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

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

Order read for Resumption of Debate on Question [29th November, 1989],

"That the Bill be now read a Second time." - [First Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Defence].

Question again proposed.

Mr Davinder Singh (Toa Payoh GRC): Mr Speaker, Sir, I am all for the Bill for the reason that I would support any system which encourages the expression of non-partisan views on Government policy. I would ask my fellow Backbenchers not to be too concerned with the fact that these views will be expressed in Parliament and not elsewhere. In the context of what is being proposed, this is, to me, a matter of form more than it is a matter of substance. Realistically, speeches in Parliament enjoy more media coverage than debates in any other forum. We should recognise that and we should take advantage of it.

Concerns were expressed by some of my fellow Backbenchers yesterday about the principles underlying this Bill. It was said that it would be a sad day for parliamentary democracy. I would urge this House to reconsider that. How is it that with the passage of this amendment it would be a sad day for parliamentary democracy in Singapore? It is an essential ingredient of democracy that there be free, unrestricted, responsible, credible debate on our policies and on our future. We have said so on many occasions that we are here to encourage debate. We want alternative fresh views.

If these views are given and if the mechanism is created for these views to be given, how can democracy in Singapore be affected? If these views are ultimately not credible, if the nominees who come up and express these views are perceived to be Government stooges, the net result of the exercise is that the amendment does not work. But how is democracy affected? Will the man-in-the-street be affected by the failure of that amendment? The PAP's prestige will be hurt. But that does not affect the development of parliamentary democracy. How is it a sad day for our democracy?

As I see it, none of the established principles of parliamentary democracy has in any way been violated by what is being proposed. Parliament remains supreme. The entire exercise is within the control of Parliament through a Committee. There is accountability. A point was made yesterday about the absence of accountability on the part of these nominees. I would like to think that we are all accountable to ourselves for what we say and we are also accountable to everyone in Singapore whose future is affected by us and who reads what we say in the papers and who watches us on the television. Accountability to our constituents is a well-established principle. But it is not a notion to be used to stymie an exercise to further the legislative process.

What is legislative process? What is our role here? Our role is to ensure that any Bills which are passed are passed for the benefit of Singaporeans as a whole, for the majority of our voters. Does this mean that we are constrained by principles which have been laid down years ago in other countries? In fact, personally I am not even moved by the examples cited by the First Deputy Prime Minister. We do not need illustrations. We can be the pioneers.

If the end result of the legislative process is that it works to the benefit of the populace, then it is something that we should support. At the end of the day, one should ask oneself: is this Bill going to hurt anybody? If we think about it, it cannot but hurt only the governing party. If it succeeds, we are all the better for it. If it fails, well, it will be perceived to be a wrong move. As I said, the man-in-the-street is not affected. But the governing party is doing it knowing that the only adverse repercussion can be on it and on nobody else. It is a gamble. It is a bold move and we ought to support it. If it is a gamble which can only result in harm to ourselves but good to the others, then it speaks volumes of our good faith.

I would urge this House to look at it in this light. Let us give it a try. Let us give it a go. If it does not work, it can be rectified. Nobody will be hurt. If it works, Singaporeans will be the better for it.

I support the Bill, Sir.

Mr Chiam See Tong (Potong Pasir): Point of clarification, Sir. The Member for Toa Payoh said that he will support the Bill because these nominated MPs will have a non-partisan view and it does not deviate from any parliamentary principle. But I beg to differ. How is he going to reconcile with the fact that these nominated MPs will in fact deviate from a very important parliamentary principle of representation?

Mr Davinder Singh: In much the same way as the principle has been deviated - if that is the correct use of the word - by the presence in this House of the NCMP. It is hardly true, is it, that he is the representative of the people in his constituency? That constituency has elected another Member of this House. But the NCMP is with us today, has been with us for this term, takes an active part in this discussion. And I do not recall Mr Chiam jumping up to object to what the NCMP has said and actively contributed to debates in this House.

Mr Chiam See Tong: Clarification, Sir. The NCMP has a measure of support from the electorate. He has stood for election and votes have been cast. And if the Member for Toa Payoh GRC will recall those with the highest votes among the losers are appointed NCMPs. What has he got to say to that?

Mr Davinder Singh: It is this difficulty that I was addressing - the trap that we have fallen into by looking at the form and not the substance. He says that the NCMP has a measure of support. What is a measure of support? Is one vote a measure of support? Is the second highest poll a measure of support? It does not really matter. What matters is an opportunity is given for another viewpoint to be expressed and we should ask ourselves: is that opportunity good for Singapore? Is it good for our legislative process? And if the answer is yes, as it must be, then Mr Chiam has no ground to stand on.

Mr Chiam See Tong: Sir, I do not think that argument can hold any water at all. Nevertheless, let us go to another point which I need clarification and, that is, on accountability. He says that the nominated MPs are accountable to the whole of Singapore. How does he substantiate that? The nominated MPs are not put in Parliament by the whole of Singapore.

Mr Davinder Singh: Mr Chiam is right if we go by traditional notions. I think they are English notions of accountability to one's constituents. What I was trying to persuade this House to accept is that accountability has a larger definition. When you come up here, as I do, to express a viewpoint, you are responsible for what you say. You are responsible to yourself and you are responsible to everybody who is affected by what you say.

Mr Chiam See Tong rose ---

Mr Speaker: Mr Chiam, how many more clarifications do you wish to make? It appears to me that you seem to have a problem understanding Mr Singh.

Mr Chiam See Tong: I think I have a right for clarification. Unless of course we are short of time, then I will sit down.

Mr Speaker: But you seem to be seeking too many clarifications whenever Mr Singh is speaking. Mr Chay.

Mr Chay Wai Chuen (Brickworks GRC): Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to speak in support of this constitutional amendment to provide for non-elected Members to be in this House. In doing so, I am conscious of the concern expressed by my parliamentary colleagues. Yet I feel confident that through this innovation, our legislative body will represent a more complete body of views and I think this can contribute significantly to our longer term political stability.

Before I dwell into the whys and the wherefores, I wish to point out that nominated Members of Parliament are not a deviation from democratic representative government or parliamentary government. For example, in many parliaments which are bicameral which have Lower and Upper Houses, non-elected Members have been a feature of many of such Upper Houses of Parliament. In the mother of Parliament in Britain, many seats in the House of Lords are hereditary and not elected and many peerages are nominated by the Prime Minister.

Why do we need non-elected Nominated Members of Parliament when there are already elected ones and non-elected Non-Constituency ones (the NCMPs)? I submit that the most important reason is to find new structures within our existing first-past-the-post system of electoral voting to supplement the body of representation such as found in the Westminster political party system as ours. A Westminster political party system is essentially confrontational or adversarial. The first-past-the-post system was essentially devised to ensure strong Cabinet government in a parliamentary "Commons". The result is that a governing political party can have predominant control of seats without necessarily a predominance of the electoral votes. This is the case of Britain as in Singapore. The difference is that the opposition in Britain has the credibility to form an alternative government. In Singapore, it does not.

Advocates of parliamentary reform in proportional representation do not make headway because of the very obvious need for strong government in the Westminster Cabinet style of government for potentially fractious society as in Britain and for the obvious reason that the governing party always stands to gain in this system. Applied in the context of Singapore, it would be even more weakening due to the pluralistic pulls of our society.

How then do we try to ensure that the debate in Parliament will have the diversity of views and the variety of experience and expertise that territorial representation, ie, representation by constituency and the first-past-the-post system will not ensure? I would urge Members to bear in mind that territorial representation was an outgrowth of the special circumstances in British local administration system from as far back as the Middle Ages.

Different societies face different problems at different times. But all forward looking successful societies must find their own solutions to the different needs and fill the different gaps of institutional needs as perceived by their leaders. This requirement is all the more necessary in an era of accelerating changes brought about by telecommunication and information technologies.

In Singapore, by the accident of history and by the political will of the Party's first generation leaders, the PAP is closely identified with the workers by the so-called symbiotic relationship. There are many Members of Parliament who speak up for the workers, including the Opposition. Who speaks for the employers? Who speaks for the growing intelligentsia who feel isolated because they are uncomfortable with populistic and partisan perspectives? Their connection and interaction of this intelligentsia in work and play is not just with Singapore or the constituency they reside in. Their connection and interaction is with the modern-day world. If I may say so, they are part of the world's Fifth Estate. They do not need to vote for the PAP nor the Opposition. They vote with their hands on the terminal buttons every day. They can also vote with their feet.

The PAP, which claims to represent all sections of Singapore, cannot claim to be non-partisan. PAP MPs are constrained by the Whip. They can speak against the Government on an issue but they cannot vote against the Government because they are constrained by the Whip. They are also constrained by the need for popular support in order to carry the ground - to ensure the Party and themselves stay in power. Hence, while all PAP MPs can speak critically and do so unashamedly and unafraid, the extent they can do so is limited by their responsibility and their accountability. They can be popular and critical. But they cannot be naive. Nor do the electorate expect them to be.

Some people have argued that Members who speak in this House must have a mandate from the people, must be elected so to speak. This is not true, and not necessary. Such people confuse representative government which must have a popular and periodic mandate from the people, with the peculiar institutions of Parliament.

The Mother of Parliament has hereditary Members in the Upper House which would be revolting to proponents of democratic populistic representation. Many parliaments have nominated Members.

It does not mean that because we are going to have nominated non-elected Members of Parliament that Parliament will be somehow downgraded. To start with, even the Speaker of this House does not have to be a Member of Parliament as provided in the Constitution. And historically, we have had at least three Speakers who were not elected Members of Parliament - Sir George Oehlers, Mr A P Rajah and Mr Punch Coomarasamy. They had performed their onerous duty to this House with distinction, as the head of our Parliament. I do not think that Parliament was worse off because of their non-elected status. If anything, I believe Parliament and the nation was enriched by their presence.

More recently, we have had the pleasure of the presence of the Non-Constituency Member of Parliament. I am sure Parliament, as a house of representatives and as a legislative body, was not diminished by the presence of the non-elected Non-Constituency Member.

Singapore must examine the relevance and the appropriateness of institutions for our country not just from the perspective of forms and structures, in comparison with other countries. These forms and structures of other Parliaments evolved through their special and unique historical experience. Similarly, ours must evolve through our own unique path. We must be bold enough to try new institutional forms while retaining the essence of democratic representative government. Democratic representative government institutions too must be subject to the changes in forms and structures given the accelerating changes in a technotronic world and we must find new ways of supporting them.

In Singapore, the predominance of the People's Action Party in the political system and in Parliament was also an accident of history not caused nor sought by the leaders of the Party. In fact, any student of political history will know that they were battling for their survival when it happened in 1966. It was caused by the pull out of Parliament by the Barisan Socialis in 1966 when they had 13 Members in Parliament. They wanted to take the struggle to the streets. Naturally, the PAP exploited the ground and filled up the seats by elections, and has never looked back ever since.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I dare say the man who is responsible for the predominance of the PAP in the political system today in Singapore is, by a strange twist of events, sitting here in Parliament - thanks to the PAP's new leaders' political innovation. He is the hon. Non-Constituency Member himself. For pulling the Opposition out of Parliament, the PAP has a lot to thank him. For that, the Singapore electorate never forgave him.

Since the PAP Government has the burden of predominance thrust on it, caused by the grand strategic error of the Opposition under Dr Lee, it is the duty of the PAP to find new political institutions and innovations to ensure that alternative views are ventilated and heard, and due weight given to them in the consideration of policies. Otherwise, the new PAP leaders will unwittingly play into Dr Lee's original hand - to let the struggle be driven out of Parliament and into the streets. This will happen if no avenues are found to give more participation and expression at the highest level, in the absence of a credible Opposition.

Over the last two elections, we have seen about 38% of the voters vote for the Opposition.

Mr Chiam See Tong: 39%.

Mr Chay Wai Chuen: If we fairly assume that 39% or 38% of the electorate who voted against the PAP are distributed normally, it can be said, fairly confidently, that one-third of these voters would be prepared to vote for the PAP, but for the reason that they want an alternative view in Parliament, a critical alternative view that can bring public debate to a non-partisan perhaps consensus-seeking level.

While the non-elected Members of Parliament do not represent the 38%, their critical alternative views can be shared by a significant portion of the 38%. If the Party cannot win them during the elections, the Government must win over their hearts during the period of rule. It would be foolhardy and dangerous for the Government to carry on to govern for too long without letting the alternative view be articulated and expressed in the highest institution by the people who are not partisanly involved and above the fray, so to speak. We must take the lid off the crucible.

As our country gets more economically developed and wealthy, and as our population acquires greater depth of talent and experience with age, we must also search for new political structures and institutions for the country. Non-elected Members of Parliament can be a good bridgehead for the political tutelage of the electorate towards the acceptance of a possible Upper House in the future. I urge the Government to seriously consider this prospect. Nominated MPs can be the first stepping stone towards this.

Naturally, this being a Government proposal, there will be criticism that the nominated non-elected Members of Parliament are going to be the mouthpiece of the Government. I really see no purpose in it. I believe the test of the pudding is in the eating of it. The sacred and onerous duty of selecting the nominated Members of Parliament should be left to the Special Select Committee of Parliament as presently proposed. We should not allow interest groups to be specially provided by delegating the power of selection to them. This runs against the grain of constitutional right.

If Parliament can amend the Constitution, if Parliament can examine public accounts and estimates, if Parliament can be trusted to approve all Government's current and capital spending each year, if it fully accounts itself to the people by periodic elections, should not the task of selection of the non-elected Members of Parliament be placed within itself by the Special Select Committee of Parliament? The people selected must be able to contribute freely to the discussion and the evaluation of policies, and informing public debate, by their expertise and experience. Otherwise, this nominated MP institution will fail and the Government will be the laughing stock, and Parliament will have to answer for it.

Finally, Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the amendment.

Dr Lee Siew-Choh (Non-Constituency Member): May I be allowed a few words of clarification, Sir?

Mr Speaker: Yes.

Dr Lee Siew-Choh: I have always been singled out for distinction, and this time of having created the dominant party in the PAP. If I had such powers, Sir, I can assure you that it would not have been the PAP but the Barisan.

Another thing, Sir, it has always been said that we had taken to the streets. "Taken to the streets" meant that we were almost taking to armed struggle. But what we did was only extra-parliamentary struggle which was, and still is, a form of parliamentary struggle. And if we had to go out into the streets occasionally to demonstrate, that was what was, and is, being carried out by Opposition parties all over the world. There is nothing wild in that.

And another thing, Sir, I, as one-time Chairman of the Barisan Sosialis, of course had a great say in many of the things that happened in the party then. But to give me the honour of having been the one and only person who decided on the fate of the party is not fair to other Barisan leaders and also not correct. All our decisions were made not by one man. I can assure you, Sir, that our decisions in the Barisan Sosialis at any time were much more democratic than decisions in the PAP. And as you might know, we withdrew from the PAP because there was no intra-party democracy. And even today, I can sense that that is actually what is happening still in the PAP. Decisions are all made by a few people at the top. And after these decisions have been made, the decisions are announced to the Backbenchers and whoever happen to be around, and maybe they are allowed to say a few words. But the decision has been made. They do not listen to your arguments. Even today, the First Deputy Prime Minister has already said that he wants new amendments in the Bill.

Mr Speaker: Order. Dr Lee.

Dr Lee Siew-Choh: Just one more word, Sir.

Mr Speaker: Could you make your clarification?

Dr Lee Siew-Choh: You can be assured that the First Deputy Prime Minister will not give way to arguments at all. He will push the Bill through. 12.59 pm

Mr Philip Tan Tee Yong (Paya Lebar): Mr Speaker, Sir, the First Deputy Prime Minister emphasised that the purpose of this amendment to have nominated MPs is to invite alternative views from qualified professionals who did not want to be involved with the hassle of elections or the long and hard hours of constituency work. I question the value of such views as they will probably be conceived in the ivory towers. Such views will be theoretical and do not reflect the real needs of the people.

As for the alternative views that we try to obtain from these qualified professionals, we should ask ourselves a few questions:

(1) On what matters and issues?

(2) Are there enough existing channels of feedback for these matters and issues? and

(3) Are the elected MPs contributing enough to the matters and issues at hand?

If the matters and issues are on concepts and ideologies, we have our think tank, the university professors, the various specific institutes covering specific subjects. If the matters and issues are on economic and business matters, we have the Chambers of Commerce, trade associations, Trade Development Board, Economic Development Board and, last but not least, the elected MPs who are in commerce and industry and banking. If these matters and issues are on social aspects, we have our Feedback Unit, our grassroots organisations and, more importantly, the elected MPs who are in constant touch with their respective constituents. On all these issues and matters, if we look back into the Hansards, we will find countless number of views expressed by the elected MPs. Do we then need any more alternative views based purely on theory? The answer is no. We need theory based on experience.

Sir, I strongly feel that the Government is not taking the views of the PAP MPs seriously. It is like a case of a prophet. He is not without honour except in his own country. Allow me to quote the views of many PAP MPs on some matters and issues but are disappointed because they fall on deaf ears. Take for instance, the HDB. Many PAP MPs have told the Minister that many lower income residents are still having financial difficulties to pay conservancy charges, rental and instalments. When these residents finally found the ability to pay because they found jobs or they borrowed some money, they went to pay the current dues, but only to be turned away by HDB who coldly demanded that they must, I repeat, they must first pay the arrears and a hefty administrative charge ranging from $100 to $500. This, to me, is most ridiculous. Even a landlord will have mercy on his poor tenant, but not the HDB.

Sir, to the poor, even $10 is a luxury. I have not forgotten my own childhood days when my mother had to borrow a few dollars to buy the daily food or we had to wait for the bread seller to complete his rounds and sell us the balance at a reduced price. Sir, poverty is not a joy and should not be taken lightly by those who can afford it. The PAP MPs have aired their views to the Minister on this predicament but nothing, I emphasize, nothing is conceded by the HDB. The Minister will always say it is a deterrent for abuse. This, I think, is an easy way out for the administrators and a case of the rich taking the poor lightly. The Government has made HDB look like a very cold and heartless animal to the poor. If they have taken heed of our views, HDB can become a heart warming and reasonable landlord. Do we need any more alternative views on these matters from the nominated MPs?

Let us go on to business matters. Singapore has a small domestic market. This makes doing business an uphill battle for local businessmen. To compound their problems, they have to compete with Government-owned companies. Many PAP MPs have spoken strenuously on this unfair competition because Government-owned companies do not have cash flow problems. One Minister arrogantly said, "What's wrong with Government-owned companies competing? It is our philo- sophy. So be it." Is this not another way of saying, if your views do not coincide with ours, shut up. If your views coincide with ours, we listen. Do we need alternative views from nominated MPs? And will these nominated MPs dare to speak otherwise?

We go on to some other areas. Many MPs have also told our Ministers that our regulatory bodies are behaving like demi-gods. And such situations only intimidate the commercial well-being of local businessmen. Sir, I can go on and on. But I just want to touch on two areas, and that is on higher medical charges and the higher school fees. Recently, we talked about the independent school fees that have gone up. We have said many times that we should not just raise the fees at such a quantum leap. It is not easy for a person to adjust suddenly. Our Ministers are always quick to adopt the attitude: did the ends justify the means? They always do this with a glee on their faces. I really find this disgusting. I think it is dangerous to adopt such a policy that the ends justify the means. History has shown us that many people adopting such policies oppressed the masses to achieve the ends. They failed in the long run. We had Hitler. We had the Chinese Emperor Chin Shi Huang. We must be careful. The ends do not always justify the means.

The First Deputy Prime Minister gave the impression that these 6 nominated MPs' views are crucial, without which no matters and issues will be wholly debated and dissenting views aired. To me, this is an insult to the intelligence ---

The First Deputy Prime Minister (Mr Goh Chok Tong): Mr Speaker, may I just make a point of clarification? I think the Member for Paya Lebar should have listened to my speech carefully. In fact, he should read my speech in the Straits Times quite carefully. The whole speech is published. I did not in any way imply that. I was listening to the speaker quite merrily. But when he said that I have insulted, I think, members of the public should please read what I have said quite carefully.

Mr Philip Tan Tee Yong: I did not say that 1DPM insulted us. But I said, to me, it is an insult. It is my opinion that it is an insult to the intelligence concerning the capability, depth and breadth of knowledge, and courage of the present PAP MPs. Because 1DPM did say that with the presence of the nominated MPs, the quality of debate will be better, more dissenting views can be aired. It is true. That is my understanding and that is why, to me, it is my opinion that it is an insult to us. Because if you look at Hansard, we have also voiced dissenting views.

The First Deputy Prime Minister also said that decisions are usually taken after closed-door meetings with PAP MPs. The fact remains that if the Government had decided after these closed-door meetings, how can 6 nominated MPs' views change it? Is it not reasonable to suggest that whatever views the 6 nominated MPs would air would have been aired by the PAP MPs at the closed-door meetings? What then is the value of the views of these 6 nominated MPs?

Sir, these nominated MPs will probably be successful professionals or academicians. The question to ask is whether they, especially the successful professionals, will speak out without fear that their careers will not be jeopardized. Will a nominated MP who is a banker dare to speak out against policies of the MAS? Will a nominated MP who is an architect dare to speak out strongly against the BCD? Will a nominated MP who is an accountant dare to speak out strongly against the Income Tax, the SIC and the Stock Exchange? My personal view is that they will not be very forthright because they are wise people. They will pull punches. After all, a two-year term is not a very long time and they have a career to look after after their two-year term. If this is true, then the nominated MPs will lose their credibility. Sir, I submit that we do not need nominated MPs in this House.

Dr Wang Kai Yuen (Bukit Timah): Sir, the First Deputy Prime Minister in his speech moving this Bill stated very clearly from his perspective one of the motivations for the Bill. That is, as we look down the road for the next four years, if we in this Parliament do not do anything there will only be two non-Government MPs in Parliament. So the question is, should we do something about it or should we not? Being action-oriented people, I believe it is against our grain to sit by and do nothing. So to me, the proposed Constitutional Amendment creating the nominated MP seats is a pragmatic solution to this problem that we face, which Dr Aline Wong has rightly pointed out, is a problem of our electoral success. For a moment, Sir, putting aside the purist argument whether a nominated MP has or has not got the mandate to speak in Parliament, I would concede that Parliament in its current composition could conceivably be enhanced if some very outstanding individuals whose opinions are highly valued by one and all could come to the Chamber and speak their minds. If a way could be found to bring this talent into Parliament, the debate in Parliament could conceivably and very likely be enriched.

Sir, I would also like to add here that hon. Members who felt that the nominated MP concept is an affront to the quality or the intelligence of the current Backbenchers are actually chasing a red herring. Yesterday, we have seen some very sterling performance by Backbenchers, the better of which would be hard to find. Sir, I think the real reason is this. As has been made very abundantly clear by Dr Aline Wong, Dr Arthur Beng and Dr Tan Cheng Bock, the PAP MPs are subjected to the Party Whip. In many instances, including this particular debate, the rule of the Whip has crammed our styles. From the MPs' point of view, one loses credibility when one speaks like a lion but acts like a lamb. From the Government's point of view, outspoken Backbenchers could also cause problems for the Government in implementing its policies, sometimes from unforeseen quarters. An example that comes to my mind would be the debate on the caning of illegal immigrants during which some Backbenchers spoke out very strongly on personal convictions. In that particular case, editorials in foreign newspapers subsequently highlighted the fact whenever the topic surfaced. Similarly, in this case, passing the amendment Bill by the weight of the Whip would also be seen by the public that the PAP leadership is pushing the Bill through Parliament. I would say that nominated MPs would then serve the dual purpose of allowing these Members of Parliament to speak their minds and act accordingly. It will also remove the current uncomfortable situation to have Government MPs complaining loudly that they are subjected to the Whip.

In fact, as I listened carefully to the debate yesterday, it was quite clear to me who would have been prime candidates for the nominated MP seats if the option were available earlier. And I also think it will be a logical conclusion in the future that with the implementation of the nominated MP concept, Government MPs would then be subjected to even stronger control of the Whip.

Mr Speaker, Sir, if the nominated MP concept were to achieve its full impact, I can also understand the reasons for giving these nominated MPs the right to vote. Otherwise, the nominated MPs would then be placed in an unenviable position - basically all talk and no action. Furthermore, it is possible that without the right to vote, it will be difficult to attract the right people to accept nominations as nominated MPs. If that turns out to be the case, then introducing nominated MPs into Parliament would become an exercise in futility, as the prime objective of attracting some of the outstanding opinion movers into Parliament would no longer be achieved. As such, I can understand why the First Deputy Prime Minister is prepared to take the heat and push for the nominated MP concept in Parliament. I would say that in our current context, given the current composition of Parliament, the concept of the nominated MPs does have its merits.

However, Mr Speaker, Sir, while creating the new entity of nominated MPs, maybe the expedient thing to do in our current context to address the current situation, it may not be the right thing to do if the composition of Parliament is different from that existing today. We in this Chamber are going to change the Constitution for generations of Singaporeans who are yet to be born. I would like our children, our grandchildren and their children, when they celebrate the centennial or bicentennial anniversary of Singapore's independence, to say that our founding fathers have done the right thing.

We must not fall into the mental blind spot that the Singapore Parliament will retain its current composition for all ages to come. In fact, as we survey the world in all functioning democracies of sufficiently long history, I would say that it will be difficult to find one where their governments enjoy the same majority with the same proportion as the Parliament in Singapore.

Mr Speaker, Sir, when we look at the evolution of our beloved Singapore, we should look in terms of historical perspective. Let us ask ourselves the question whether the current composition in Parliament is a permanent feature or a passing phase. I would be the first to say that I do not know. For the good of Singapore, I would like to see the PAP retain its strength for as long as possible. But in this matter of constitutional amendment, we in this House must cater for all eventualities. I urge the House to take one step away from the heat of the debate and analyze the issue before us coolly and logically.

The concept of the nominated MPs takes root in Parliament where the Government holds 80 out of 81 elected seats. If we had held only two-thirds or less than two-thirds of the seats, we would not be here debating this concept because we would not be able to amend the Constitution. Since the First Deputy Prime Minister is here, would I be correct to say that if we were to have about 10% Opposition Members in Parliament, then he would not have bothered to push for the nominated MP concept? If that is the case, then I would say that the nominated MP concept is a viable one to pursue within the very narrow range of the number of non-government MPs in Parliament. I would be very reluctant to carry a concept, which is acceptable in this context, into a different one where the same players would not have even seen the need to think about the nominated MP concept, much less pushing it through Parliament against significant opposition from its own rank.

On top of this, Mr Speaker, Sir, once the nominated MP concept becomes a reality, under the current provisions there will be six of them regardless of the future composition of Parliament. I would like to do an analysis of the different scenarios, of different compositions of Members of Parliament in future Parliaments. Let us take the current number of 81 Members. We can start with the extreme scenario of 41 Government MPs versus 40, followed by 42 versus 39 and so on, all the way to the current composition. I must say that I am not smart enough to make sure that under different scenarios the nominated MPs in future will not play a role unanticipated by all of us in this Chamber. I am not so sure that sufficient safeguards can be built into the Constitution to prevent future governments from using nominated MPs creatively to frustrate the wish of the majority. As such, I would give my support to this Bill on condition that an explicit statement be added into the Bill to reduce the number of nominated MPs once the number of Opposition Members of Parliament exceeds a certain number, along the same principle as the Non-constituency MP. Mr Bernard Chen has proposed this yesterday and I support it.

I would advocate that if future elections return less than

12 Opposition Members, the balance can then be made up of NCMPs or NMPs in that order. In other words, first, the NCMPs and then the nominated Members. If the elected Opposition Members exceed 12, then there shall be no non-elected Members of Parliament.

Mr Speaker, Sir, another reservation I have was addressed by the First Deputy Prime Minister in his speech yesterday and, that is, to explicitly exclude nominated MPs from holding political office. I am not objecting to the fact that individuals without political mandate be allowed to hold political appointments. There are many such political systems in the world - the United States being a very prominent example where the Secretaries of key departments of the government are all political appointees. Of course, in those systems there are also constitutional checks and balances. In our political system, Parliament has vested significant authority in the office of our Ministers on the assumption that these Ministers, who are MPs themselves, would have to face their own constituents. If they are PAP MPs, they have to hold meet-the-people sessions every week and get direct feedback from the ground regarding their policies. In other words, their seats will get uncomfortable very quickly if they were to introduce unpopular policies. Even so, I think PAP Backbenchers have had long discussions with Ministers in private conversations and private caucuses in the past and presumably in the future regarding the shortcomings of some of their policies, including this one. Regrettably, often times, our persuasions or arguments were to no avail.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I am very convinced that it would then be a herculean task in future if the Minister is a nominated Member of Parliament. On this ground, I would like to see that nominated MPs be specifically debarred from holding political offices.

Sir, if these two safeguards were added to the Bill, then what we have will be a happy compromise where Parliament can experiment with a new concept without the risk of rushing into untested territory. With these two modifications, namely, one, on the number of nominated Members of Parliament depending on the composition of Parliament and, two, barring them from holding political office, I would give my support to the nominated MP concept.

Mr Ng Pock Too (Nee Soon Central): Mr Speaker, Sir, I have been listening intently to the proceedings of the debate. It seems to me that well before NMPs are in our midst, we are judging their performance. We seem to be prejudging that before they are in our midst, we have questions regarding whether or not they are going to be effective. We question the wisdom of their being able to give us credible and better alternative views. It has always been Singapore's premise that we thrive in open competition. If we are so insecure that we feel that we are going to be outperformed in Parliament by NMPs, then I think we deserve not to be elected MPs. Because if NMPs can offer us a better alternative and sounder judgment on issues before Parliament, then we are missing out the opportunity to hear and to listen to better alternatives.

It is just like what we are trying to do in the trade unions. As Singapore progresses, we see a more intelligent younger workforce emerging and we have to ensure that we have younger trade union leaders groomed up and developed to take on new leadership roles. All trade union leaders are not afraid of new trade union leaders in the central committee, in the branch committee and in the union executive committee. We openly hear views, alternative suggestions, ideas and visions which better represent the kind of world that the younger leaders want for the trade unions. And likewise here in Parliament, by the same argument, we should not be so, if I may use the term, protectionistic that we fear that someone else is going to have a better view or better vision than us and we will throw in all the road blocks and prevent him or her from coming in.

It also seems to me that somehow we have forgotten that parliamentary democracy rests on the solid concept that we are voted by the people to do things in the interest of the people, and not as the debate has progressed so far, in the interest of one's own political party. We must subordinate party's interest behind the people's interest which must rank supreme.

The important question to ask ourselves is: Is this idea to have nominated MPs good for the people of Singapore and not whether it is good for us, as MPs, in Parliament? If it is, then we should give it the full support. If not, it should be modified or even totally discarded.

I see merit in the First Deputy Prime Minister's proposal because it will be good for Singaporeans to see the non-government side of an issue with the same clarity of mind and intelligence which our present Opposition MPs now cannot offer. We have to meet the political and economic realities of our times, and the political reality is that people want to see Government as well as non-government view- points expressed with equal quality of mind and with equal thoroughness.

We have gone to great lengths to re-shape our political system so that through GRCs, we can always preserve minority representation in Parliament. We have put in a lot of time, energy and effort to create the possibility of NCMPs to be in Parliament so that they together with elected Opposition MPs can hopefully offer a genuine and meaningful opposition who can come up with better solutions to problems than those offered by the ruling Party. These efforts require amendments to be made to the Constitution, and they have been made for the purpose of ensuring that the long-term interests of our people are safeguarded.

The First Deputy Prime Minister's proposal to amend the Constitution to provide for up to six nominated MPs in Parliament is yet another step in strengthening the parliamentary system, to re-shape the existing structure to cater for dissenting but constructive alternatives. We must never be afraid of dissenting opinions if they are sincerely expressed by people who may hold a different set of convictions but whose end purpose is to build a better society for all Singaporeans. We must not make it difficult for such people with this genuine desire to contribute to the political process to seeking viable and better alternatives.

No Opposition enters Parliament to help a government to govern well. If any Opposition succeeds in doing this, I think the outcome in the next General Elections will be obvious. It will be sent into oblivion.

The function of an Opposition, no matter how earnestly it may declare its intentions otherwise, is to make sure that good government is prevented from performing its task. At the rate we are going, and I think we can consciously judge for ourselves the quality of Opposition Members we have in Parliament, non-government viewpoints are not properly put across and expressed. I think nominated MPs will be better able to concentrate on the substance of the debate from a non-government standpoint.

To introduce and accept a basic change is never easy. We are all accustomed to thinking of Parliament representation as MPs who have undergone the election process, of having sought and obtained our constituents' mandate to enter Parliament. This representation system has remained largely intact and has not undergone any consciously designed changes.

I think in the future, it is to our interest that we have to ensure sufficient flexibility in our political system to allow for a new channel of creative ideas and constructive criticisms in order that all important issues before Parliament receive rounded treatment. Not all of us are familiar at all times with many of the complex issues before us, and ideas and visions from nominated MPs will be useful for new insights on a given issue. Our political process will then be able to take into account the expression of diverse interests that represent the broad-based wishes of our people for more than what can adequately be catered for from our existing system of elected MPs and NCMPs. It is a workable method to encourage a higher aggregation of interests by our people in the future of our country through better structured, better focused and constructive debate in Parliament. This will also help us, the elected MPs in Parliament, to weigh all possible courses of Government action, thus increasing the chance of reaching a wise decision.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the amendment.

Mr Chiam See Tong: Will the Member for Nee Soon Central tell this House whether or not there is a place for Opposition in Parliament?

Mr Ng Pock Too: I think the answer is obvious, is it not?

Mr Chiam See Tong: Yes or no?

Mr Ng Pock Too: But I think the Opposition Member, and I think this is not new, has often repeated this before. He often bemoans the fact ---

Mr Chiam See Tong: Sir, I do not want him to hedge. Yes or no?

Mr Ng Pock Too: He always bemoans the fact that the ruling Party having 80 out of 81 seats in Parliament ---

Mr Chiam See Tong: He is not answering my question.

Mr Speaker: Mr Chiam, you asked a question. I think you have to wait for the answer.

Mr Ng Pock Too: His contention has always been that the ruling Party having 80 out of 81 seats in Parliament is undemocratic.

Mr Chiam See Tong: When did I say that? Do not pick words and quote me.

Mr Ng Pock Too: No. I think the connotations are very clear. I think, to him, to have more Opposition MPs in Parliament is good parliamentary democracy.

Mr Chiam See Tong: Is that not true?

Mr Ng Pock Too: But I would like to remind him that sound democracy is founded on the principle that democracy is government of the people, by the people, and for the people. So the existence in whatever numbers, elected, or like my friend, Dr Lee, the Non-Constituency MP, does not come into question. It is up to the people of Singapore to decide who they want in Parliament. And if he is the only one in Parliament representing the Opposition, I make no apologies about it. It is not the ruling Party's choice; it is the people's choice.

Mr Chiam See Tong: Sir, as I expected, there is no answer from him. Can the Member for Nee Soon Central please answer my question? Yes or no? Is there a place for Opposition in Parliament?

Mr Ng Pock Too: Of course. Mr Speaker, I do not want to belabour the point. But the point that I am trying to make here is that there is no quality in our Opposition, and until there is this quality in the Opposition, we will not be able to improve the quality of our debate. There are no better constructive views expressed. It is just ephemeral issues that are short-lived, that win popularity only for his political party.

Mr Chiam See Tong: I have got one more question for him. I assume that his answer is yes. If the answer is yes, why does he say that the Opposition is an obstruction to good government?

Mr Ng Pock Too: Sir, I have never said that the Opposition is an obstruction to good government. I said a good Opposition, if it is constructive and intelligent enough to offer a better alternative and a better viable alternative to a given issue, then I think the Opposition view should be respected and should win the support of this House. But, unfortunately, it is not the case.

Dr John Chen Seow Phun (Hong Kah GRC): Sir, I support the Bill because I see the potential good it can bring to our country. It can be a positive step in the evolution of a Singaporean democracy suitable to our needs and circumstances.

Sir, it is a reality that there are always good and capable citizens of high standing who are not interested in party politics. If some of these non-partisan Singaporeans are willing to serve as nominated MPs, there is no doubt that they can enhance the quality of debate in Parliament, contribute to the law-making process, help promote consensus democracy and dampen adversary democracy, because they will put pressure on the Opposition to be more constructive.

Sir, we have heard yesterday some strong objections to this Bill. The first and most important one is that nominated MPs have no mandate from the people to speak in this House, that it will be undemocratic or undermine our democracy if we allow them to do so because they do not represent any people. We must not see it in that way. We must not compare the NMPs and elected MPs in that manner. This Bill never intends to provide the NMP with the same mandate as that of an elected MP. It only seeks to create a new and useful but different role from that of an elected MP in this legislature. It is not undemocratic because unlike elected MPs, they are not given the mandate to rule. The people of Singapore still have the right to freely choose or reject their rulers. This is fundamental to democracy and must not be breached.

If Members are concerned that NMPs can swing a Bill either way because of their right to vote, then in the spirit of consensus building, may I propose that we remove their right to vote? But let us support the idea of allowing them to speak in this House. Yes, Feedback Unit, Resource Panels, Select Committees, and so on are good for encouraging participation and consensus building and must be continued and strengthened. However, there is no substitute for being able to stand up in this House, the highest institution of our land, face to face with the Ministers, debate, argue, and take them to task under the scrutiny of the public and the media. Therefore, the role of an NMP will have a much greater impact on the public compared to other forms of participation.

If you ask, who is he accountable to? I would say that he is accountable to this House. Yes, he has also a standing or reputation to protect and it is the responsibility of this House to ensure that men of high standing are nominated. This is the task that Members must be more concerned with because the success of this Bill, this innovation in our democracy, and the good it can bring to us, hinges on whether these NMPs can ultimately gain credibility in the eyes of the public, never mind the initial suspicion, if any. 1.45 pm

Dr Arthur Beng Kian Lam (Fengshan): Mr Speaker, Sir, can I rise on a point of clarification?

Mr Speaker: All right.

Dr Arthur Beng Kian Lam: Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to ask Dr John Chen what does he mean when he says that it is not undemocratic when the NMP in actuality has got no mandate to speak in Parliament. From where do we all get our mandate to speak?

Dr John Chen Seow Phun: Sir, where does the NCMP get his mandate to speak in this House?

Dr Arthur Beng Kian Lam: He has answered the question perfectly. The NCMP has got the mandate because he has gone through the electoral process. Thank you, Mr Speaker, Sir.

Dr John Chen Seow Phun: Sir, but under the system, it is the first man past the post. And you change it to bring him in. Why can we not modify, remodel our democracy to strengthen our system?

Dr Arthur Beng Kian Lam: Yes, I will strongly support it. As long as the new Member, whatever name you call him, goes through the democratic process of election. And that is democracy.

Dr John Chen Seow Phun: Sir, as I have mentioned, fundamental to democracy is the right of the people to freely choose or reject the rulers. And we have not undermined that.

Dr Arthur Beng Kian Lam: Sir, fundamental to democracy is the process of election. Thank you, Mr Speaker, Sir.

Dr S. Vasoo (Tiong Bahru GRC): Thank you, Mr Speaker, for allowing me to join the debate.

Sir, the Bill to amend the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore will for what it is worth bring some new faces, new voices and perhaps new inputs to our Parliament. The question we should ask ourselves is whether it is worth while doing so, whether there is an advantage, whether there will be new inputs as a result of this change. I feel that there is no basis for us at this juncture to argue that such a scheme would be against parliamentary democracy, or such a scheme would perhaps strengthen parliamentary democracy. But I see that the nominated MP scheme is an innovative scheme. It provides a change. It builds on the current structure and supports new ideas that we all agree we need to generate.

Sir, it is not radically going to change the form of our Parliament. It is only a departure from our normal parliamentary process in electing representatives to our Parliament. As I see, it does not change the one-man-one-vote system. No citizen will be denied to vote his elected representative. Therefore, I do not see that there is any fundamental change to the democratic process because we still have elected Members. Besides this, it is a new addition that we are going to bring into this House. In this light, we should ask ourselves what consequences would such a constitutional amendment bring to policy making. This is a question that we all should address. If the question is positive, then we should support such a change. Are there more merits than demerits in carrying out such a change? Sir, if I might say, it is difficult to tell what long term impact the nominated MP scheme would have on our future parliamentary scene. Apparently, the scheme seems to address the following issues.

First, there is an increasing number of Singaporeans, who because of our Asian cultural orientation, do not engage in partisan politics. We must recognise that a lot of people do not want to take sides, but have useful opinions and viewpoints to offer. If they have useful viewpoints to offer, then all these useful viewpoints need to be captured. There is a need for a forum to capture such useful viewpoints. The nominated MP scheme would provide such a forum. A forum for this sector of the population would be useful. The nominated MP scheme would provide non-partisan viewpoints to be expressed. Some people may find it more comfortable to use this channel to articulate their opinion. Sir, this is a reality of Singapore's politics. It would be futile for us not to recognise this. I must say that in the course of our discussions we will obviously find that this is the case.

Second, there are many interest groups such as professionals, women, workers, businesses and community groups, which are seeking for opportunities for their views to be articulated. These interest groups are on the rise and there is a need to provide a voice for them. We cannot deny that in many sectors there are various interest groups and we should not be oblivious to this. Many of these interest groups do in a way generate viewpoints, participate in various political process directly or indirectly. The nominated MP scheme may provide such groups an avenue for representing their interests. A wider variety of opinions would enrich our parliamentary discussions.

The third value of the nominated MP scheme would be that at the moment we have two dimensional viewpoints in our parliamentary debates, namely, one from the Government perspective and the other from the opposition perspective. In these two dimensional viewpoints, we should ask whether these two dimensional perspectives and dialogue are adequate. Some people feel that it is too one-sided a viewpoint. Sir, with the nominated MP scheme, there will be a third dimension to our parliamentary debates. The public would certainly like to look forward to this. I hope that it will bring, in the process of time, more important viewpoints and suggestions to this House to enrich our discussions. I hope too, Sir, in this whole process, the general public will be able to see that our PAP MPs are equally concerned as the nominated MPs in discussing matters of public concern.

Sir, in implementing the nominated MP scheme, we must ensure that they do not become lame duck MPs. It is therefore important that various professional, business, social and civic groups are given the opportunity to participate in nominating their preferred candidates. If possible, if they can be allowed to take part in selecting their candidates, it provides the credibility and the authenticity in terms of the people that can surface from amongst these different groups. The selection of the nominated MPs should be done as openly as possible.

Sir, the nominated MPs are non-partisan members. Since they are not elected, they cannot be accountable to the people, but to this House. It is therefore not logical for them to be allowed to vote on any Bills except money and constitutional matters, in the sense that they can vote on all other matters except these two Bills. The fact that they are going to be non-partisan, then I feel that it is logical that they should not participate in voting. It will be more appropriate for them to not to be allowed to vote on various Bills.

Sir, to give credibility to the nominated MP scheme, it is very important that they are selected by a Committee which should comprise some noted community leaders and personalities. This will prevent the public to view the nominated MPs as mere mouth pieces of PAP MPs and Government. So in this whole selection process, if we have some notable community leaders to sit in the selection of the nominated MP scheme, then I think it will add credibility to the people who are selected.

In conclusion, I see that the nominated MP scheme is a new innovation in our parliamentary democracy. Its success is left to be seen. There has been much concern expressed in this House that such a scheme derides parliamentary democracy. Are we sure that this is going to be the case? No one can say that this is going to be so. I feel that we should give this scheme a try. It depends on how well it will be supported by our people and the response from non-partisan members or groups in our community. With these reservations, Sir, I support the Bill.

Mr Loh Meng See (Kampong Glam): Sir, some speakers have expressed that the appointment of nominated MPs run counter to the fundamental democratic principles of representation and accountability. The United States President appoints his Ministers who are not elected for executive functions. They are responsible for the day to day government. Does it also run counter to democratic principles?

The First Deputy Prime Minister has assured us that the Ministers and office holders would have to come from the ranks of elected Members of Parliament. If it is Parliament that appoints the nominated MPs, how could it be considered that the democratic principles have been compromised? Because Parliament and parliamentarians are elected by the people. It is a fact that the PAP has been the dominant ruling party. It will continue to be so. The majority of Singaporeans have consistently voted for a strong Government. Singaporeans want stability, continuity and prosperity. By recognising this fact in this Parliament and taking steps to inject independent objective and non-partisan views in Parliament, how could this be considered to be a retrogressive step? I am amazed, Mr Speaker, Sir, that there is the concern that because Parliament is dominantly PAP, there is the fear that the nominated MPs will be pro-PAP. Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to use you as an example. You are a PAP Member of Parliament. Are you partisan or non-partisan in your views? I am very sure that nominated MPs will follow your excellent example.

We have so very often seen the adversarial posture taken by Opposition parties against the Government. The objective of the Opposition is to damage the reputation of the Government amongst the voters. How could this sort of relationship bring about consensus in Government? Are we suggesting that parliamentary democracy is only democracy when we are at loggerheads, taking confrontational stances and always disagreeing with one another?

Parliament is the place where legislation and public policies are examined, given a critical review and approved. This being the task of Parliament, would the contributions of nominated MPs make matters any worse? I thought they would add value, a reinforcement of either of the view of the Government or the Opposition.

I have listened to my PAP colleagues taking the dissenting view on this issue. I am disturbed. I ask myself: Do their very conduct and actions confirm the very necessity that another voice need to be represented? Though there is liberalness in this Parliament, strictly speaking, in accordance with Party policy and Party discipline, it is improper to take the line against the very political party that one is representing. A seat in Parliament belongs morally to the party and not the person.

Increasingly, the Select Committee has been used as a channel for members of the public and by people with specialised contributions to offer their views. Elected MPs who sit in the Select Committees are happy to listen to them and to sieve through the evidence, but are not prepared to allow some selected people, like nominated MPs, to speak directly in Parliament where the influence could be more strongly felt. We all visualize things better in three dimensions. It gives us perspective. The nominated MPs provide the third dimension when legislation and Government policies are debated. Would we not be better off with that extra perspective?

Parliament has an educational role to play. Parliamentarians assist in public understanding of current political issues. We owe it to our electorate a full and comprehensive representation of issues before them. With nominated MPs, we can only do a better job of having an informed electorate. We all know too well that good information makes for good decisions. We can raise further the political consciousness and maturity of Singaporeans.

I have faith in the Singaporean voters. They are not easily misled. They know what is good for them. They only do not wish to be taken for granted. With the PAP keeping faith with them all the time, it will remain dominant in Parliament. But please provide a voice to keep Government in check with Non-Constituency Members of Parliament and nominated MPs. As the example of Dr Lee Siew-Choh shows, Parliament has certainly benefited from the extra viewpoints being aired and for the Singaporean electorate to ponder and decide.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I strongly support the Bill moved by the First Deputy Prime Minister.

Dr Augustine H.H. Tan (Whampoa): Mr Speaker, Sir, let me state at the outset that I do not like the Bill, but I can live with it. The imposition of the Party Whip is not something that Backbenchers like but I believe it is a small price to pay for political stability. Members who are new to this House might want to study the history of why the Party has imposed discipline over the years, because there was a time where MPs crossed the floor and created instability in Singapore. In fact, the Government nearly lost out in this House.

In this debate, Sir, unfortunately, those who have spoken in favour of the Bill have done so with no real conviction. They do not convey a sense of passion for the Bill. There were a few who did simulate some passion. But you can see plainly it is simulated passion. Whereas those who spoke against the Bill did so expressing strong convictions, strong passions. I think if we put those together you can gauge what is inside the hearts of PAP MPs.

As for the Opposition MPs, only one of them is here, I think the Bill makes them feel threatened. And Mr Chiam See Tong rose up earlier asking whether he has any place in this Parliament after all. He obviously has been made to feel insecure. One can understand the reasons why. Because if the Opposition MPs have not been able to represent the views of their electorate, the views of Singaporeans, if they feel that they cannot cope with many Bills because they just do not understand enough of the subject matter, then they have a right to feel insecure and threatened.

As for my colleagues, the PAP MPs, I believe that there has been no lack of serious representation in this House of important views, of relevant views on whatever issues and I believe that we have been fairly representative. Let us not forget that the role of PAP MPs extends beyond Parliament itself, that in the Party caucuses our voices are heard, our views strongly expressed and often times I believe the Government has taken note and incorporated our views in the formulation of Bills and in the formulation of policies. And I believe that my colleagues have not been afraid to speak up in this House.

I have been here nearly 20 years. I have never felt any constraint in speaking on any subject. The only constraint was my own conscience. There was never a time when a Minister or the Prime Minister told me I was not to raise this issue or that issue. I believe my independence as an MP has never been questioned by members of the public. And I believe that that is the same for my other colleagues in Parliament.

But we should ask ourselves: what is the real issue that we are dealing with? And I believe the First Deputy Prime Minister raised a question which the Prime Minister raised, I believe, on the morning of the 1984 elections, namely, the possibility that at some future elections, there could be a nightmarish result, a disparate coalition of Opposition parties, unqualified, ill-prepared for office, suddenly have the majority number of seats in Parliament, for the simple reason that Singapore, as the First Deputy Prime Minister said, is really one single constituency. The ways various constituencies are structured, issues affect all constituencies without exception.

Having said this, and having acknowledged the problem, what is the real solution? Is it to try and get more views represented in Parliament, more people, apolitical people, non-partisan people to come into Parliament to express their views? Or is it rather that whatever the views that are garnered the Government should take adequate note, make changes when necessary? But even more important, we should realise that PAP MPs are not mere representers of views in this House, not mere conveyors of what the people say. But the PAP MPs ought to be leaders of opinion. We should be there in the forefront if we believe that something is right. We should convey our ideas to the public. I believe that is what leadership is all about, not to be pushed from the ground, but to lead the ground in many areas.

I believe another vital and important role for PAP MPs is that once the Government has formulated a policy, we should all rally around that policy and rally the people in support of the policy. I have been here for 20 years. I have seen this process work over the years. I have seen how hard my colleagues and I have worked in, order to persuade people to accept policies which have a bitter taste to it, policies which are unpopular, policies which the public may think are the wrong policies, but in the end turn out to be productive, fruitful and constructive for Singapore.

My younger colleagues would do well to try and look at the history of the PAP Government to understand that this is a government unlike many other governments. It is not a government that is pushed along by public opinion. It is not a government that takes a short-term view. It is not a government that plays to sectarian interests. It is a government that has tried to do its best for Singapore by taking the long-term view and by taking the national view. But that means courting unpopularity at certain times. And it is to the credit of the Prime Minister and his colleagues that they have been able to do this successfully and it is to the credit of PAP Backbenchers that we have been able to help in our little way to garner the support necessary for those unpleasant but good and necessary policies.

Then, Sir, at the end of the day, the responsibility really lies at the foot of the Frontbench. A lot of burdens have been thrown this way but let me throw the ball back that way. They are the ones who have to formulate policies. They are the ones, the younger ones among them, that have to lead Singapore into the 21st century. It is their leadership which is going to determine whether Singapore makes or breaks and if we, as Backbenchers, can do our part to help in the process, then I think we have a better and more secure Singapore to look forward to. And I believe that the challenges facing Singapore in the years ahead are vastly different from the challenges that faced the Prime Minister and his earlier Cabinet. It is a challenge of affluence. It is a challenge of what to do with the people that already have the basics in terms of housing, in terms of education, in terms of health, in terms of transportation.

Are we going to be the very victims of our own success? Or is there enough in the Frontbench of that quality of leadership that can set the sights, raise the vision of the people and rally them to rise above themselves to push ahead to lead Singapore into the 21st century, to make sure that Singapore survives and prosper? That, Sir, at the end of the day, is our common concern, both Frontbench and Backbench.

Although, as I said, I do not like the Bill, but I can live with it and, as a good and faithful PAP Backbencher, I shall vote for it. 2.16 pm

Mr K. Shanmugam (Sembawang GRC): Mr Speaker, Sir, I am not passionate by nature nor can I simulate passion, but I will try and speak in support and I would like to think that I believe in what I am saying.

Sir, I support this Bill. Initially, I did not like the Bill. But I have listened to the arguments yesterday and I do not agree with the reasons advanced against the Bill, and I am persuaded by the reasons for the Bill.

The arguments that have been raised against this Bill have one fundamental basis. MPs should have a mandate to speak in this House. Those who do not wish to obtain such mandate should not be MPs. We in this House have a mandate to speak. The non-elected or nominated MP will not have such mandate. To allow him to speak would be a serious derogation from the democratic process.

To use the compelling phrase of the hon. Member for Tampines GRC, the NMPs will have power without responsibility. Powerful argument but based, I would say, on a romanticised misconception of the democratic process. The democratic process, in my view, should serve at least three key functions, among other things.

First, it should most importantly give the people a free choice to elect a body of persons to form and administer the government and it should give the people the right to periodically review the government's record. If the people are not happy, they should be able to throw out the government.

Second, it should allow people to elect a representative who will look after their constituency interests.

Third, the process should provide a quorum for free and open debate on Government policies and to act as a check on the government and any abuses of power.

The present scheme does not affect the first point. Citizens will continue to be able to vote for the government of their choice. The scheme does not affect the second point. Citizens will continue to be able to elect their representatives to serve their interests. The scheme only affects the third point. It provides for more persons to review and question the government openly. In effect, the Government is saying, we want to provide for more review of our policies, give an opportunity to people who are not members of the governing party to question the Government. How is that a derogation from any existing democratic process or existing constitutional right of the citizens?

The hon. Member for Fengshan suggested that what is needed is a greater responsiveness from the Government and not more MPs. I agree that greater responsiveness from the Government is necessary. But will not this Bill help bring about this greater receptiveness? I think it will. Take at present any Bill on which there is a debate. The Government imposes the Whip and will then be secure in the knowledge that regardless of what is said in this House, at the end of the day there will only be two people voting against it, and those two can be explained away. However, let us say the Government appoints NMPs, which it says will be honourable and decent men, and we hope they will be, and it receives trenchant criticism and six votes against. I am not sure that that be can explained away easily. These people are not subject to the Whip, and that is a crucial difference between the Government MPs and the non-government MPs.

A lot has been said about them being able to put forward independent views. I would not like to think that they are not able to put forward independent views. The difference is at the end of the day, in voting, they are not subject to control; we are. But in the system of democracy we run, there is no choice but to impose the Whip at times. So it comes down to votes against, and if the Government at the end of the day receives, as I said, trenchant criticism and six votes against, then what the people will say is that the Government has not been able to carry the day. The PAP MPs would have voted against if they could have, because hopefully they are not any less sensible than the non-government MPs. The non-government MPs had a free choice and they voted against.

I think that is an important point. It is a step towards greater receptiveness and that is one very important reason why I would support this present Bill. I think the scenario will help the Government to be more responsive.

I do not see in this Bill any provision that affects the people's basic rights. I see in this Bill a lot of potential. At the end of the day, whether the Bill succeeds in achieving all that the First Deputy Prime Minister has said he hopes to see achieved depends very much on the quality and calibre of persons appointed, on what their contributions are and how they contribute. They could be seen as Government stooges or they could be seen as making an effective contribution. But the fact that they may not perform, I think it is no reason why we cannot provide for it.

Much has been made about this concept of mandate. But I think that concept ought to be demystified. It is right that every citizen should be able to elect a Member of Parliament who must be given the right to review Government policies in Parliament. But I think the way it has been advanced by the people opposed to this Bill is that only such persons should be able to review the Government Bill. That I do not think follows. It is true that in a democratic process, we should be able to review the Bill because we are elected by the people. But there is no reason why a few persons should not be given the additional right to review such Bill. They already take part in the political process. There are Resource Panel members of the GPCs, people outside openly review Government policies; they take part in the political process. There is no reason why if the Bill can serve a function that they should not be in Parliament, provided they are not able to hold the ultimate balance of power between two opposing sides. That is a factor that has to be addressed. But subject to that, I think this Bill has a lot of potential.

Let me finally make it clear, Sir, that in supporting this Bill, I am not for one moment conceding or suggesting that, as has been suggested by some Backbenchers, that somehow we may not be perceived as performing our duties. I think we have to act according to our conscience and, hopefully, PAP MPs have participated effectively and will continue to participate effectively. I do not see this is a derogation from anything that is existing.

With that, Sir, I support the Bill.

Dr Lau Teik Soon (Serangoon Gardens): Mr Speaker, Sir, the proposed constitutional amendment when passed will make a significant change to our parliamentary system. But it seems to me that in the view of some MPs, especially the critics of the Bill, the change will not go far enough for them. This seems to be a strange statement to make. Let me explain what I mean.

Sir, the Government proposes by this amendment to introduce a certain flexibility in the membership of Parliament. Such a flexibility is reflected in the Government's desire to have persons who have, among various qualifications, distinguished service and successful career, to be nominated Members of Parliament. If this amendment is accepted, it means that in our unicameral structure, Parliament will have MPs, Non-Constituency MPs and nominated MPs all in the same House.

Some Backbenchers, however, Sir, want to go further than this step implicitly. They want to have a system of check and balance introduced into our parliamentary system. For example, the Member for Ayer Rajah made an unusual and may I say, Sir, an unparliamentary proposal, ie, that a body outside of Parliament should provide the check on this Chamber. I think that if the Member and others are serious about introducing a system of parliamentary check and balance, then they should propose the establishment of an Upper House. But if they propose this, then they would have to agree that there should be nominated MPs. This is because in most Commonwealth Parliaments where you have an Upper House, such a Chamber is filled up with nominated MPs.

Mr Speaker, Sir, some Commonwealth Parliaments accommodate both the flexibility which the government wants and the check and balance which some Backbenchers want by having a bicameral structure of Parliament: a Parliament with a Lower House or a House of Representatives, and an Upper House or the Senate in the case of Canada, or House of Lords in the case of the United Kingdom. In most cases, the Lower Chamber has elected MPs and the Upper House nominated MPs. Whether a person is in the Lower or Upper House, he is a Member of Parliament. Many of the Backbenchers must have met the Upper House MPs of these countries when they attended meetings organised by the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association and the Inter-Parlia- mentary Union. So whether they are from the Lower House or Upper House, they are all Members of Parliament.

Sir, many Backbenchers and the Opposition MPs make the fallacious argument that having nominated MPs will erode the prestige and the stature of our Parliament. In my view, such a thinking manifests a narrow conception of what Parliament is. The problem lies in the fact that we have had no experience of a bicameral legislature where nominated MPs have as much right and stature, and in some cases more rights and stature, than elected MPs. Such is the case in Canada and the United Kingdom. What these critics of government should do is to realise that nominated MPs for a very long time have been part of the parliamentary process in the more developed parliaments.

Sir, I would like to suggest that the Government considers legislation to set up an Upper House of Parliament. This is a more decisive change in our parliamentary system and it will satisfy both sides. It will serve as a check on the Lower House which the critics of the Government want and allow for nominated MPs to serve in the upper level Chamber. If such an Upper House were to be set up, the government would have more flexibility, say, appoint 20 Senators, representing a wide cross-section of our country. Why should this not be considered? I would suggest that the Government should look into the examples of Canada and the United Kingdom, if they want to change the structure of our Parliament from a unicameral to a bicameral one.

Sir, if my suggestion is not taken up and if we are not yet ready for an Upper House or Senate, then in the meantime why not have the flexibility to have nominated MPs in this unicameral Parliament, ie, have the nominated MPs in our midst. This is what the amendment is all about. In my view, it is a step towards what could eventually be an Upper House.

Sir, having nominated MPs in a unicameral legislature is nothing new, as the First Deputy Prime Minister has pointed out. Persons who have distinguished themselves can be nominated. The Member for Potong Pasir objects to this because he said that such a Parliament woukd be a colonial one. I think he was referring to the Legislative Assembly of the colonial period where there were nominated Members. Is he suggesting that we nominate British officials into this Parliament?

Mr Chiam See Tong: Absurd.

Dr Lau Teik Soon: Exactly. If so, if he is suggesting that, then he is the one who has the colonial mentality. Now he says it is absurd. We will be nominating Singaporeans. So what is so colonial about that?

Sir, there are some MPs who imply that nominated MPs have no right to be in Parliament. That is ridiculous! MPs are MPs no matter how they have come into Parliament. No one has objected to the presence of the NCMP, Dr Lee Siew-Choh who is not an elected MP - he was defeated in the general elections. Dr Lee went through the election process. Yes. But he was not elected. He does not have the mandate. I must inform the Member for Fengshan - he is not here - that simply going through the election process does not give one a mandate. If it were to be so, then all the candidates who have taken part in elections before can now say, "We have the mandate. We can do this and that." So why oppose the proposal to have a limited number of nominated MPs here?

Many of my colleagues have given all kinds of reasons why they think nominated MPs should not sit amongst us. But I would like to suggest that they should consider accepting nominated MPs and work out what the proper relationship between elected MPs and nominated MPs should be. In this regard, I would like to make the following proposal, following on the one made by the Member for Thomson. We should adopt a three-step procedure for nominating the MPs. Firstly, the general public will submit the names of those whom they would like to be nominated MPs. Secondly, the Special Select Committee will shortlist from, say, eight to 12 candidates, from the names submitted by the general public. Thirdly, the elected MPs as well as the NCMP will then elect the six persons to become nominated MPs. By this procedure, the nomi- nated MPs will then have an indirect mandate, in the way the NCMP has an indirect mandate. This is because they would have been proposed by the general public and as well as elected by the people's representatives.

Sir, I am glad that the Bill will be committed to a Select Committee so that the procedure for nominating MPs can be discussed and finalised. For the moment, I support the amendment which will give the Government the flexibility to have nominated MPs in our unicameral Parliament. But I would suggest that the Government considers seriously the establishment of a Senate in the future.

Mr Chiam See Tong: Clarification, Sir. The Member for Serangoon Gardens is a political scientist. He made the statement that MPs are MPs. I was waiting for him to address us on the issue of mandate, authority, representation and accountability of nominated MPs. Would he like to clarify on these points?

Dr Lau Teik Soon: Sir, I think he is giving me the opportunity to give a lecture on the various categories of Members of Parliament, their responsibilities, their accountability and so. The point that I have made is that once a person has become a Member of Parliament through whatever procedure, he is thereby accountable to Parliament and to the people at large.

Mr Chiam See Tong: No.

Dr Lau Teik Soon: Why not?

Mr Chiam See Tong: He has got no mandate.

Dr Lau Teik Soon: The mandate comes, as I said, from Parliament. Parliament has conferred on him an indirect mandate. [Mr Chiam See Tong interrupted].

Mr Speaker: Order. Mr Chiam, can you direct your remarks at the Chair, please? Do you require further clarification?

Mr Chiam See Tong: The Member for Serangoon Gardens has not finished. He may continue.

Dr Lau Teik Soon: Sir, if the Member for Potong Pasir still does not understand, I shall continue.

Mr Speaker: You still do not understand, Mr Chiam?

Mr Chiam See Tong: He has made a statement that Members of Parliament are Members of Parliament. But that cannot be true, because in relation to a nominated MP he has not explained these very important issues. So they cannot be Members of Parliament.

Dr Lau Teik Soon: Sir, when I used the paraphrase MPs are MPs, I mean to say that there are various categories of Members of Parliament, but they are all Members of Parliament, whether elected MP, Non-Constituency MP or nominated MP. So MPs are MPs. Do you need further clarification?

Mr Speaker: I think he understands now. Encik Zulkifli.

Encik Zulkifli bin Mohammed (Eunos GRC): ( In Malay): Mr Speaker, having considered the pros and cons of this Bill, I am of the view that I can accept the fundamental principle behind it, which is to provide for wider participation from those who hope to play a part in the decision-making process of government but have no wish to be involved in political activities.

The first question that came to mind as I considered this issue is whether the Bill is intended to fulfil the needs of the elite few, such as the better educated and those who earn high incomes. I do not think so, because fundamentally this Bill is based on the concept of getting greater participation from all sections of our electorate, whether civic groups, grassroots organisations, professional bodies or trade unions, in the process of making political decisions as has been mentioned by the First Deputy Prime Minister. The NMP must be seen as another avenue for Singaporeans who choose not to immerse themselves in the political arena to have their aspirations and views to be aired in Parliament.

Mr Speaker, another fundamental question I posed to myself was whether the NMP concept would improve the parliamentary process in Singapore. I see no reason why this amendment would not lead to that. By bringing certain interest groups within Parliament will help to further strengthen the two-way communication as the advantage will be that Government becomes more aware of their thinking whilst, at the same time, these groups will be in a better position to understand to appreciate the rationale behind Government policies.

It is the society's hope that the nominated Members of Parliament would be neutral and offer independent views on national issues. How this is to be achieved, we shall have to wait and see. Here lies the importance of the selection process of the NMPs, which I believe will not be without risks. For example, a future scenario may exist in the Chamber whereby an NMP may champion sectoral or parochial interests. This would erode the integrity of the elected MPs, especially if the nominated Members choose to focus on gut issues. Nevertheless, if that happens, I am inclined to believe that it would not lead to a runaway situation, because firstly, the NMP's position in Parliament very much dependent on their perfomance and their expected role. If they are irresponsible, I am sure they would not be reappointed after the end of their two-year term. Secondly, the elected Members of Parliament would be able to monitor and check any breach of proper conduct, in the same way that they monitor the performance of the Ministers and other office-holders.

Mr Speaker, like all new thing it will take a little time for the NMP concept to blossom and I am relieved to note that there will be sufficient safeguards to ensure that those appointed will be people of integrity, non-partisan and neutral. This is because anyone who wishes to be an NMP will be subject to the same qualifications and disqualification as elected Members.

On this note, Sir, I support the principle behind the Bill. 2.46 pm

Dr Ong Chit Chung (Bukit Batok): Mr Speaker, Sir, I cannot in all conscience endorse this Bill. In the Legislative Council of 1948, the first such body set up after the Second World War, there were 13 official nominated Members and unofficial Members out of a total of 22 Members in the Chamber. In our struggle against colonialisation and our march towards full parliamentary representation and self-government, the nominated seats were progressively eliminated.

By 1959, we had a fully elected Legislative Assembly. Now, after 30 long years of progress, we are going back to square one. This, in my opinion, is a retrogression, an anachronism, a step backward. We are putting the clock back.

Yesterday, we were given a list of 20 countries with nominated Members. Surely the question is: are we in the same level of development as Botswana, Malawi, Gabon and Gambia? Surely, we do not wish to be bracketed with such countries.

Nominated Members or the six wise men or six wise ladies may or may not raise the level of debate in Parliament. But that is besides the point. In my opinion, Parliament is not merely a debating society. It is not a forum where verbose gladiators slice and slash each other with their sharp tongues. It is first and foremost a House of Representatives. Members speak on behalf and represent the interests of those who put them into Parliament. Without this mandate of the people, we are nothing.

We were told to accommodate the nominated Members of Parliament as they might not wish to fight it out in an election, to go through the baptism of fire or to do constituency work like house-to-house visits climbing up and down the stairs or attending to the needs of the residents in the meet-the-people sessions. My question is: should we bend backwards to admit them by the back-door?

Politics, in my opinion, is not just about speaking and proffering alternative views. It is about service to the people and it is about commitment. One should have the conviction to stand up and be counted be counted by the voters in an election. Where, may I ask, is the commitment? Where is the passion?

I therefore suggest to the Government to expand perhaps, as an alternative, the Non-constituency Member of Parliament scheme. They do, in my opinion, represent to some extent the voters who cast their votes in their favour.

The First Deputy Prime Minister (Mr Goh Chok Tong): Mr Speaker, may I seek a point of clarification? I am a little surprised by the stand taken by Dr Ong Chit Chung. Because in the debate on the President's Address earlier this year he supported the proposal to have nominated MPs and I quote from Hansard, Vol. 52, No. 6, Col. 418:

'The proposal, Sir, floated by the Minister for Trade and Industry, for non-partisan MPs drawn from the universities and the trade unions is a step in the right direction. But this would take a number of years to work out.' We took only a few months to work this out.

Dr Ong Chit Chung: Sir, I agree that I have spoken those words. Upon reflection, I changed my mind. Thank you for pointing out. 2.45 pm

Dr Koh Lip Lin (Nee Soon South): ( In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, after hearing some 25-30 MPs' opinions, I feel that whatever that has to be spoken or should not be spoken has been spoken. Whatever that needs to be repeated or not be repeated has already been repeated. So I cannot add anything more. I suppose you are already quite fed up with if not tired of hearing all this. I myself also feel a bit fed up. But since I have already stood up so I might as well make use of the opportunity to express some lighter reflection on this subject.

The main opposition's point on this subject is that they feel it is not necessary to have Nominated MPs. In other words, it is redundant to have such concept. PAP has been in office for over 20 years and Singapore has been governed very well. It shows that our parliamentary system is working quite well. Since we have been performing so well, why should we need to change? There is a Chinese saying of: " " (drawing a snake and adding four legs to it). It means something redundant or unnecessary. You need not have four legs to be added to a snake when you draw a snake. It defeats its purpose. You miss the true picture more than you have added in.

From the proponent's standpoint, Singapore is an emergent progressive country. Our Parliamentary system is still in the process of changing and developing for the better. Now and then we have to adapt ourselves to new situations in order to progress and advance.

The objection to the drawing of the legs to a snake is more of a conservative view. The proposition to reform is of a more progressive view. Whether the NMP innovation may or may not be of advantage cannot be decided by debate in this House within 2 days. The results of many things can be seen only years after action. It is just like the subject of NCMP when it was introduced in 1984. There was much opposition from many including our PAP Backbenchers. After some time, it now seems that this system of NCMP has been accepted by us.

It is most ironical that the party which opposed this suggestion most was the Workers Party. Yet, now it is the same party that is the first to accept and be benefitted by the NCMP system. I wonder what Dr Lee Siew-Choh thinks of this.

This drawing of four legs to a snake has always been used to describe doing things which are unrealistic or unnecessary. But, sometimes there are exceptions. A good artist when drawing a snake with four legs can also turn it into a dragon which can rise up to the sky. Our PAP Government has the ability of drawing a snake into a dragon. That is why Singapore has become one of the four little dragons of Asia. This topic has roused keen interests and heated debates from the MPs. It is a record for so many MPs to debate on a topic. On the contrary, after the first reading of the Bill, it has not aroused much interest in the press and from the various circles including the grassroots. It seems that there has not been any keen response to this proposition. Perhaps this keen response from Parliament itself is mainly because this motion of NMP touches on the immediate personal interests and position of MPs themselves, and therefore they are less objective in their views. There is a Chinese saying "those who are deeply involved themselves do not see things as clearly as bystanders." Therefore, I hope the Select Committee will be objective in considering this subject and will be able to acommodate objective views.

There is a suggestion that the Chinese translation of "Nominated MPs" should be a certain term - "guan wei yi yuan" ( ) or "te wei yi yuan" ( ). This is a problem with language translation. However, I agree to the term "guan wei" MP in order to differentiate it from popularly elected one. But I feel the English term "Nominated MP" should be "Appointed MP" to be more appropriate. Next, the Bill requires only 6 voters to nominate an NMP. This number is too small. Unlike the elected MPs, the NMPs need not put a deposit and go through the electoral process. We can consider increasing the number of voters required for the nomination of NMP. Because of the small number of signatures of electoral voters required for the nomination of NMPs and because no deposit is required there maybe hundreds of names who are qualified and willing to be put forward as candidates. We can also consider allowing certain organizations like professional, commercial and academic bodies to nominate candidates.

The final point about the selection and recommendation of NMPs, I agree with the Member for Serangoon Gardens that the final decision as to the selection and appointment of NMP should be by the Parliament.

Dr Lee Siew-Choh: May I have a few words of clarification, Sir, since the Member has asked for it? May I speak in Mandarin?

Mr Speaker: Yes.

Dr Lee Siew-Choh: ( In Mandarin): May I have a few words of clarification, Sir? Dr Koh has asked me a question. I will reply in simple terms. The PAP all along does not welcome any criticism and does not allow criticism. Many people criticised the Government leaders for not allowing Opposition to speak out in the Parliament. Therefore, they devised the scheme of NCMPs as a cover-up in order to create the impression that they are democratic, when in fact, they are not.

Another clarification is about why I have accepted this NCMP position. The answer is very simple. Why do we take part in the elections? It is because we hope to become MPs, not to promote ourselves, but to speak up for the people, to promote the interests of the people, to promote and advance our ideals and the policies of our Party. that is why i have accepted this post of NCMP. At the same time, I must also explain that, in all these years of my political life, I have always believed that we should, whenever possible and permissible, make use of all available means to express our ideas and promote our Party policies. If Dr Koh could understand that, he would have understood everything.

Dr Koh Lip Lin: ( In Mandarin): I am glad to hear Dr Lee Siew-Choh's admission that the NCMP is afterall a good scheme and he himself has also benefited under this NCMP system.

Encik Othman bin Haron Eusofe (Marine Parade GRC): Mr Speaker, Sir, I take a cautious approach to the proposed amendment to the Constitution, as I believe that we should not make changes to the Constitution which is sacred without carefully considering the implications. I therefore welcome the proposal to send the Bill to a Select Committee.

Sir, the purpose of the amendment is to enable more alternative, independent and non-partisan views to be heard in Parliament. I think this intention should be supported. We want to bring as many good people as possible into Parliament, particularly those who have the expertise, experience, knowledge and are of high standing who can make a significant contribution. I believe the preferred way is for them to contest the elections and that they are in Parliament representing a body of constituents. It would appear, however, that there are people who should be brought into Parliament, but they cannot enter by way of elections because of reasons perhaps beyond their control. We want therefore to make changes to the Constitution to facilitate their entry into Parliament.

First, Sir, there is a question: why is there a need to make a special case for them to enter Parliament without having to contest elections? Why is it inadequate for them to contribute outside Parliament in channels presently available? If there are persons with expertise and stature, contributions made by them outside this House should also be carefully considered and given special attention, particularly if these contributions can affect our life, our security, our survival, and also our future development as a nation. Given their stature, why is it that their views, if made outside Parliament, could not have an impact on how we develop?

Sir, we work on the basis of a representative democracy, and all those who are presently in Parliament represent a body of constituents, whether they are elected as Members of Parliament or even as Non-Constituency MPs.

Another question, Sir, is who would this group of nominated MPs represent other than themselves? The point has been made that if they are to represent some pressure or interest groups and become some sort of a lobbyist, then we would be creating a dangerous precedent. The First Deputy Prime Minister has stated that Parliament should become an electoral college for appointing or electing this group of MPs. In this case, I think they would be representing Members of Parliament. Why is it necessary to have Members of Parliament representing the MPs? Are our current MPs incapable because of their party affiliation to express the views of the people?

Further, if they are to be elected by Parliament acting as an electoral college, it would be perceived by the general public that they must represent the majority of the MPs who will in this case be Government MPs. In this eventuality, how independent their views may be, they will still be perceived to be speaking on behalf of the Government. And I think this is a very difficult perception to change. However independent they may be under this scheme, there is still the perception that they are speaking in terms similar to that of the Government MPs.

Sir, of course, over a period of time, by their performance, they can change this perception. But are we sure that we can completely eradicate it? In future, Parliament may be in crucial balance between Government and Opposition MPs. Then this group of MPs would hold the balance of power. And why should this be if they are not truly elected representatives?

Sir, even though I have these reservations, I agree that we should do our best to get good people in Parliament, to give another perspective, an independent and non-partisan approach. However, I am quite uncomfortable that Parliament should turn into an electoral college for the proposed nominated MPs.

Sir, if we feel that there is this urgent need to bring in people with expertise and knowledge, I suggest we look at alternative ways. Some proposals like proportional representation or creating another Chamber have already been raised in this House. I would like to make another suggestion, ie, that we create an independent electoral college. Prominent persons in Singapore could be inducted into this independent electoral college and some of them could be appointed by the President on the basis of, say, nominations made by the Presidential Council, and some should be directly appointed to this electoral college by the positions they hold at the time of the elections of the nominated MPs. For example, Sir, they may be Presidents of Chambers of Commerce, leaders of grassroots organisations and so on.

As this is an independent electoral college, the nominated MPs could then be neither identified as pro-Government or pro-Opposition. And if this electoral college is broad-based, they can be said to represent a broad base of Singaporeans. The mechanics as to how we could go about developing this electoral college could be further examined, discussed and refined.

Another point which I would like to make is that the nominated MPs should only be given speaking rights in Parliament, but no voting power. The First Deputy Prime Minister has quoted some countries which have appointed MPs in their Parliaments. I think we should look into why such a system exists in these countries. For some of the countries like Bangladesh, it is probably because of the difficulty of getting women into Parliament on the basis of their election system. So some special powers have been given to Parliament to co-opt these women MPs. In other cases, the reason is to provide for minority or migrant people, and so on. These people may have difficulty to get elected into Parliament and for that reason, special concession has been made so that they can be Parliamentarians to represent a special group or minority group. However, in this case, we are bringing in people who I am sure, if they stand for elections, would have a good chance of being elected. I am not so sure why we have to make it so that the Parliament should elect them or become an electoral college. Let them be elected by an independent electoral college.

Sir, I am putting all these views so that when the Bill goes to Select Committee, perhaps these matters can be looked into.

Mrs Yu-Foo Yee Shoon (Yuhua): ( In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, on the subject of NCMP and NMP, several fellow MPs have expressed their views. The pros and cons both have their say on the subject of NMP. I would like also to add my own opinion to the discussion on NMP.

To have some professionals or some distinguished persons from our society to take part in parliamentary debate to express their opinions independently and even to criticise the Government is nothing bad. There are both merits and demerits about it. The neutral stand and expert views of the NMPs will enhance the standard of parliamentary debate. Also, those able but would not attach to any political party will be enabled to come forward to contribute to Parliament and serve the country. After two years term, their political interest has become keener, they may then wish to join or form a political party. These are good points in favour of the NMP system.

But I am worried about certain unfavourable aspects of NMP system. It is a challenge to parliamentary democracy. MPs are elected through legal process through the individual voting of the electorate. Whether the MPs elected are good or bad, the electorate will have to be responsible for the outcome of their choice. As regards NMP, how are we to ensure that the NMPs are neutral, objective and capable persons of integrity? If one day, there should be an irresponsible government in power they might be played into a situation where they became a means to perpetuate its rule or there might be nepotism and other undesirable practices.

In olden feudal China, there was the example of the Yen Guan ( ) system of state councillors who were appointed officials entrusted with the sole duty of speaking and advising the Emperor and the Prime Minister on matters of the state and could criticise their mistakes in those early dynasties. The history could be traced back to as early as the ancient dynasties of Chin and Han or even earlier to Xia, San and Zou Empires. These state councillors had superlative position and could speak and criticise without fear. Even Emperor Tan Tai Zun feared them a little and compared them as reflecting mirrors. They played their useful role in certain dynasties. However, during certain periods many were sycophants and involved themselves in partisan squabbles and competitions and landed themselves and the State in undesirable situations.

Some people think that the NMPs need not be bound by party discipline or electorate pressure and can be neutral and express their mind freely. But if they can do so, would it benefit the Government in improving the standard and the quality of government policy and legislation? If they can, then the people would think that it is better to appoint more NMPs. But if their standard is of a high quality even outshining the Ministers, but the Government would not accept their views, then the people will think that they should elect more Opposition Members to oppose government legislation or policies. So whether their participation is of a standard, whether good or bad, will bring about certain unknown political consequences.

The next question is about the setting up of the Special Select Committee and the choice of the nominees for NMPs. How are we to be sure that this Select Committee will be neutral and capable of selecting the right persons? How are we to be sure that the possible NMP candidates will be non-partisan and are capable people? What are the criteria for the selection of NMPs, on their personal achievements, academic qualifications or their organisational affiliation? Whatever yardstick we use, it is very difficult to be absolutely impartial in the process. Every organisation will think that they are very important in our society. They would like to nominate their own representatives. Since NMPs are not elected, they are not responsible to their electorate and need not answer for the government policy to the electorate and they need not execute or implement any Government policy. They can just take part in debating on Government policy. What effect or what role can they play? Also, if the Nominated MPs can also vote as elected MPs, we should ask ourselves whether they should enjoy this right, is this wise? Whereas compared to NCMP, there are certain voters who voted for him. Both the elected MP and the NCMP have got thousands of votes for them. So an NCMP can also be said to speak for and represent some people. But whom does an NMP represent, himself or his organisation? As long as they have the right to vote, one day there may be some politicians who will make use of their votes by buying over them. What will happen to our political scene if one day the number of NMPs should greatly increase? So I absolutely oppose to the right of NMPs to vote. The appointment of NMPs may affect the political consciousness of our people. There are some examples of other countries having Nominated Members in their parliaments but these examples only happen in the Third World countries. But Singapore today in economic development and social progress is at a position that ranks next only to Japan, in Asia. We are more or less a developed country. Are we admitting that in political development we are to be included among the Third World countries? Talking about activating the womenfolk by appointing some women NMPs, of those examples given, the women in those countries do not have equal opportunities to be educated or receive equal pay for equal work. They cannot have the right to enjoy or participate in so many things. Whereas in Singapore, under PAP Government since the 1960s women have been treated equally as men. They have the right to receive equal education to get equal pay for equal work and also to have the same position and enjoy equal rights as men. Some even supersede the men's positions in many fields, particularly in education. Take the example of career women, more than 56% of them have 'O' level or higher education. But only over 48% of men have this kind of Secondary 4 or higher level of education. So the womenfolk should not rely on being appointed as NMPs but should also consider spending some time to take part in elections in order to serve the country. The system of NMP may give a wrong impression or misunderstanding to our younger generation, they may think that to be a politician or an MP, one need only to be eloquent in talking. Our worry is that we may not continue to get the right or capable people to come forward to serve. If the NMP system would lead to just the opposition result, then I am afraid we shall not be able to get any dedicated career politicians like our Lee Kuan Yew, Goh Keng Swee or 1DPM and 2DPM and others to come forward to serve our country. Before the Bill is passed I support the proposition of the 1DPM setting up a Select Committee to consider the matter further. Before the Bill is passed and implemented, we should consider whether we should change the present situation. It is rather contradictory. Over 20 years ago our political leaders could make sacrifices, why can't we do so now? We are trying to internationalize Singapore. We are commercializing some semi-Government organizations, as pointed out by the Chairman of Feedback Unit. As we are trying to modernise, we should seriously consider whether we should also modernise our political career that there should be a career future for politicians to take part in politics, whether it should be professional and not vocational as in the past. Since our Ministers are far better than many multi-national heads, why should they not be given the same remuneration and conditions or facilities such as drivers and so on, so that they may not be exposed to any risk from stress and strain. Therefore, the situation should be improved so that our leadership would be willing to make sacrifices while they may still look after the livelihood of themselves and of their families. When the Ministers retire, they should be allowed to head some enterprises, so that they may feel the sacrifices not too great. I am sure they are qualified unless they left office because of committed crime or corruption. The NMP in the end still cannot be a Minister as he does not have the capacity to decide on important national policies. In the end, we still need a group of talented leadership to stand for election. Therefore we should consider changing the present situation. When we come out to stand for election to be MPs, we have to face the result of voting, success or failure. We are not doing so for our own sake. Therefore, when talking about Nominated MPs, we are not speaking for our face or from our own subjective self-interest point of view. I feel that the NMP proposition has given people a wrong impression that the present standard of debate has fallen short of expectation or it is to secure some unwilling candidates. If certain professionals were to be appointed as NMPs to take part in parliamentary debates purely for the sake of giving alternative views or improving the standard and quality of debate, I would think it should not be a bad thing. The question then is how to present it to the Backbenchers and the Parliament. Backbenchers can be helped in various ways to improve their debate. Other than the library facilities, besides the librarian there could be the provision of secretaries and typists or researchers to help us. I feel that we should change and improve the present situation to make the present MPs to play a better and more effective role as politicians.

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

Sitting accordingly suspended at 3.22 pm until 3.40 pm Sitting resumed at 3.40 pm