same system as the NCMPs, in the sense that if there are more opposition Members elected during the elections, there can be a corresponding reduction in the number of Nominated MPs. Because I do not think we can rule out a situation where in the years to come there could be people among the Opposition bench who have the kind of intelligence and calibre that Singaporeans look for.

I believe one issue that is bugging a lot of MPs at the moment, especially Government MPs, is that the Nominated MPs would appear to come in rather freely and without any problem. In other words, they can come in and express their views. They do not have to do all the donkey work that the elected MPs have to do, to look after the constituency and to go into the hustings every now and then. Are they therefore in a privileged position? Are they first-class and elected MPs second-class? I think the elected MPs come into Parliament for different reasons. If we had been afraid of doing the constituency work, serving the people, we would not be volunteering ourselves. For most of us who are elected, we should and must derive a different sense of satisfaction from being an elected MP, the satisfaction of being of service to the people, something which the Nominated MPs would not be able to claim. At the same time, the role of Nominated MPs is also restricted and they would not have the same kind of influence and prestige that the elected MPs would have. As elected MPs, I think we should not grudge the presence of Nominated MPs if they can contribute to improving the quality of debate in this House.

Ultimately, whether the Nominated MPs are better than the elected MPs or vice versa depends, firstly, on ourselves, the elected MPs, whether we do our jobs properly, whether we serve our constituents to the extent that they know that we have done a job effectively and are worthy of being re-elected. And, more important, on the Nominated MPs themselves. Are they men of integrity known to be leaders in their particular fields, whether they are capable of independence of views, whether they are prepared to take on the Government and offer alternative or constructive views, whether they can remain non-partisan? The implementation, the shape of the administration and the procedures will be debated in the Select Committee. Overall, if the proposal can result in improvements, I think we owe it to us and owe it to Singapore that we give it a try, for nothing harmful can come out of this proposal. There could be improvements. It may not be to the extent that we wish in the initial years, but we can make corrections and adjustments as we go along.

On this note, I would like to support the First Deputy Prime Minister although I know there will be many others whose support may not be so forthcoming.

Mr Abdullah Tarmugi (Siglap): Mr Speaker, Sir, our parliamentary system has an established tradition and appears to be working well for us all these years. People who fill this House are elected by the respective constituencies. Even NCMPs, although not elected into this Parliament, can claim to some support for them in the general elections.

Before this House now, Sir, is a proposal to modify all this. It is a significant modification and one which we should not take lightly. And I am glad to hear the First Deputy Prime Minister promise that the Bill will be committed to a Select Committee.

Sir, I can appreciate the arguments for having more diverse views and contributions in Parliament. Such diversity is after all one of the hallmarks of democracy. If this is the principle that prompts the proposal for Nominated MPs, then in clear conscience I am comfortable in supporting this principle. Indeed, I think nobody can quarrel with it. But, be that as it may, I am still filled with doubts whether this is the best and only way to put the principle into play in this country and I doubt whether, according to the speaker before me, that this is the only way to improve the standard of debate in this House.

Sir, the method proposed to select people into this House as Nominated MPs would challenge the very basis for the proposal. The principle presupposes that the House would be better off with more diverse and expert views than have already been made available through the normal electoral process that we now have. The presumption and expectation therefore are that these views should be independent ones, though not necessarily, but frequently offering alternatives from those that are already prevailing in this House. Unless this premise is present, the purpose of having these additional numbers would be lost and their presence superfluous.

But those nominated to the House, Sir, whether we like it or not, will be often perceived as being partial towards the Government, if not already in Government. This will happen if the selection process is deemed to be partial to the induction of these kinds of men and women into this Parliament. The method of selection itself will become a contentious issue. I would therefore appreciate it if the First Deputy Prime Minister can elucidate the ways we can avoid these contentions and perceptions.

The other perception, Sir, is that the proposal is tantamount to an indictment of the existing system and of the elected MPs we now have, especially the Backbenchers in the House. This perception has been alluded to by several MPs in our private conversations and some from those outside this House. Are we not creating the impression that MPs are not really bringing up enough solid and diverse views in this Parliament that we need to bring in others to this Chamber to provide such views?

Then, Sir, there are real problems in the implementation of this scheme. Whose or what sectors of interests will be picked to be represented in this House? On what grounds are these interests to be chosen and why not others? What about the nomination process itself? As the Bill now stands, it needs only a handful of people to put up nominations for the MP-ship. Their mandate therefore to Parliament is a small one, maybe even smaller than the NCMPs which we have in this House, unless the person so nominated is of such stature that thousands would be willing to nominate him for candidateship. But mostly, Sir, will we not be inundated with nominations which are frivolous or nominations from the public which are unreasonable? While I agree that this can be handled administratively, are we not creating unnecessary workload for ourselves?

Sir, it is important that we avail ourselves of more views and people participating in the process of government. But for this to work, we will have to seek out men and women who are indeed knowledgeable, men and women who are indeed moral and not merely out to destroy us but to contribute. And if we can find these men and women, what is to stop us from getting to them and seek out their views without getting them into Parliament? Why not a think-tank, for example, comprising these informed and expert persons? The outfit can be attached to Parliament and they can be non-partisan. We can always ask for reports from them to be made available to Parliament. This way, Sir, they can contribute without being involved in the political process and without us having to change our parliamentary system. But, Sir, I am willing to hear out reasons for preferring the NMP system over the think-tank concept and keep an open mind about it.

It is important that we keep an open mind without prejudging the issues at hand. The speaker before me mentioned that we need to try it out and see whether it would work or whether it would not. The proposal before us is an important one not only for the goals it hopes to achieve but also for the changes it will make to our parliamentary process. We will need to separate principle from scheme, principle from proposal and while the principle is a sound one I hope the Government can do more to convince us and the people that the scheme proposed is the best one possible and that we need not rush to go into it. 2.27 pm

Mr Leong Horn Kee (Thomson): Mr Speaker, Sir, this Bill before us is a very important one indeed. The House has heard earlier the rationale for its introduction by the Hon. First Deputy Prime Minister. Two other Members have spoken earlier and expressed their views. I would also like to similarly put forth my views.

This Bill marks a significant change in the structure of Parliament. Previously, Members can only enter Parliament by being elected. Now, Members can also be recruited into our ranks purely by being nominated. On the surface, it appears to be an easier way to enter Parliament. Some might even say that it is the "back-door" way to enter Parliament. However, I would not wish to denigrate these Nominated MPs just because they enter Parliament by a different process. I would say that they are as legitimate an MP as anyone else as they are MPs selected by a lawful constitutional process.

There are many people, MPs included, who have much reservation about the concept of Nominated MPs. However, I feel that there are certain advantages on the idea to make it worth serious consideration. I agree that there are persons whom all of us know outside Parliament who are not affiliated to any political party but who could articulate useful and constructive views or even criticisms of Government policies here in Parliament. These people could be brought into Parliament to add a new angle or a new dimension to the debates we have here. This new breed of MPs do not in any way affect the standing or the status of the elected MPs we have here in the House. Provided that the Nominated MPs can "add value" or enhance the image of the House, I feel that we can, as elected MPs, adopt a positive approach towards them.

Sir, I feel that the proposed Nominated MP scheme can be supported if the following three main principles can be abided by. First, there should be a limited number of Nominated MPs. The number of Nominated MPs should be kept very small. The present proposal is to have six Members. I strongly feel that the number should not be increased further in future. The reason is that the basic structure of Parliament that it should consist predominantly of elected MPs should always prevail. The elected MPs rightfully represent the people and they could speak for the people in Parliament. Hence, the substantial number in Parliament should always be elected MPs.

Second, as the First Deputy Prime Minister has said, Nominated MPs should be non-partisan. I think this is a very fundamental tenet that all Nominated MPs should be non-partisan. If selected, these MPs should sever all their party links, if any. The rationale for this requirement is very obvious. If a person is affiliated to any political party, he should rightfully seek to enter Parliament through the election process by offering himself to be a candidate for election in a general election. In fact, I would venture to suggest that any person who had stood as a candidate in any previous elections should not be eligible for selection as a Nominated MP. These persons have failed to get elected by the populace; it is difficult to justify their selection by the Select Committee as it would then truly be a back door way for them to enter Parliament. Should they wish to be MPs representing a political party, they should continue to fight in elections and hopefully win a seat in this Parliament as elected MPs.

Third, Sir, there should be an objective and neutral process for the selection of Nominated MPs. In my discussions and sounding out of the grassroots members on this scheme, the general feedback I got is that they are not too adverse to the idea of Nominated MPs. They generally feel that if we can attract some worthwhile independent persons to come into Parliament and assist in watching over Government policies, this is a plus factor. However, one common thread that strings through their reactions at the grassroots level is that it is very crucial that the selection process must be seen to be neutral and objective. They are concerned whether the Special Select Committee comprising only eight persons can be objective. Unlike elected MPs whose credibility is based upon being elected by their constituents, the Nominated MPs do not have such ground support. The credibility of the Nominated MPs therefore rests fundamentally on the selection process. And this process should be accepted by the people.

In this regard, I wish to propose some changes to the Special Select Committee. I know the nitty-gritty details can be discussed further in the Select Committee but let me just put forth a few comments.

First, I feel that the Special Select Committee should comprise all elected Members instead of just only eight Members.

Secondly, I think at the point when the voting for the Nominated Members comes, the political Whip should be lifted so that all Members in this House can vote freely on their conscience and not along party lines. These people who are being nominated are actually non-partisan members in the first place.

Thirdly, only candidates who can obtain the votes of more than 50% of the Members present in the House should be accepted as Nominated MPs. Then it will be shown that these people have the majority support of the Members in the House and they therefore indirectly represent the people because we, the elected Members here, are the people's representatives.

Sir, I believe the above few changes will give a higher degree of objectivity to the selection process which that is what the people want to see. The Nominated MPs will have some standing in the eyes of the people as they are voted in by a majority of the Members in this House.

On the point about people whom we would like to bring into the House here, I support the First Deputy Prime Minister's idea that we should bring in more woman Members. I think we would like to see more of the fairer sex in this House to articulate views pertaining to their interests.

I would also like to suggest that we should not just simply look at professionals as people whom we would like to bring into this House. In fact, there are many professionals in this House who could speak on the views of professionals. What we should do is try to look for more grassroots leaders who could speak for various grassroots organisations.

As there is a need for us to further study the scheme and to further refine it, I support the intention to commit the Bill to a Select Committee.

Sir, I wish to conclude by saying that given the advantages of the proposed Bill, and if it is modified along the principles that I have suggested, I am prepared to support the Bill.

Dr Low Seow Chay (Chua Chu Kang): ( In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the Bill to amend our Constitution. Ever since independence, the Opposition parties have been able to win only one or two seats in the Parliament. In the past, the governing party Backbenchers have played the role of the Opposition and taken up the task of supervising over the policies and work of the Government. In the past few years, there has been a new trend. Many voters would like the PAP to continue to govern the country but at the same time they also wish to hear more non-PAP members speaking or voicing their views in the House. As the Opposition parties have not been able to enter Parliament through the one-man-one-vote process, there has been the system of Non-Constituency MP for such voice to be heard in Parliament . This has inadvertently strengthened the voice of the Opposition parties in the Parliament. If we can also have Nominated MPs adding neutral and non-PAP voices in the House, it will enhance parliamentary democracy a step further while providing more channels for expressing the voices and aspirations of the people in the House. Therefore, in principle, I support this motion.

However, I feel that Nominated MPs are different in nature from ordinary elected MPs. Their duties and rights in the House and their treatment should therefore be different from those of the ordinary MPs. In nature, Nominated MPs are not given the mandate by the people. They need not be responsible to the voters. For this reason, they should not have the right to vote on any Bill in the House. Otherwise, it would be running counter to the spirit of parliamentary democracy.

If it is intended to let the Nominated MPs air neutral views in the debate of the House, there should be some limitations on their functions. Firstly, they should not represent any political party. In the past five years, they should not have belonged to any political party or taken part in any politics of any political party. Second, although they can be re-nominated for a further term at the end of their two-year term, however their total term of office should not exceed the 5-year term of the existing Parliament. Third, I agree to the First Deputy Prime Minister's view that their role is to be that of the Backbench MPs and should not be appointed to any government office. Another point, although the allowance for ordinary MPs is not a very big sum, however in order to differentiate the NMPs from the elected MPs because of big differences between their duties and responsibilities, the NMPs should not be getting the same treatment. As regards the criterion for the selection of an NMP, I feel that a Nominated MP should not be a representative of any kind of organisation or society, be it commercial, religious, or racial of any clan or guild organisation.

I hope my views will be taken into consideration by the Select Committee. I support this Bill. 2.38 pm

Mr S. Chandra Das (Cheng San GRC): Mr Speaker, Sir, ever since the proposal for Nominated MP was mooted by the First Deputy Prime Minister in this House in October, there have been many diverse views on the proposal by members of the public. There were people who supported and people who did not support the Bill. Sir, let me elaborate on these varied views.

First of all, the ordinary man-in-the-street neither supports nor rejects the proposal. Understandably, they are more concerned with daily living and prefer to leave such sophisticated developments to the Government.

The proposal, however, appears to have the enthusiastic support of many professionals and academics. They agree with the rationale for the Bill, which is to provide for a wider cross-section of views to be heard in this House. It will allow people who have the qualities of MPs, who have useful views to contribute, but who do not want to go into politics or sacrifice their personal life style to run a constituency or even town councils, to enter Parliament. It will also enable certain professional groups to be represented in Parliament. The presence of these MPs would thus further enhance the quality of debate in this House.

On the other hand, Sir, the more educated non-academics and non-professionals who have an interest in this proposal, have strong reservations about the proposal. Many, amongst them, do not see the need to change our present system. They feel that the present system is working satisfactorily and the Government should not tinker with a system which has worked and served us well for the last 25 years. The objective of having greater representation could still be achieved by other means, for example, by having more Select Committees, or occasionally lifting the Party Whip. Besides, candidates appointed may not be credible since they were not chosen by the people. They would not have enough political clout to have any significant influence in Parliament. Some also felt that the proposal could be a political tactic on the part of the PAP to perpetuate its dominance in this House; by offering up to six Nominated MPs, the PAP is hoping that the electorates' desire for Opposition MPs will be satisfied.

Sir, whether they supported or did not support the proposal, the majority felt and agreed on the importance of having a fair and independent selection process. It is crucial that this Special Parliamentary Select Committee should be seen to be fair when appointing candidates. Given that the PAP is currently the dominant party, Members of the Select Committee will invariably come from the ruling Party and may end up appointing only like-minded people as Nominated MPs. Many felt this could be prevented by having even Opposition MPs in this Committee or allow prominent leaders of professional organisations to be automatically appointed.

Many did not object that the Nominated MPs can vote on all motions except those on constitutional amendments and money Bills. They agree that since the Nominated MPs are not elected by the people, they should not enjoy all the privileges that elected MPs enjoy. A minority, however, feel that this would make Nominated MPs toothless tigers or a group of second-class MPs.

Sir, since this proposal would be significant and make major changes to our Constitution, many expressed the view that it should be discussed quite widely and preferably committed to a Select Committee. And I was pleased to listen to the First Deputy Prime Minister when he said that this Bill would be committed to a Select Committee and possibly with public hearings.

Sir, the views which I stated just now, I stated them in my capacity as Chairman of the Feedback Unit. As for me personally, I am not in favour of introducing Nominated MPs in this House. I believe that the proposal is a major step backwards in the development of our political system in Singapore. After 25 years of independence, I believe we are moving towards appointees in the Legislature.

Sir, universal franchise has given every adult Singaporean the constitutional right to elect his or her political representative. Once every five years or even less, Singaporeans decide who should represent them in Parliament. And for most Singaporeans, casting the ballot is about the most concrete and direct form of participation in our democracy. Through the ballot box, each Singaporean decides whether or not he or she wants an Opposition MP. The question is: do we want this change now?

One popular and persuasive argument being cited to support the proposal is the "hypothesis" that there are in fact a number of talented Singaporeans who are able to contribute but are unwilling or unable to make the necessary sacrifices. This hypothesis, I am convinced, is dangerous from the point of view of nation-building. Any Singaporean, especially talented Singaporeans who have obviously benefitted from 25 years of PAP rule, should be prepared to make the necessary sacrifices. To suggest that a talented Singaporean might want to contribute but not to sacrifice is not acceptable to me. Very soon, we will have some Singaporeans in this House, if this Bill is passed, who are able to contribute but are not willing to be inconvenienced and not willing to be subject to public scrutiny. Sir, do we need such people in this House? Like the saying goes, "If you cannot take the heat, why stay in the kitchen?"

Sir, if talented Singaporeans are at all able to contribute, I believe they should be able to do battle for what they believe in. If they are not prepared to do so, then this House will be better off without them. Alternatively, such talented Singaporeans should stay outside this House and pontificate in their relative safety and security.

Mr Speaker, Sir, many Singaporeans also believe that the introduction of 6 Nominated MPs is another manifestation which can be described as a "Government overload". Singaporeans, some critics would say, are already under the weight of over-government. Today, what Singaporeans want is less government. To suggest that people want to have "Nominated MPs as a proxy for the opposition" is a little testing the electorate. It is my contention that Singaporeans are mature enough to make rational political choices. With a per capita income of about $20,000, we enjoy the highest standard of living in Asia outside Japan. To suggest that a people living in an international and open economy are unable to choose their own political leaders, I am afraid, is indefensible.

Sir, what, if any, are the alternatives to the Government's proposal? I do not profess to know the answer or have the alternatives. Some solutions, in my view, lie possibly in less Government. People are clamouring for a lessening of what is perceived as "over-regulation", regulations which had served us well in the early years of nation-building, may need to be privatised in the political arena. In the economic field, the Government has reacted to changing circumstances by calling for greater private sector participation. Similarly, some form of privatisation in the political arena may be in order.

Sir, if there are few opposition MPs in Parliament, so be it. In my view, Singaporeans might crave for some form of dissent in Parliament, but this craving is unlikely to give way to reckless electoral behaviour. In the final analysis, most Singaporeans would still vote with their heads. For those Singaporeans who are inclined to vote with their hearts are unlikely to be heartless enough as to gamble with their own future or the future of their children.

In conclusion, Sir, much as I am not in favour of the Bill, party discipline does not allow me to do anything else but to say "Aye" when the Bill is put to a vote.

Dr Tan Cheng Bock (Ayer Rajah): Mr Speaker, Sir, since 1964, the success of the PAP Government policies have consistently won the approval of the majority of the Singapore voters. The era of our first generation of PAP Government, now coming to an end, inevitably means a change of style of government. The succeeding generation of PAP leadership has opted for a more consultative style. I believe this Bill was introduced to further encourage wider participation in Government.

There are already 80 Members of Parliament in this House to support PAP legislation. So I do not think this Bill is introduced to find more of such people, which is to say, this Bill seeks to co-opt into Parliament people who are likely to have oppositionistic views.

It is true that there are a lot of people outside Parliament who can make valuable contributions to our legislative process. The question is: by appointing 6 non-elected Members of Parliament, is it the best way of tapping this pool of knowledge and talent?

May I remind this House that the Government has already established many avenues to get views and opinions. The Feedback Unit is the First Deputy Prime Minister's own creation. He himself, I am sure, heads a think tank of intellectuals. There are also the Economic Councils, the Institute of Policy Studies, Government Parliamentary Committees, Presidential Council. If Ministers desire more opinions, they can also tap the professional bodies, trade organisations, NTUC, employers' federation, University faculty staff.

It will be to the Ministers' advantage to reach out to all these multifarious bodies for discussion on proposed legislation rather than be limited to a few appointees who may not even have the particular area of expertise required. It is only expertise we are talking about here. After all, these appointees are not elected, so they represent nobody but themselves. Moreover, I recommend cautious acceptance of their so-called objective analysis. Their lack of grassroots or contact will give their perspective an ivory tower slant. We would do well to remember that this House enacts legislation for the people, not digits, in our society.

The important question of whether to have Nominated Members sit in Parliament had been closely examined by Singapore's most eminent persons way back in 1966. In 1966, a Constitutional Commission headed by our Chief Justice Mr Wee Chong Jin examined whether a council of nominated people called the Council of State (which later became the Presidential Council) should be a part of Parliament - and they concluded that this should not be so.

I quote paragraph 54, page 15, of the Report of the Constitutional Commission 1966:

'It will be a body separate from Parliament but to which Parliament can look for serious and weighty advice and while having no control over legislation, it will, to the extent of having given its advice, share with Parliament the responsibility for any legislation passed pursuant to such advice. We think the continued practice of a sound democratic system of government in Singapore will best be achieved if our recommendations leave untouched a unicameral legislature which we have at present, where all Members of Parliament are elected by the people by secret vote at elections held at regular intervals of years. In this way the many and grave responsibilities which Members of Parliament take upon as the elected representatives of the people will rest solely on them.'

The effectiveness of non-elected and Nominated Members is open to question. Can the Government, if publicly challenged by non-elected Members of Parliament to change certain policies, accept these changes? Listen to what our Prime Minister said, and I quote Hansard, 15th March 1967, Vol. 25, Col. 1290. He was referring to a nominated Council of State. I quote him:

'If anybody challenges the right of the representatives of the people to take a particular course of action, then they must have the courage to come out openly into the political arena and denounce these policies. But if they reserve to themselves the right to advise caution or perhaps to take a middle course,... then this advice should not be given in public, for it is impossible for any elected government to accept a change of its policies once it has been joined in political debate.'

Therefore, Mr Speaker, Sir, we must be clear as to what we want. If we want them to advise and caution, then this is not the place to do so. If we want them to act as an opposition, then their efforts are already doomed.

We do not have to search so far to know that there are 20 countries which have Nominated Members in their Houses. In the early days of pre-independence, we had a Legislative Assembly of nominated and elected Members of the House. It was understandable and acceptable then because democracy was in its infancy, the educational level low, and educated people few in number. It was spelled out in the Rendel Commission that there should be four Nominated Members to represent and defend the views of any significant minority group whose interest might be in danger of being overlooked. There were concerned, in particular, of trade and economic interests being inadequately represented. Their recommendation was to have such Members for a transition period only. It was not a permanent feature. The above facts were uncovered from the proceedings of the Second Legislative Council, Colony of Singapore, Fourth Session 1954/1955.

Sir, since 1954/1955 we have moved ahead in terms of economic development, education, social development and the Legislative Assembly has given way to this House with Members representing the widest diversity of background. I can think of no important sector of our social and economic fabric which is not represented by at least one elected MP here. I ascribe this to the thoroughness of the PAP's selection process. Sir, we have filled that gap which the government of that period was concerned about. We have economists, bankers, businessmen, employers, unionists, Ph.D's and non-graduates, every race, religion, language. In fact, we have already a microcosm of Singapore society. Sir, it will be a retrograde step if we introduce Nominated Members into this House.

Peddling self-interest is another concern. One of the most obvious areas of concern is peddling self-interest. The question of interest/functional group was debated at length in this House in 1967. In accepting the Presidential Council, the Prime Minister in his political wisdom cautioned and I quote Hansard, 15th March 1967, Vol. 25, col. 1289:

'A President's Council, which really is what the Council of State will be ... can make a valuable contribution ... provided that there are sufficient safeguards to see that no sectional or functional interest can be peddled.' And he continued:

'In other words, nobody can get on a hobby-horse either for life or for a specific period to pursue a particular sectional interest, whether for gain or for any other reason.' And he went on to say that such a meeting of council of non-elected men should not be in public. And here we have a Bill asking for such nominated representatives to air their views in this august Chamber. As the Prime Minister said, they do not have the standing to tell elected Members what to do and not do.

In fact, we must beware of the eager-beavers who are supporting this scheme because they want to get into this House to serve their own ends and not the interest of Singaporeans. These opportunists are out to exploit this. What better place to articulate their views without fear of punishment?

Moreover, we are inviting communalistic and religious groups, etc. to come in by the back-door, either by proxy representation or direct entry. Mr Speaker, Sir, we took so long, so much time in this House and outside arguing for the GRC concept, because we want to prevent racial politics and now we are creating a loophole by allowing these Nominated Members into Parliament. Two years is enough for them to undo what we took so long to build.

Mr Goh Chok Tong: A point of clarification, Sir. May I ask the Member how does the proxy work? How do these people who speak for the communalists and the chauvinists get into the House?

Dr Tan Cheng Bock: Sir, it is very simple. All that you need to do is to nominate a person who has got a very strong belief, say, in a particular faith and get him selected. What is going to happen then?

Mr Goh Chok Tong: There is a Special Select Committee.

Dr Tan Cheng Bock: Select Committee, there is always a way in.

Mr Goh Chok Tong rose ---

Dr Tan Cheng Bock: Mr Speaker, Sir, I am not giving way.

Mr Speaker: All right.

Dr Tan Cheng Bock: I worry that the NMP scheme will result in the unexpected polarisation of racial, religious and interest groups. Because we are multiracial, we cannot nominate all Chinese MPs. Minority races will have to be included. Representatives of interest groups will invariably fall along racial, religious and even clans. These are the groups which are clamouring to be heard. Those groups which the First Deputy Prime Minister wants in, ie, the professionals, the businessmen, intellectuals, all have the ability and the channels to make their views known to the Government. The racial/religious groups and others like the associations and clans are the groups we do not want to have in Parliament. But this Bill gives them hope and if we dash their hopes, we create more dissatisfaction and unhappiness. In trying to please some, we are going to displease more.

Nominated MPs will see the possible creation of two undesirable political situations, one within Parliament and one at the ground level.

Under the present circumstances, I do not foresee the Nominated Members being a strong political force. But they could be in the event when this House has a narrow majority. In such a situation, Nominated MPs can play a strong political role in spite of not being able to vote on no-confidence motions and money Bills. The fact that they know that they can hold the Government of the day to ransom is real. There are enough issues to speak and vote on - education, health, social issues - to cast doubts on the Government of the day. How can a group of non-elected MPs be allowed to do that?

Similarly, at the ground, there is also the danger of having to compromise Nominated MP seats. If a situation arose where a political party is not sure of a clear-cut majority, there is a real danger that the party may be forced to compromise to any group which holds the balance of power. Thus, you may be forced to concede a seat to a religious group or racial or special interest group which knows that their support can turn the tide in any election. We must avoid such close encounters.

Someone has already designated NMPs as third class MPs. I look on them as armchair MPs. Mr Speaker, Sir, shielding them from the rough and tumble of real life politics is most unrealistic. When they talk they do not have to think of how the electorate will be affected by the legislation. If they wish, they can say the most irresponsible things without having to answer to anyone at all. They are protected by parliamentary privilege. They can intellectualise on legislation in a vacuum without minding the messiness of the human factor which is the electorate.

Mr Speaker, Sir, how are we to expect these passionless men or women who are too squeamish to take part in real politics to challenge and debate with the Ministers and risk being humiliated publicly? If they do not speak up, then in the public's eye they will certainly become stooges of the Government.

To begin with, Nominated MPs are non-starters because our selection of nominees depending on a panel of MPs headed by the Speaker is open to question. I do not doubt the ability and integrity of the Speaker and panel. But people perceive this as an attempt to put our own people into this House through the back-door - those who were not fielded in the last elections, those who were defeated in the elections, those who were associated with us in the statutory boards or Government-owned companies. In other words, the like-minded and the pro-PAP.

People see this scheme as an insurance to hold on to the reins of Government or to nurture an "Opposition" which is actually friendly towards us. I honestly think we do not need such assistance to win the next general elections and I also think this is furthest from the First Deputy Prime Minister's mind but this is how the people perceive this plan.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I come to the solution. As far back as 1966, we had this problem of getting good people into the political arena. This difficulty will always be there. It is not a new circumstance. And despite this, the past leaders have done very well without nominated Members of Parliament.

As I said earlier, there are already sufficient channels of feedback and consultation. The First Deputy Prime Minister, in his speech, said that the people are concerned that we should have a strong Government and they want Nominated MPs so that they can air their views. But I do not agree with him on the second point. What the people of Singapore want is to build in some checks and balances in our system of government. That was the feedback I gave to them when I was the Chairman of the Feedback Unit. Because of the increasing complexities of new legislation which is in line with our rapid development, it may be necessary that Bills passed in this House be further scrutinised before they finally become law.

Another area is redress for Singaporeans resulting from wrongdoings of our civil service. Mr Speaker, Sir, these are the two areas which we should take up in the 1990s. In 1966, the Constitutional Commission highlighted these two issues. Those men of vision saw the need and we should re-examine their recommendations to adapt to our times. I am for a body outside of Parliament to vet legislation passed in this House, perhaps an enhanced body of the existing Presidential Council. I quote from the Report of the Constitutional Commission 1966, page 4, paragraph 16:

'The members should be appointed by the President after consultation with the Prime Minister but in the President's discretion from amongst able, mature citizens irrespective of race, colour or creed who have attained eminence or responsible positions in their respective walks of life but who are not members of any political party. Also, it will be able, especially where there is no responsible or effective Opposition in Parliament, to put forward where it considers it necessary in the public interest to do so, constructive and well-informed criticism or amendments of measures proposed in Parliament.'

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Council can delay legislation for a specified period, except for money Bills and Bills of urgency. Parliament can heed its advice or reject it. In other words, the Council has no over-riding powers over Parliament. It is far better than having a group of vested interest, non-elected Members of Parliament who have no credibility to speak in this House.

Sir, I tried to search for reasons to support this Bill. But my conclusion is that Nominated MPs will not in any way improve our parliamentary system. It is not essential to achieving good government in a modern parliamentary democracy. The First Deputy Prime Minister and the other Ministers have not been able to convince me. Referring this Bill to a Select Committee will mean acceptance of the proposal to nominate MPs to this House. This I will not agree to. Though they will not vote on constitutional and money Bills, to me, Nominated MPs means a dilution of the democratic process, a dilution of the one-man-one-vote parliamentary system.

My dilemma, Mr Speaker, Sir, is also faced by some fellow PAP colleagues. Having spoken strongly against the Bill, I am now required to vote for it because the Party Whip is not lifted. Sir, if for only this reason, Singaporeans have to accept NMPs, then it is a sad day for parliamentary democracy. They do not really understand what they have to give up.

Mr Goh Chok Tong: Can I just seek a point of clarification, Mr Speaker, Sir? The Member for Ayer Rajah has proposed a solution to my proposal to have Nominated MPs. His solution is that we should set up a body outside Parliament to check and vet the policies of the House. Is he not arguing against himself when he proposed this? Because earlier on he has quoted, I think, from the Prime Minister and from the Chief Justice's Commission and so on that nobody, who is not elected by the people, should be given the power to check the powers of the elected representatives.

Dr Tan Cheng Bock: Mr Speaker, Sir, when the Prime Minister made that statement, he was saying that these people should not be in Parliament. They can do so outside Parliament. Because in Parliament it is really involved in a political debate which is very different.

Mr Goh Chok Tong: Mr Speaker, Sir, I was referring to the principle of people who are not elected to check those who are elected by the people. I do not have the quotations which he has. If I can borrow his papers, I will quote the same thing in his face and say that he has in fact contradicted himself with his proposal.

Dr Tan Cheng Bock: Mr Speaker, Sir, the proposal that I have suggested is actually not new. It is meant to delay legislation.

Mr Goh Chok Tong: We have the power here. We are elected by the people.

Dr Tan Cheng Bock: But we still have over-riding powers. We can still not believe what that advisory body has said. They can delay legislation, let us say, for a fixed period. But at the end of the day, if we do not accept, it is our own look-out. We have to face it at the polls.

Mr Wong Kan Seng: Why hand them the right?

Dr Tan Cheng Bock: No, we are not handing them the right. We are taking advice from them.

Mr Goh Chok Tong: Nobody has the right to advise us, according to the Prime Minister.

Mr Speaker: Order. I will have to discourage such conversation between Members. 3.15 pm

Mr Lim Boon Heng (Kebun Baru): Mr Speaker, Sir, quite clearly this Bill has not been easy for some of us to accept. One of the views of the democratic process is that anyone who wishes to speak in Parliament should have the mandate of the people. And if one does not have the people's mandate, then on what authority does he seek to influence and shape public policy?

I have had to address this question when I considered the Bill. As the First Deputy Prime Minister said, there are basically two forms of election of the people's representatives - the first-past-the-post system and the proportional representation system. And some Parliaments adopt a hybrid of the two, or may have two Houses.

The first-past-the-post system has often been criticised because it would amount to a tyranny of the majority. So it is not a perfect system. We have also seen in some countries that when there is multi-party support, it can also be a tyranny of the minority. But its advantage is the ability to allow effective government.

The proportional representation system, whilst giving different sections of the people representative weight in Parliament, leads quite often to hung Parliaments and, therefore, ineffective governments more often than the first-past-the-post system. And in our context, it will lead to ethnic politics and polarisation among the people. So how do we evolve our system to cater for the greater desire of the people for participation in national politics?

Different countries have evolved different variations of the two models. So it is quite legitimate for us to evolve our own variations and to consider those models that would suit our purpose.

The nature of party politics inevitably means an adversarial relationship. Any opposition worth its salt aims one day to win a majority to form the government. Parliamentary debate then has the tendency to become more theatre than discussions on the merits of a policy measure. And the word "theatre" is not my own, but one which I have heard in the British House of Commons. An Opposition would exploit the unpopularity of a policy, even if it privately recognises the merit of that policy and knows that it is good for the country. It has happened and it will happen again. I have had opportunities to exchange views with Parliamentarians from other countries and they acknowledge that indeed this is the case. Parlia- mentary debate tends to serve the goal of the political parties for winning power, rather than for serious discussion for the long-term good of the people when we have such a system.

I feel the greatest merit of the Nominated MPs proposal, therefore, is in the non-partisan stance that we can expect such MPs to take. Without doubt, non-partisan voices in Parliament would give the people a reference point to judge the merit or demerit of the arguments put forward by contending political parties in Parliament. They can then form a more objective view on the correctness and soundness of Government policy. When they, being independent and non-partisan, support an unpopular policy, then the people will know that the Government is in fact right, even if the policy is unpopular. This will help them to accept correct policies for the country's good. If the Nominated MPs have serious objections to Government policy, then the Government would have to rethink and re-examine its position even if, as we are proposing, the numbers are small. And this, I feel, the Government must consider seriously.

If Nominated MPs can play this role, then they help to provide a stabiliser in our democratic system. There is therefore merit in the proposal.

However, how should one distinguish between MPs, NCMPs, and Nominated MPs? Should they have the right to vote? Giving them the right to vote would mean that they have real influence in Parliament. They do make a difference even if they are in the minority. The problem is they have real influence without having gone to the people for a mandate. But if we regard them as a stabilising force and their number is limited, perhaps we can accept it. I would be happier, however, if we can have more discussion on this before we come to a conclusion. And depending on our final conclusion, we may even rename Nominated MPs and call them Parliamentary Councillors.

I disagree with the Member for Ayer Rajah on having a Parliamentary Council to override or delay the decision-making process in this Parliament.

Dr Tan Cheng Bock: A point of clarification. I did not say "override".

Mr Lim Boon Heng: "Delay". I accept his clarification - to delay the decision-making process in this House. I would accept them in this House. Let them have their say together with Government, Government Backbenchers, Opposition together. And after all the views are duly considered, then we take a vote. Whether the Parliamentary Councillors or Nominated MPs have the right to vote, I think that is something we should consider.

Then there is also the question on how these MPs are to be nominated and selected. Using a Select Committee of Parliament is one way. But are there no other ways? And how do we prevent, as the Member for Ayer Rajah pointed out, a communalist from entering Parliament? Perhaps the suggestion made by the Member for Thomson on having the whole House vote on the list of nominees would be a check. I feel that the collective wisdom of the House, of the duly elected Members, those who have gone through the elections, would act as a check against the emergence of a communalist in this House. But that is only one possibility. Are there no other possibilities? It is possible that members of the public may have other ideas on how this can be done. I think we should encourage this public discussion.

As the Member for Ayer Rajah said, presently there are many channels of feedback. There are also channels through which members of the public can put forward proposals to the Government. We should not ignore those who have been practising participatory democracy using existing legitimate channels and should not merely be concerned with having academics, lawyers, businessmen, or religious leaders to be present in Parliament to voice sectional interests. We should also consider those who are able to take a wider view because they have been serving in the community and their track record, their dedication to the people, their dedication to the country, have already been tested.

As there are many facets of this Bill that merit more thorough scrutiny, I would support sending it to a Select Committee. And after thorough public discussion, let us make whatever changes we think is needed. Our objective must be to strengthen our parliamentary system for the good of the people.

Mr Speaker: Order. I suspend the Sitting and will take the Chair again at 3.40 pm.

Sitting accordingly suspended at 3.20 pm until 3.40 pm. Sitting resumed at 3.40 pm