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

Debate resumed.

Dr Wong Kwei Cheong (Cairnhill): Mr Speaker, Sir, I speak in support of this Bill to amend the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore to provide for the appointment of a maximum number of six Nominated Members of Parliament. As stipulated in the amendment Bill, such appointed Members of Parliament shall serve for a term of two years commencing on the date of their appointment, and shall have the same voting rights in Parliament as a Non-Constituency Member.

Mr Speaker, Sir, seven PAP members have just spoken on the Bill and as we can see, four have given their full support, two have strongly objected, although they have to vote with the Party, and one has given his conditional support.

I support this Bill, Mr Speaker, Sir, as I firmly believe that this amendment will further enhance the development of parliamentary democracy in Singapore.

The Government, moreover, has this idea of allowing a group of "Non-elected Members of Parliament" into Parliament for many years. In fact, as early as 1972, our Prime Minister, Mr Lee Kuan Yew has suggested that some parliamentary seats be reserved for representatives of tertiary institutions.

The Prime Minister made this suggestion after the PAP had won all 65 seats in the 1972 General Elections. At the press conference held on 3rd September 1972, after the results of the General Elections had been announced, the Prime Minister expressed his worry over the problem of getting a constructive opposition, and I quote:

"But I think the problem of getting an intelligent, constructive opposition has got to be solved, and Singapore just hasn't got the kind of people who are coming into politics - are not likely ever to develop into a coherent, constructive, loyal opposition."

Since 1972, this problem has remained unresolved. In the General Elections of 1976 and 1980, the PAP won all the 69 and 75 parliamentary seats respectively. In the 1984 General Elections, the opposition parties, the SDP and the WP, each won one out of the 79 parliamentary seats. In the 1988 General Elections, the SDP won one of the 81 parliamentary seats; the WP lost all their contested seats and decided to accept a Non-Constituency MP seat.

Mr Speaker, Sir, it is obvious that what the Prime Minister said about opposition parties in 1972 remains true today - that Singapore just hasn't got the kind of people who are coming into politics that can develop into a team of coherent, constructive and loyal opposition Members.

This amendment Bill will help to encourage more people of the right calibre to join the political arena as Nominated MPs. The amendment Bill ensures that such nominated MPs will come from a wide cross-section of the people, as clause 5, section 2(1) of the amendment Bill states that the Special Select Committee shall invite the general public to submit names of persons who may be considered for nomination by the Committee. Such nominated MPs would not need to go through the electoral process and would not have a constituency to look after. They are not constrained by party policies. Neither do they need to pander to popular sentiments in order to win votes at the next election. Hence, nominated MPs can speak their minds freely during parliamentary debates and may even out-perform elected MPs over sensitive issues. If such nominated MPs have political ambitions and can perform well in Parliament, they may even win enough votes at the next general elections and be returned to Parliament as elected PAP MPs or even as elected opposition party MPs and develop into a team of coherent, constructive, and loyal opposition Members. Hence, I am convinced that this amendment Bill will enhance the development of parliamentary democracy in Singapore and ensure Singapore's survival as a democratic and prosperous city state.

Sir, I support the Bill. 3.46 pm

Mr Chiam See Tong: Much obliged to you, Mr Speaker, Sir.

Sir, I am against the proposed amendment to the Constitution. As I have said on another occasion, with the amendment to the Constitution, we shall have three classes of MPs, the elected MPs are in the first class, the NCMPs are in the second class and the nominated MPs are in the third class. I put the NCMPs in a higher class than the nominated MPs because they have gone through the fire of a parliamentary election and they have a measure of electoral support, whereas the nominated MPs have none of these. Personally, I say that the nominated MPs have no place in the Parliament of independent Singapore. We are not a colonial legislative body where nominated legislative members are a common feature. I would say that when nominated MPs are installed in our Parliament, they are just like fish out of water. They should not be in our Parliament. They should be tossed back to the universities or statutory bodies or businesses or other work places where they came from. If these people want to be in Parliament, then let them do so by the proper means. Come forward and put themselves through the electoral process. I do not think it is right for anyone to enjoy the privileges and prestige of being a Member of Parliament without earning that right in a parliamentary election.

The proposed amendment is a retrogressive step. It will whittle down our democratic parliamentary system. The essence of true democracy is representation. The people elect their representatives to Parliament and Members of Parliament in Parliament represent the will of the people. Members of Parliament do not act for themselves in Parliament. They are voted in by the electorate and they represent the electorate. This is how democracy works. In the case of nominated MPs, they represent no electorate. They are in Parliament by virtue of being appointed ultimately by the ruling party. Thus they naturally represent the interest of the political party that appoints them. They cannot be the voice of the people. The nominated MPs shall be useless to the electorate because they do not represent their interests. The only use nominated MPs really have is to talk for the sake of talking in Parliament. There are at the moment 81 elected MPs in Parliament. This number is more than enough of MPs to serve the electorate. The ratio of elected MPs to the voters is about 1:20,000. This ratio is high compared to many other Western democratic countries. We may have to increase the number of elected MPs as our population grows, but certainly we do not need them now. I believe we already have excess numbers of elected Members of Parliament.

As far as the voters are concerned, these nominated MPs, if appointed, are a waste of public funds. They are like the fifth wheel on a carriage which has no practical use. The Government should be more responsible and not turn Parliament into a mere talk shop and also not to waste taxpayers' money. Why throw away good money when we can save it? The nominated MPs will not be of any help to Parliament.

It has been said that nominated MPs will raise the level of debate in Parliament. But then the PAP has told the electorate in the last general elections that their candidates are the best brains in Singapore. Today, there is an admission. They are in fact not the best brains after all. We need nominated MPs to assist them in the debates in Parliament. Even if the PAP Members are not really as good as they are made out to be, Backbenchers through their GPCs have the help and aid of resource panels who comprise people with specialist knowledge. The Government MPs have the Feedback Unit which is supposed to have its ears on the ground. In addition to the Feedback Unit, the Government Members also have the benefit of feedback from the grassroots organisations like the RCs, CCCs, CCMCs and, as the Member for Ayer Rajah has pointed out, many other sources for information and knowledge if they want to.

In view of the fact that Government MPs are so equipped to debate in Parliament, there is no excuse really if their level of debate is not up to the mark. They should be up to the mark. Therefore, there is no need for nominated MPs.

As I recall, the PAP did not canvass the issue of nominated MPs at the last general elections. I would say therefore that the Government can only amend the Constitution on such an important matter as the introduction of nominated MPs, it must first of all go back to the people to get an electoral mandate. This Government does not have the mandate to amend the Constitution. It has no moral right to do so. If Singapore hopes to be like Switzerland, then we should have a national referendum before such a very important matter as nominated MPs can be introduced in our Parliament. Of course, Singapore is not like Switzerland. This Government thinks that it can make Singapore like Switzerland in its so-called Vision of 1999. Singapore can never be compared to Switzerland simply because Switzerland practises true democracy. Singapore does not. We practise a brand of authoritarian, paternalistic, pseudo-democracy with a dominant party which intends to keep political power for ever. That is really what this amendment is all about. This amendment is one of the means to ensure the Government to be in power all the time.

The Government's intention is also to bring in the nominated MPs with a view to perpetuate a myth. The gist of the myth has already been mentioned and it runs something like this. The people want the PAP to rule them, but at the same time they also want some opposition to be in Parliament to check the Government. Since the opposition is unable to win any parliamentary elections except in one constituency, the Government has generously amended the Constitution to meet the people's wishes to have opposition in Parliament, and by giving them 6 nominated MPs who shall, in the Government's view, satisfy the needs of the people for opposition in Parliament. I say that that myth remains a myth and it is, of course, absolutely untrue. What people want is really elected MPs in Parliament, not nominated MPs or NCMPs. The Government knows it and that was the true reason why the Government refused to hold by-elections at Geylang West and at Anson when those constituencies became vacant in late 1986 and early 1987 respectively. Further evidence that the people want elected opposition MPs is by the increase of Opposition votes. In the 1984 general elections the opposition increased their vote by 12.3%. And in the last general elections, the people gave the opposition a further increase of 2.3% vote, making the total opposition vote of about 40%. If the Government is sincere in wanting opposition in Parliament, the Government should be fair. That is all the opposition is asking. The Government should be fair at the polls and not resort to smear tactics, changing of the ground rules, changing of boundary lines, juggling with constituencies, and resort to the tactic of fear by using the Internal Security Act to make arbitrary arrests. The truth is that the Government is afraid that at the next general elections more opposition will be voted into Parliament and it does not want any more elected opposition in parliament. Therefore the Government has to do something about it. Hence, the introduction of 6 nominated MPs.

The opposition calls on the government not to bring back forms of colonialism into our parliamentary system, not to convert our Parliament into a legislative assembly with initially 6 nominated Members but eventually increasing it to a substantial number.

Our style of parliamentary system is essentially a contentious one. Our Parliament is fairly new, only 25 years next year. It is time we set a precedent of good, high level contentious debate in Parliament amongst mature people and not by way of the nominated MPs, by trying to sneak in elements of "Confusion type proceedings" in Parliament by consensus. If we set on that road now, we will eventually end up a dictatorship of one-party rule. It is the duty of the opposition to see that that day does not come.

Mr Chew Heng Ching (Eunos GRC): Mr Speaker, Sir, our country is unique. We are small and yet successful. We have come a long way in the last 25 years. Singaporeans today are better educated and have become more politically conscious. They want to have a greater say on matters that affect their lives. They want more voices in Parliament to convey their aspirations and views. To satisfy this trend, various innovative measures have been introduced in the past. We introduced the NCMP scheme in 1984 and the GRC scheme in 1988. We are now in the midst of a debate on yet another scheme, the NMP scheme.

Sir, this scheme serves to create a new category of non-elected MPs who could make a positive contribution to Singapore and it is aimed at increasing the people's political participation and yet maintain parliamentary democracy. The Bill in principle is sound. If the right people are selected to be NMPs it serves to enhance the quality of debate in Parliament. This will benefit the country. But the question before us is whether there is a pressing need today to have nominated MPs in our Parliament.

By bringing in nominated MPs now may send a wrong signal to the general public that our elected MPs in today's Parliament are inadequate. I certainly do not believe so. I do not like to appear self-flattering. But I believe the present batch of PAP MPs is probably the best our Parliament ever had. (In fact, the Prime Minister himself said so). They are men and women of the highest quality, well-educated, dedicated, honourable and with a sense of mission. They come from a varied socio-economic background and represent a wide cross-section of our society. They are the fruits of our meritocratic system. The quality of their debate is up to the mark.

Sir, whilst I believe the need for Nominated MPs is less pressing now, I am prepared to support the Bill as a form of safeguard or insurance for the future. There could be a greater need for NMPs in the future when, who knows, one day the calibre and the quality of Singaporeans being elected into Parliament drop. A day could come when well-qualified people, the top brains in Singapore, really shy away from politics. And if we do not have good MPs we cannot have good Ministers, Ministers of State and Parliamentary Secretaries.

Sir, as a safeguard against this happening, I think it is necessary that we have in our Constitution a scheme which serves as an avenue to induct good people into Parliament and even into Government in order to ensure Singapore continues to progress and prosper. This NMP Bill provides this avenue.

Sir, the next question is: why introduce this Bill now? Why can we not wait until we see a drop in the quality and in the calibre of parliamentarians and the Government before we amend the Constitution? Sir, the answer is obvious. The elected MPs of the future, for selfish reasons, may be against bringing in people better than themselves into Parliament and if this is the case the legislation will never be passed.

In summary, Sir, I maintain that it is less pressing today to have nominated MPs in our Parliament. However, it is necessary to introduce this legislation now. It is a safeguard against a future which may see a deterioration in the calibre and quality of Singaporeans being elected into our Parliament.

On that note, I support the Bill.

Dr Aline K. Wong (Tampines GRC): Mr Speaker, Sir, to begin, I think it is not quite fair to say that not a single MP had objected to the political vision as stated in the President's Address which included a reference to the fact that the Government was going to have non-government MPs. At that time, the idea was merely floated around and our normal practice is to thrash out the details of the scheme, both in formal and informal discussions, and the public debate only takes place when a Bill is tabled in Parliament or when it is tabled as a White Paper or Green Paper. So I do not think it is quite fair to say that since we did not object at that time, therefore we should have no right and should not speak up and object now.

Ever since this Bill was tabled in Parliament, I have been struggling over how to debate it. This is a constitutional amendment, a very serious matter. By logic and by convention, the PAP Party Whip cannot be lifted. Yet, this Bill involves a number of very complex issues, contains some questionable features, and has long-term implications for both the nation and the ruling party. Sir, I think I would be amiss in my duty as a Backbencher if I do not lay out very frankly my views about the implications of this Bill.

The issues that underlie the presumed necessity of the amendment are complex. Questions that come immediately to mind are: what is the role of the Opposition in a place where the great majority of voters desire the ruling party to govern on, because of its integrity, its competence and proven record? Second, why is it that the Opposition parties have consistently failed to become credible, whether in terms of their policies or in terms of the quality of their candidates? Thirdly, why do some good people abstain from joining politics even though they have much to contribute?

I cannot deal with these issues here one by one. There are actually plenty of political analysts who can offer very incisive comments. All I wish to say is that, to a great extent, these issues have become issues because of our success. The PAP has succeeded so well in delivering the economic goods that affluence actually and naturally brings political apathy to the greatest majority of the population. Affluence has resulted in political apathy.

Secondly, we have succeeded so well also in identifying and implementing the correct policies that people are actually convinced and indeed take for granted the basic premises of our policies. This explains why there is a lack of ideas on true alternative approaches, and the tendency for a lot of our policy debates just to concentrate on implementation details.

Thirdly, the PAP has also succeeded in gearing its policies towards the broad spectrum of society. Therefore, we have been meeting the aspirations of the broad masses.

Fourthly, we have maintained very high standards in selecting our election candidates and, in the words of our Party leaders, "scoured the earth" to invite people who wish to join us to join. So the problems or the issues we think this Bill is designed to address are actually the problems of our success.

Let me instead concentrate on this Bill, its questionable features, and its implications. On the surface, there is nothing wrong to include new voices in Parliament. However, nomination deviates from one of the most fundamental principles of democracy, ie, the principle of representation. Democratic governments derive their legitimacy from the mandate given by the people through free elections. Each of us here represents a certain number of constituents who voted us in. They are the people who authorise us to make decisions that affect their lives. By contrast, the proposed six nominated MPs are not representing anybody other than themselves. Yet they will have the power to vote on most policies. Does this not constitute a case of power without accountability?

I do not deny the fact that some parliaments have nominated Members in their midst. The First Deputy Prime Minister has tabled a list of 20 parliaments within the Commonwealth which have nominated Members. Examples mentioned are Botswana, Seychelles, St Vincent and the Grenadines, Solomon Islands, Uganda and others. But the question is why are these countries mentioned and why not other countries such as Australia, New Zealand, France, Netherlands, USA, which have no nominated Members? The point is if we want to be unique, we can be unique. If we want to quote precedents, there are always precedents. We must, however, just maintain our own principles.

I would have less difficulty in accepting this Bill if the additional Members are brought in as representatives of various functional constituencies after they have been duly elected by these groups. However, this will open our doors to lobby group politics with dire consequences for the entire process of governing. It would be far better to maintain our present system where the MPs can come from all walks of life and be counted on to represent the various strata of society. The Member for Ayer Rajah has mentioned a broad range of our MPs' background. But let me put some figures and accuracy into his statement. Among our present Backbenchers, including the two Opposition Members, we have 23 Members who are managers or business executives, two bankers, five doctors, four lawyers, 10 academicians, two teachers, seven trade unionists and one journalist, making a total of 54. I should think these backgrounds cover sufficiently the various functional groups' concerns, without our having to appeal to functional group support in electioneering. Besides, if we were to allow functional groups to enter politics as such, we would be contradicting our past stance that professional bodies should stay clear of politics.

The possibility that this NMP scheme can hold out greater promises for women to participate in politics has been made much of. Yes, women are under-represented, I agree. Women are hard pressed by their career and family responsibilities, I agree. The question is: Has the PAP looked hard enough for woman candidates? Are we looking for certain kinds of women among our candidates? Are we willing and ready to open up our range of possibilities to include women who, for example, in the political outlook are rather more radical, so to speak? What about having women from a wider range of background and not just concentrate ourselves on people who have family, career and the kind of political outlook which squares with our way of thinking? What about women who are single? What about housewives who are well educated? If we look wide enough, perhaps we can find more. But of course it is still doubtful.

I am not one to say that women do not need Government's help. We do. We need the Government's help particularly in terms of child care facilities, part-time work, better leave schemes, equal medical benefits and even the legal provisions to make sure some employers do not discriminate against women in the employment practice. With this kind of support, we will be able to manage our family and our career and still be able to come out in politics.

Bangladesh and Pakistan have been mentioned as examples where special seats are reserved for women. Bangladesh and Pakistan, however, have a vast majority of the population living in rural areas. The countries are poor. The greatest majority of the population are still illiterate, particularly the women. Women there are subject to all kinds of inequalities and even oppression. It is a credit to the government and to their parliaments that they should reserve some seats for women. I myself have known some professional women from Bangladesh, Pakistan and India who are academics and who have fought for the women's rights and, hurrah to them, they have gained seats for women in Parliament. But those reserved seats are to make sure women in those countries can have the opportunity to go to school, to get health services, to be able to participate even in economic and social life, because otherwise the social, cultural traditions of the society would not allow women to do so. Our situation in Singapore is very different.

It is no compliment to say that women need to be exempted from constituency work, otherwise we cannot manage well. The four of us here have proven that we can do it all.

Some hon. Members: Hear, hear!

Dr Aline Wong: But a more important point is the one pointed out by the Member for Ayer Rajah, ie, nominated MPs are likely to be armchair politicians if they do not do any grassroots work. I think that is a far more important point and a very valid point. Individuals have very bright ideas and they can have very bright ideas, but if they do not and cannot relate their ideas to the ground and face the realities of society in politics, how are they going to make meaningful contributions to a political debate? That is where the constituency work is necessary. For me, even the holding out of a promise that more women can enter into the Chamber does not move me from deviating from my fundamental principle that parliamentary seats should be based on elections and representation.

Let me move on to the other aspects of the Bill. I think its objectives, in spite of the First Deputy Prime Minister's explanation, are still not very clear. Is it simply to incorporate a broader spectrum of viewpoints into our debates? Or is it not also meant to satisfy the people's desire to see more opposing voices in Parliament? Both have been mentioned. We already have an Opposition in Parliament. If the Opposition Members are not doing their job well, let the people throw them out at the next General Elections.

Mr Chiam See Tong: Of course.

Dr Aline Wong: Our Ministers can stand up to the Opposition; our Backbenchers can tackle them. The six non-elected or nominated MPs are supposed to be non-partisan. They are supposed to voice independent views and not to play up to the gallery. However, my guesses are, I hope I will be proven wrong, but my guesses are the pressure is on them to step in where the Opposition has failed for lack of good ideas, or for lack of sharp opinions. Even the First Deputy Prime Minister has grouped them as non-government MPs together with the Opposition Members. The pressure on them is to criticize the Government, because if they do not, the people will be disappointed. But the irony is that if the nominated MPs out of their own convictions, out of their own independent thinking, agree with the Government's policies, the people will think they are the Government's yes-men or yes-women. Another irony is that if the NMPs perform well in the eyes of the public, they will only whet the people's appetite for more opposing voices in Parliament. Are we then to amend the Constitution again to increase the number of NMP seats? If the NMPs do not perform well, are we then to abolish the seats because they failed to raise the quality of debate in Parliament? If we do, the people will think we cannot tolerate dissent. I think we will be caught in a bind, whichever way. And where is the end to this satisfying the public's desire for more opposing voices in Parliament?

The Bill, unfortunately, looks as if we are bending over backwards to accommodate people who do not want to enter politics in the first place. People who do not want to enter politics have their various reasons. I think we should respect their wishes. We have always maintained that people who hold different viewpoints from the Government and feel strongly about them should form their own political parties. People who do not wish to do so are not lost to the nation. They can still play an important role and make contributions to policy-making. They can serve in various capacities on our statutory boards, advisory councils, GPC resource panels, Town Council management committees. They can make recommendations to our Select Committees, to the various feedback channels. And what about our think tanks? We are getting more and more of them.

In our system, as in many parliaments or congresses, a lot of policy deliberations actually take place during the committee stage, where professional advice and technical details are sorted out. Experts make their testimonies in open hearings, while Members of Parliament decide on the broad principles. Thus, I fail to see what the six NMPs can do in Parliament which the present Backbenchers cannot do also. Besides, if an issue is put to a vote, would the six NMPs make much difference to a House where the ruling party holds 80 seats? If one day the PAP has only a slim majority, are we going to abolish the NMP seats just in case they may tip the balance?

Finally, Mr Speaker, Sir, it is difficult to mention the sentiments of the Backbenchers on this Bill. A public comment on the Bill is that it is an indirect indictment on the present Backbenchers' performance. But I do not think we should be too concerned over such comments. What should rightly concern us are the logic, the necessity, and the implications of this Amendment for the country's entire political process. Under the circumstances where the Party Whip is not lifted, voting is compulsory but speaking is not, I beg the First Deputy Prime Minister to interpret the silence of some Members judiciously.

Dr Koh Lam Son: Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to support the Bill and to add my views to the discussion.

The objective of the Bill is to bring in a group of non-partisan non-PAP MPs into Parliament and it is hoped that they will add to a better representation of the views of the people and thus enhance the democratic process. There are pros and cons in this Bill. But what concerns me most is this question of independence and credibility of the selection system. If the objective is to bring in a new group of independent MPs, then the system must be independent and neutral. This will dispel any criticism that the system is devised by the ruling party to serve its own interest. It will also attract better calibre candidates who might not otherwise take up the call if the system appears prejudiced.

Under the present proposal, the Special Select Committee will be made up of mainly Government MPs. There is this danger that this may lead to nominated MPs being treated with suspicion and labelled as pro-government MPs, as alluded by Dr Aline Wong, no matter how well they perform in Parliament as independent MPs.

Mr Lim Boon Heng has suggested that the Select Committee look into other ways of selecting nominated MPs, and I would like to support that. If it is possible to form an independent non-partisan Select Committee, that will be a more superior system. Nominated MPs selected in this manner will be seen as independent because the system is independent. They will not be constrained by political affiliation in any manner and will be able to articulate views or arguments which would be clumsy for other MPs to put forward.

Having said all this, I must add that my own discussion of the Bill at the grassroots level has raised several issues which I feel are pertinent for the Government to note.

First, there appears to be an uneasiness concerning the Bill. This is understandable, as has been pointed out by several speakers before me, because the Bill is a fundamental change to the Constitution. So it is important that the objective of the Bill be put forward to the people clearly and time must be given for a fuller discussion. It would be foolish to rush the Bill through in a hasty manner. And in this regard, I welcome the First Deputy Prime Minister's plan to have a Select Committee hearing on the Bill.

Second, there is a feeling that by opening another seemingly convenient avenue into Parliament for the nominated MPs, the efforts of elected MPs and their supporters will be diluted. The nominated MPs do not carry responsibilities of serving the electorate in a direct manner. They do not have any mandate from the people and yet they have extensive powers in terms of voting rights. This does not seem to support the democratic process. Moreover, they are not accountable to the electorate for their performance if they are nominated by a Select Committee. Instead they will be assessed by the Select Committee and cannot be voted out by the people.

Third, there is also doubt that the nominated MPs can do more than what the present MPs are already doing. This, of course, will be difficult to gauge at this point in time because it will all depend on the quality of the candidates who are nominated, and certainly the success of the scheme hinges on the quality and effectiveness of the nominated MPs. The big question here is whether those talented, whom we have failed to draw into the political process, will now come forward to serve under this new scheme.

In conclusion, although the Bill holds promise of bringing better representations of people's views into Parliament, the process of selection needs further consideration and many questions still remain unanswered at the grassroots level. It will be prudent to allow more time to debate all concerns in full prior to the implementation of the Bill.

Dr Lee Siew-Choh: Mr Speaker, Sir, let me first say that I share many of the points raised by Dr Tan and Dr Aline Wong, and I applaud the way they have put forward their cases.

The Bill proposes a fundamental change to our Constitution, as the last speaker has said. And soon after the 1984 Elections, our Prime Minister had said that no one should tinker with the Constitution. But as usual, the PAP itself did just what it said no one should do. And just after that, it amended the Constitution to provide for the election of NCMPs. Then in the middle of 1988, the PAP again amended the Constitution to provide for the system of Group Representation Constituencies. 4.21 pm

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lim Boon Heng) in the Chair]

Dr Lee Siew-Choh: Early this year, the Government again amended the Constitution to regularise and legitimise and covered up mistakes made by the Prime Minister since 1972 on the issue of the appointment of the Chief Minister. And now the PAP wants to amend the Constitution once again in order to provide for the appointment of nominated MPs.

The First Deputy Prime Minister has given us some reasons for the Bill. He argues that the nominated MP scheme would help to broaden participation in parliamentary debate, enable people of high standing with special interests and expertise in the various fields to actively participate in the country's government, and even to induce people who normally shy away from the hurly-burly of politics to express their views and encourage constructive opposition. And, of course, he also says that it is intended to build consensus.

If Government should propose amendments to safeguard the fundamental and basic human rights and democracies of the people, we would all understand the need for such amendments and so give our full-hearted support. But the amendments have nothing to do with such important principles. They are merely to provide for wider participation of more NMPs in parliamentary debate, and to allow Government to benefit from the expertise of such NMPs. But if expertise is what the PAP hopes to get, then Government has already the benefit of views and advice from all its experts in various fields, as listed by Dr Tan. They have their think tanks, resident committees, feedback units, economic advisory committees, Government Parliamentary Committees, a whole lot of other committees, their own youth wings, women's wings, and what nots. So what need is there to amend the Constitution merely to provide for expertise from Nominated MPs?

The First Deputy Prime Minster has also given a new angle to the arguments often expressed by the Government. The Government frequently refers to Singapore's special circumstances, its smallness in size, and its shortage of talents. The Government used the same arguments to provide excuses for giving high salaries to Government Ministers and top civil servants. But though our population is small, we nevertheless have enough talents in every sphere of activity in our society. Our difficulty, Sir, is that the PAP Government does not allow local talents to blossom and flourish if such talents are not directed to supporting the PAP politically. Hundreds and hundreds of Singapore's best talents have been arbitrarily arrested and detained for prolonged periods or deported to other countries. Even today, the oppressive political climate has driven many thousands of our best brains to leave our country, just as tens or hundreds of thousands of people in Europe and elsewhere emigrate in order to seek political freedom and democracy.

So, let the Government stop its political harassments, intimidations and oppressions of political opponents, and more and more people would readily step forward into the political arena to the benefit of both the Government and opposition parties and all Singapore, with their expertise in the different fields.

There is a hint that the system of nominated MPs will extend the scope of parliamentary and political democracy in Singa- pore. But that is a colonialist argument. When the British had nominated MPs in the Singapore Legislative Council, in 1948 and 1951 and again nominated Members in the Labour Front Government under the Rendel Constitution, the PAP Government fought to remove such nominated Members. Yet, now we are going to have nominated MPs again under the PAP Government itself. What an irony of the whole situation. People all over the world are demanding for free elections in order to have their own representatives in Parliament and government. But the PAP Government takes us back to the colonial times. It is bucking against the progressive world trend.

This NMP system, Sir, will extend not democracy, but its opposite, non-democracy. Other countries having NMPs are listed by the First Deputy Prime Minister. But that argument has been countered by Dr Aline Wong. I do not wish to labour the point. But let us ask, why the proposal for nominated MPs?

The First Deputy Prime Minister refers to 1984, 1988, the NCMP and the GRC. He also refers to history. Let me also similarly refer to history, and let us see from a non-PAP angle why the PAP in the first place put up the idea of NCMP and then that GRC. After the PAP's defeat in Anson in 1981 at the hands of the Workers' Party, the PAP launched full-scale attacks against J B Jeyaretnam, the lone representative of the opposition in Parliament. The PAP did everything possible to destabilise the Workers' Party and discredit J B Jeyaretnam. It boasted that it would nominate the same candidate in the next elections and would regain Anson for the PAP. We all know that such boasts came to nought. The Workers' Party had solid support of the people in Anson and in 1984, J B Jeyaretnam was duly re-elected to Parliament. Long used to "Yes-men" in an all-PAP Parliament, the PAP found that Jeyaretnam was becoming a thorn in the eyes of the PAP. It therefore set out to get rid of the lone opposition MP. But in so doing, its non-tolerance to criticism and to political opposition was fully exposed to the public. The people on their part, long tired of PAP shadow boxing in a one-party Parliament, had their appetite whetted for more opposition MPs. They, especially the younger set, were openly demanding to have more and more opposition MPs. This demand did not arise from a vacuum. It arose from the concrete situation at the time. This demand for more opposition MPs became more and more vociferous.

As the PAP does not tolerate criticism and opposition, it became more and more difficult for the PAP to pretend that it would like to have a parliamentary opposition when there was none, and when at the same time it unleashed increasingly vehement attacks on the lone opposition MP. Moreover the PAP has always postured as democrats although it also keep on arresting activists and leaders of the opposition. And it knew that it would reflect badly on the PAP if the people continued to complain that the PAP was intolerant of criticism and of parliamentary opposition. Something had to be done as a cover up. The PAP thus came up with the idea of the NCMP.

Speaking on why the NCMP scheme was introduced, the Prime Minister gave three reasons for the move. But the most important reason, the real reason, was not mentioned, namely, to use the NCMP scheme as a facade of parliamentary democracy, to create the impression that the PAP tolerates criticism and indeed would like to have an opposition, and has now even gone out of its way to create a parliamentary opposition. When the opposition parties criticised the scheme, PAP leaders came out to say that they hoped the opposition would take up the NCMP seats, and to quote one of them, in order to "Speak up for the people who voted for them."

However, after having lost 12.6% of the total votes in the 1984 elections, the PAP became fearful that it would lose more votes and more seats to the opposition in the 1988 elections. It discarded certain unpopular policies, carried out some reorganisation, and came out with the idea of the GRC in order to create additional difficulties for the opposition. With the help of the GRCs and the usual PAP scare-tactics regarding town councils and other things, the PAP managed to gain all seats except one in the 1988 elections. But it also lost another 1.1% of the popular votes. What is more important, the PAP had not been able to dampen criticism that it does not tolerate a parliamentary opposition. The people want to have still more opposition MPs and they are dissatisfied with the results of the 1988 elections.

Now, to keep up the pretence that it is keen to have more opposition MPs, the PAP has come out with the idea of nominated MPs. It would be a logical continuation of the NCMP idea, as the First Deputy Prime Minister has said. And both the NCMP and NMP scheme would together serve to pave the way for what some PAP

MPs have called the dominant party scheme. But we ask: does the PAP really wish to have more views from the opposition in Parliament? If the answer is yes, why not go the conventional democratic way? First, hold more democratic elections. Give the opposition more time and facilities. Allow the opposition equal access to TV and radio. Let the press give full coverage to opposition parties. Uphold basic human rights. No threats and intimidations, no scare tactics, no arrests.

Then Constitution already has provisions for opposition Members, including NCMPs, to be made up to a maximum of 6 in number. Presently, we have one elected MP and one, or if you like, two NCMPs. So we have room for another three or four NCMPs. Therefore it would be logical to have more NCMPs as a first step.

Thirdly, if the PAP wishes to ensure that various sectional interests are represented in Parliament, then we should adopt the democratic system of proportional representation. It is no worse than the NMP system. If there is concern that proportional representation might produce an unstable government, because no single party might have a simple majority in Parliament, then we could adopt, as you have mentioned, Mr Deputy Speaker, a hybrid system, which is a combination of first-past-the-post and proportional representation based on a party slate. Therefore, there is no need to have nominated MPs.

The First Deputy Prime Minister in his explanation has also unwittingly revealed what the Government hopes to achieve with an NMP system. He wants, to build consensus in the country. But the only way to achieve such consensus is for the Government to follow policies that truly represent and reflect the views and interests of all sections of our people. The people are asking for more opposition MPs because the PAP policies have failed to represent and reflect the views and interests of all sections of the people in Singapore.

Look at the provisions in the Bill. Who will nominate the

6 NMPs? The general public may submit names, but they will ultimately be considered and appointed by a Special Select Committee of Parliament. And who constitutes the Special Select Committee of Parliament? With 80 PAP MPs out of a total of 81 Members of Parliament, is there any doubt as to who will constitute the Special Select Committee and do the selection? Further, these nominated MPs will be put on probation for two years. If they should please the power-that-be, perhaps they would serve another two-year term. Otherwise they would be kicked out. So all the nominations and selections depend on the whims and fancies of the PAP Government. It is all a PAP show, however disguised. Is it likely that those who disagree strongly with PAP policies will be selected? For example, will leaders of the opposition be considered for selection?

Finally, whose interests do the nominated MPs represent? Other Members have already spoken on it. And I stress again. They cannot possibly represent the interests of the voters as they have not been voted in by the voters. They represent only themselves. There is a lot of talk of representation of voters in Parliament. The system of nominated MPs now denies voters of their basic right to vote for their representatives in Parliament. The Special Select Committee of Parliament in the PAP takes away the basic right of the voters.

Lately, PAP MPs have been talking about a so-called "dominant party" system in Singapore. This could mean that the PAP would contrive to hold such one-sided elections that the opposition, not being given a fair chance in the contest, would at best consist of only a small number of elected MPs, including some NCMPs and few nominated MPs. Such a situation would allow the PAP to install itself as the Government in Singapore forever. The Government would be taking us back 50 years to the colonial era, to the late 40's and the 50's. It is a retrograde step, as some speakers have already said. Or is the PAP slowly adopting a system, similar to that of the communist system in which the PAP will play the dominant leading role? Is that the dominant party system which some PAP MPs are openly talking about? And are the NCMP and NMP schemes really intended to pave the way for a PAP dominant-party system like the communist system? That would certainly create a form of political consensus. The nominated MP idea should be dropped. 4.45 pm

Mr Peh Chin Hua (Jalan Besar GRC): ( In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, this amendment to the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore has been debated vehemently by the MPs and varied views, pros and cons, have been put forward in this House. Let me first talk about the term nominated MP. The Chinese translation of NMP should more appropriately be "te wei yi yuen" ( ) rather than "Guan wei yi yuen" ( ) because the translation "Guan wei" ( ) as appeared in the Chinese newspapers will give the people the impression that they are agents for the Government, whereas the English term "nominated MP" will not give such impression. Talking about this Amendment Bill, some people may think it would give the elected MPs a feeling of discomfiture or "loss of face". Some may think that the NMPs are Government agents. In fact, as many PAP MPs have said, people elected us into Parliament because they liked the PAP. In other words, they supported PAP. If they had wanted PAP MPs to oppose PAP Government policies, then I believe, they would have elected Opposition MPs rather than PAP MPs into Parliament.

I feel rather strange that our elected MPs should be worried about the NMPs. Initially, the Cabinet Ministers should be the ones to be worried because they will have to face the questioning and criticisms of six more MPs. However, from the debate we had just now, it can be seen that many elected MPs are also very worried over this new system. If we study in depth and analyse the present existing political system we will find that the concept of NMP suits our political environment today and it is a manifestation of political flexibility and maturity. Therefore, it can be said that the nominated MPs scheme is a feasible one and as such, we should not be too dogged or hard and fast about our present political system, or be unduly worried that this new concept would pose a danger to our country. Earlier I sensed a feeling of discomfiture among some MPs. They seem to feel a loss of face because of the introduction of the NMPs. Such reaction is understandable because in Singapore to be elected MPs is not so simple as those in some other countries where they are merely armchair MPs or self-serving under the guise of MP, when they do not do any work actually. The elected PAP MPs, as my colleagues have said, have worked very hard, day and night, they have to meet the people, conduct activities in their constituencies and attend functions of organizations in their constituency, attend meetings of grassroots committee, look after the welfare of the voters and to speak in Parliament expressing political views, and until recently, run the Town Council besides having to do a thousand and one things. These MPs are the public servants of the people. Therefore, their role and image in the eyes of the people are of such prestige that they are out of comparison by the Nominated MPs. The heavy duties and responsibilities of PAP MPs are common household knowledge. Take myself as an example. Since I became an MP for one year, when my friends meet me, they do not ask me, "How is your business?" , but "You have been very busy?" This shows that Singaporeans understand the heavy commitment and spirit of devotion of PAP MPs. This dedication and sense of responsibility have been able to win their support and admiration, which have in turn contributed to the success of PAP at every general election.

It is the people who confirm the quality of PAP MPs by voting them in at the general elections which is the best sign of their support. Therefore, only one Opposition Member, Mr Chiam, was elected in the last election and there is nothing much he can do in Parliament. Under these circumstances, we have to make some adjustments to our political system to make up for the dearth of other views from non-PAP MPs in Parliament and therefore the Nominated MP scheme is a timely measure to satisfy the requirements of the present political situation.

We should not feel that since we are in Parliament we could not accommodate other non-political partisans from coming into Parliament as nominated MPs. It is not right to begrudge them. We should be broad minded enough to accept them for their contributions. I feel strange that Dr Lee also objected to this measure, forgetting that he himself is a NCMP. He said there is no democracy in Parliament. If there is no democracy in Parliament, he would not have this chance to speak against the policy in the Parliament as a NCMP or does he think that he is being forced to support our stand? In fact, nominated MPs are quite different from popularly elected MPs. As a matter of fact, nominated MPs and elected MPs play different roles. There is no reason for us to feel uncomfortable or to have a feeling of loss of face.

Elected MPs feel the jubilation and excitement after they are elected because they have won the mandate of the people. This is the main difference between elected MPs and Nominated MPs. Such jubilation and excitement cannot be experienced by nominated MPs. Therefore, I do not think the NMPs are a superior class of people or more special than the popularly elected MPs. With the rising of educational level, living standard and political consciousness, what people look forward is a good government, like the PAP Government which is honest, clean and efficient. But they also want to see constructive, and sensible views from opposition in Parliament. However, the opposition parties have let them down. Therefore we have to look for another alternative to satisfy their needs. They do not want to see here the type of confusion and chaos that take place in the Indian political arena.

The people supported and wanted to elect the PAP to be the Government and we had been able to win 80 out of 81 seats. However, we should not forget that some of them would also like to hear other voices in Parliament. Some people feel that the Opposition MPs' performance has been far from satisfactory in the House. The opposition MP and NCMP in Parliament also deny these people their desire to hear different and constructive views and suggestions in Parliament. The NMP system will be able to fulfil such desires of these people to hear different and constructive voices in Parliament to make up for the shortcomings from the Opposition. This will also raise the standard and quality of debate in Parliament and help to make Government policies and measures better and their implementation smoother. I believe the NMP system would improve our political system and help to build a clean, honest and efficient Government that will serve the people better. It will play an important part and have a definite role in our political system. We should not denigrate the Nominated MP system for what they may be able to do in Parliament. We should also not take the support for the past 25 years the people have given to the PAP for granted. Today, no MPs will deny that the NCMPs have certain role to play in Parliament. I believe NMPs can play a comparable role too.

Moreover, there are many talented knowledgeable people who are not willing to be linked up with political parties. Neither do they want to join the party in power or any Opposition party. They are non-partisan. They are not Government agents. These capable people of good intent under certain unique circumstances cannot join political parties or take part in constituency work in the political elective process. Therefore, they are the suitable candidates to be selected as nominated MPs. They can put forward neutral or more independent views. They would not have to consider about party discipline or the pressure from the voters. Therefore, the NMP system is a sensible one and a sound one at the present stage.

It is a pity Mr Chiam is not here. He thinks that the introduction of NMPs is indirectly a negation of the quality of PAP MPs. In fact, it shows more of the lacklustre performance of the candidates of Singapore Democratic Party. If Mr Chiam really thinks so he would be under-estimating the political consciousness of the people. Should he desire by such slander to split the PAP, he would be manifesting his political infantility.

When talking about the opposition leader, we are reminded of the silent dedication and devotion of the grassroots leaders who have been denigrated by opposition leaders as Government running dogs or stooges. To call them so is an insult to them. Their dedication, capability, and zest and spirit of service to the community, outshine those, if any, of the opposition leaders and have won our people's respect. Among this group of community leaders there are a good number of unpublicized able and talented people including many professional people. They are non-partisan and possess of good qualities. They are the most suitable people, far better than any opposition leaders, today, and should be considered for selection as NMPs. I hope that the Special Select Committee will not overlook this group of elite.

Sir, this move for NMPs is the Government's response to the state of our political requirements, it will also allow outstanding candidates from all walks of life to be considered as NMPs without having to belong to any political party or to stand for elections. This is a bold move in line with our practice in the last 25 years in culling and selecting capable and suitable candidates to serve our nation. This new political system will meet the requirement of our present political situation and will be for the good of our nation and people in the long term.

I am very glad to hear the First Deputy Prime Minister say that he hoped the Special Select Committee would not give the impression of being partisan in selecting candidates for NMPs. I feel that when selecting suitable candidates they should not give the people the preconception that the NMPs are only "yes-men" of the Government. This is most important. I support this Bill.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Encik Yatiman Yusof): ( In Malay): Mr Deputy Speaker, in proposing this Bill, the First Deputy Prime Minister has explained the reasons why this amendment is moved. He described the proposed amendment as the best option open to us in our efforts to meet the changing desires and expectations of Singaporeans, especially those of the younger generation. And in order to meet the desire of the younger generation, he stated that compared to the four options available:

(1) increasing the number of Non-Constituency MPs (NCMPS);

(2) having proportional representation;

(3) holding supplementary elections meant solely for Opposition candidates; and

(4) established a second Chamber, he was more inclined towards proposing this amendment, to introduce nominated MPs into Parliament.

Mr Deputy Speaker, I support this Bill only in principle. And it is rather odd that, an office-holder, I am not as vocal as my friend Mr Peh in supporting this Bill. For, I question the objectives behind this amendment and, further, I wonder whether this move would not undermine parliamentary democracy.

Mr Deputy Speaker, would we not, in moving this amendment, erode or undermine the supremacy of Parliament in our system of parliamentary democracy? I regard Parliament as an institution that must form the backbone of a parliamentary democracy. By this I mean that any decision made in this House must, in the final analysis, have the support of the people.

Having compared the proposals in this Bill to the fourth option cited by the First Deputy Prime Minister, that is, establishing a second Chamber, I would, in principle, support this idea but would add that the proposal should include creation of a bicameral Parliament. There are many reasons why I feel the idea of having a second Chamber should be given prior consideration. I do not wish to repeat the arguments put forth by fellow MPs before me, but, in debating this issue, we should consider the fact that Singapore has struggled extremely hard to build a society that is progressive, prosperous educated, intelligent, sophisticated and cultured. And yet, where politics is concerned, I am not sure the direction we are headed now shows we have progressed to an equal degree politically. As example, no disrespect intended to the countries cited by the First Deputy Prime Minister - Bangladesh, Botswana, Dominica, India, Kenya, Malawi, Pakistan, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, St Vincent and the Grenadines, Solomon Islands - a quick look will tell us that these are developing countries. And due to their being developing countries, they need political stability to a very much larger degree than developed countries. Thus one can justify the special features referred to in their political systems. But we are more developed. If we compared our technological advancements to the western countries and Japan, why do we not have the same perspective in trying to bring innovations into our parliamentary system?

Mr Deputy Speaker, if we could introduce this concept of a second Chamber, we would to some extent be able to raise the quality of thinking that goes into our legislative functions to a level that is in line with our achievements in other fields. Japan, as an example, has a Diet of two levels, a House of representatives a House of Councillors (members of both houses are elected). But the point is, even with this innovation that we are bringing into the system, the present Parliament will still be the body that has the final say in the introduction or passing of any law. A second Chamber, whatever it may be called, a Senate an upper House or an Advisory Council, that functions by giving views and opinions on a piece of legislation, would have a role in fulfulling the desires of our people.

There is another reason I would like to offer here. We are trying to address the issue of how to fulfil the desires of the younger electorate. We need to ask: what is their desire? Is their desire simply to elect a Member of Parliament like Mr Chiam, and another like Dr Lee Siew-Choh, or such? In short, is it their desire that there should be more heated debates in Parliament, to be televised for the public to see? Or is it for the sort of thinking, arguments, that would make the laws we pass and the ideas we put forward in this House more sound, better received and more reflective of the needs of our people? These are fundamental questions which must be answered, and I feel that a second Chamber would be able to answer these questions more effectively.

Mr Deputy Speaker, the First Deputy Prime Minister said that to create this second Chamber, we might need to make a major amendment, something of a greater scale than what he is moving now. I think if the idea of a second Chamber would be able to solve our problems in the long rum not just from one general election to the next, then there is no reason why this major but important and appropriate change cannot be made. If we are going to do something, we might as well go the whole hog. If we are going to consider an idea that is good, let us be thorough about it.

Therefore, Mr Deputy Speaker, as there are similarities in principles between 1DPM's proposal and the setting up of a Second House - that we are modifying one-man-one-vote system and an elected Member of Parliament - in line with this, I support the Bill.

Dr Arthur Beng Kian Lam (Fengshan): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, this is a Bill which deals with the fundamentals of parliamentary democracy. Our system of parliamentary democracy has served us well and brought us peace, progress and prosperity for the last 25 years. Admittedly, as in all things, it is not perfect. However, a very radical and fundamental change is being proposed in this Bill. A Member of Parliament will be nominated and he will not be elected by the people. The First Deputy Prime Minister has circulated a list of 20 countries where there are nominated Members. I am not sure whether we want to belong to this list of 20 countries.

Sir, a Member of Parliament, as we know him or her, is elected by the people to represent them in this House. The mandate is given to him to speak for his voters. He is accountable to his voters for his words and his actions. There are two important words - mandate and accountability - both of which a nominated MP does not have. The Cabinet is chosen from the MPs, and thus have the mandate of the people to govern. I am glad to hear of the reassurance from the First Deputy Prime Minister that the NMP would not hold a Government post. I am indeed relieved.

Sir, in the past, when amendments were made to the electoral process, there were good reasons for it. For example, the Non-Constituency MP Bill provided for a system of checks and balances. The GRC Bill provided for minority representation. However, in both these Bills, the process of election through the one-man-one-vote system remained intact. There were some Members of the House who had some reservations on the NCMP Bill. However, the NCMP has credibility as he went through, the electoral process. Some called the NCMP a "back-door" or "second-class" MP. This label should rightfully now be transferred to the NMP as he does not have the mandate of the people to speak and he has no accountability to the electorate. They are more akin to "illegal immigrants" in Parliament than a "back-door" or "second-class" MP. The NMP is very different and not an extension of the NCMP scheme. I beg to differ from the First Deputy Prime Minister.

In this Bill, the ground rules are now changed. The electoral process is by-passed. This Bill is asking this House to give itself the power to nominate six MPs. The Special Select Committee which will choose the six comprise Members of this House. We, in the PAP, form the overwhelming majority in this House. We should exert self-discipline when it comes to vesting power to ourselves. We have a moral obligation to check ourselves. It is my view that to vest unto ourselves the power to nominate MPs who will legislate is fundamentally objectionable.

Mr Bernard Chen said that nothing harmful can come out of this Bill. I beg to differ. Something very fundamental is being done in this Bill, and it can be harmful. Mr Peh Chin Hua has said that we should be more broad-minded. I think there is no question of being broad-minded or narrow-minded when one talks of something as fundamental as the electoral process.

Sir, we next need to ask ourselves why we need NMPs. Is it the view of the Frontbench that the Backbench and Opposition are not fulfilling their role? I surmise this from the speech by the First Deputy Prime Minister. If this is the case, in my mind, it is also a reflection on the Frontbench. Why? Because the performance of the House is the result of an interaction between the Frontbench and the Backbench. What we can do, what we cannot do, is also imposed on us by the Frontbench. Can the addition of six more persons then make the House all representative? We have heard the argument that we want the House to be more representative. But can the addition of six more Members make it much more representative? Dr Aline Wong has already mentioned and given us statistics on this. What is the objective of this exercise? The First Deputy Prime Minister has said "to strengthen the political system". I am not convinced. I am not able to accept that.

Mr Goh Chok Tong rose -

Mr Deputy Speaker: Dr Beng, are you giving way?

Dr Arthur Beng Kian Lam: Yes.

Mr Goh Chok Tong: Mr Deputy Speaker, I just want to make one clarification. I did not imply in any way that our PAP MPs are not performing to expectations. I thought I should make that clear. Therefore, the remarks of Dr Beng would be irrelevant because there was no such implication whatsoever.

Dr Arthur Beng Kian Lam: Thank you, Sir. I am much reassured and I am much cheered by the First Deputy Prime Minister's words. However, I am still not able to accept that direct-entry MPs can fulfil a role that elected MPs cannot.

Sir, if we need more "brains" or "views" on any issue, there are many avenues that have already been mentioned. I will not bore you again, Sir. The problem is that too often decisions are made prior to dialogue and so the grassroots leaders become disillusioned and decide to keep quiet. This view was reinforced to me in a "Contact-Y" dialogue which I had with an audience chosen by SBC - not by myself - entitled "Are we a nation of followers."

Sir, at this point, I would like to qualify the statement by putting on record that it is my view that there is today significantly more dialogue than one year ago. But as in all things, there is room for improvement. However, all this has happened without nominated MPs.

Sir, the success of the Economic Committee in the 1985 recession under the able chairmanship of the Minister for Trade and Industry is an example to us of how the best "brains" can be mobilised without interfering in the electoral process. After the Economic Committee completed its report, the House then debated it. This goes to show that talent, whether inside or outside the House, is always available to the Government - provided it is willing to be receptive.

Sir, let us be frank. The First Deputy Prime Minister said that PAP MPs cannot speak out convincingly enough. Am I correct?

Mr Goh Chok Tong: The people feel ---

Dr Arthur Beng Kian Lam: The people feel that we cannot speak out convincingly enough. Am I correct in that? If this is so, as the First Deputy Prime Minister has said, then it must be removed. How do we get this removed? We should start now. Even on this Bill, some of my colleagues feel that it is against their conscience to speak against the Bill, then vote for the Bill, because the Whip is not lifted. Let a clear signal be given to all by lifting the Whip on this Bill. This will send a message, loud and clear, to all that discussion and even disagreements are encouraged, so that the decisions that will be ultimately taken in this House will work towards Singapore's good.

Sir, what the people want is not more NMPs. What they want is a government that is listening, what they want is a government that is receptive and is willing to accept alternative views.

Sir, with all due respect to the First Deputy Prime Minister, may I suggest that he consider the following options:

1. That he withdraws the Bill.

2. That he lifts the Whip.

3. That he defers this Bill till after next year's budget session so as to allow all of us in this House to "buck up" since there is a perception that we are not doing well enough. Should he be satisfied with the standard of debate, then there is no need for this Bill. If he is still not satisfied, then a Constitutional Commission should be formed, and a referendum conducted. If the recommendations are accepted by the electorate, then all of us in this House are bound to accept it.

The First Deputy Prime Minister is well known to us as "the tall man". I am sure he will now become a very "big man" if he can accept any one of these three options.

Sir, I cannot support this Bill. However, as a PAP Backbencher, I say this again, like my colleagues, well realising that I will be subjected to the Party Whip. This is the constraint upon us, and I guess we will have to continue to live a "schizophrenic" political life - speaking against, yet voting for a Bill.

Sir, the First Deputy Prime Minister summarised the three objectives of the Bill as: the building of consensus, contribution to good Government and to accommodate alternative views. I strongly feel that there is no need for this Bill to achieve these three objectives. What needs to be done is to give us all much more flexibility in this House. And, of course, there will have to be a change in the attitude of the Frontbench towards the Backbench so that there can be much more dialogue and in this way to satisfy the needs of people inside and outside this House.

Dr Dixie Tan (Ulu Pandan): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, basic to the spirit of our Constitution is that each and every citizen of 21 years and above has a vote. The votes of citizens collectively decide the persons that will sit in the Parliament Chamber. This basic principle will be violated if we let nominated MPs into the House. This is not the case with Non-Constituency MPs because they have submitted themselves to the election process and have proven that they have the support of a substantial number of voters. In this regard then, I support the proposal for an increase in the number of Non-Constituency MPs to a maximum of six persons.

All Members in this House, I believe, are always conscious of the responsibility of having been elected. Although one speaks one's own mind, the implication of having been elected is that we are trusted by our constituents to do the right thing by them. Sir, nomination not followed by election is definitely not worthy of this House.

The First Deputy Prime Minister has mentioned precedents in other countries, largely very underdeveloped, where MPs are nominated to correct deficiency of representation in certain sectors of the population and he cited women and small minorities.

Sir, women in Singapore have the vote. Women in Singapore have equal opportunities for education and the women of Singapore, I am very sure, know what they are about when they go to the polls. Members also remember that this same male dominated House endorsed the Women's Charter in 1963. Also, the PAP commanded a very big majority during the 14 years that this House had no women MPs. Obviously, not all men MPs are male chauvinists. I wish to remind Members too that women MPs represent constituents and they include men and women.

As for representation of minority races in the House, one has but to look around to see all shades of yellow, brown and black representing the races of Singapore. The Government party can justly take pride in this achievement. Furthermore, the GRC system ensures that our minority races will always be adequately represented in Parliament. Sir, I cannot think what oppressed and unfranchised sector of Singaporeans need to be represented by nominated MPs. Surely, Sir, not the women of Singapore. If there are such sectors of population hidden amongst us, I wish the First Deputy Prime Minister would spell them out and tell us how the people of eminence, special expertise, and experience whom he has in mind for nominated MPs will be able to speak for these people in Parliament.

There is also a second problem that troubles me. Who will finally select or elect the nominated MPs? This House being predominantly PAP, any nominated MP who is elected by the present House with or without the Party Whip in place, will naturally be seen to be PAP stooges. The same will happen if they are selected by the President as long as the President has been nominated by a PAP Cabinet and elected and voted in by a PAP dominated House. There is no way around these perceptions.

If these nominated MPs are elected by certain designated organisations - I am not sure what they are - it means that members of these organisations, or more likely office holders of these organisations, will in effect have two votes, one vote at the polls and one additional special vote. We must remind ourselves that organisations other than political parties are not gathered for political purposes. Indeed, the Minister for Homes Affairs has just today announced that he will be bringing in a Bill to provide for a strict divide between religion and politics. We also remember that not long ago certain members of the Law Society ran foul of the Internal Security Act because they indulged in activities which were designated as political. Why then are we asking whatever organisations to elect or select or nominate people into Parliament? Parliament is a place for politics. But my basic assumption, I repeat, Sir, is that this Bill will bring about a situation where, to paraphrase George Orwell in his book "Animal Farm" - all citizens are equal, but some citizens are more equal than others.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Order. It is 5.30 pm. Debate to be resumed what day?

Mr Goh Chok Tong: Tomorrow, Sir.

Mr Deputy Speaker: So be it.