PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS (AMENDMENT) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

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

This is essentially a consequential Bill. It follows on the passing of the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore (Amendment) Bill, 1991 on 3rd January. That Bill, apart from providing for the election of the President, also provided for GRCs to return either three or four MPs each.

As I explained during the Second Reading debate on 4th October, 1990, this GRC provision is to facilitate a constituency which has grown between general elections to be served by an additional MP, if necessary, instead of breaking up the GRC.

Parliament, in enacting the Constitution (Amendment) Bill, has approved this particular amendment. Consequently, we need to make similar amendments to the Parliamentary Elections Act.

The amendment will give the Electoral Boundary Review Committee flexibility when it reviews electoral boundaries. This would minimise major changes of boundaries to GRCs which have grown too big for the number of MPs serving them.

The Bill also seeks to change the upper limit of the number of MPs to be returned by all GRCS from one-half to three-quarters of the total number of elected MPs. At present, the number of MPs to be returned by GRCs cannot exceed one-half of the total number of MPs to be returned at a general election. Since some GRCs will now have four MPs each, clause 3, sub-clause (c) of the Bill proposes that the maximum number of MPs to be returned by GRCs be increased from one-half to three-quarters of the total number of elected MPs. This is because it takes only two GRCs to have four MPs each to breach the upper limit of one-half, assuming that there is no change in the number of elected MPs. At present, 39 out of 81 elected MPs are returned by 13 GRCs. Hence, the need to change the upper limit of the number of MPs to be returned by GRCs from one-half to three-quarters of the total number of elected MPs.

Sir, I beg to move.

Question proposed.

Dr Lee Siew-Choh (Non-constituency Member): Mr Speaker, Sir, I did not touch on this subject during the debate on the Elected President. So now I wish to say a few words on this issue.

This amendment, Sir, ostensibly reasonable, is directed at making it more difficult for the Opposition in elections. You will recall, Sir, that nearly three years ago, just when it feared that Opposition candidates might be elected in certain constituencies in the 1988 elections, the PAP introduced the system of Group Representation Constituencies (GRCs) which requires the election of three candidates together in one slate. And the PAP well knows that the creation of the GRCs had caused great difficulties for Opposition parties in the 1988 elections. The Workers Party, for instance, had to give up two GRCs which we had prepared to contest, at the very last moment when we had difficulties in getting the suitable candidates as stipulated in the amended Parliamentary Elections Act. As a result, the PAP candidates became MPs uncontested in those two GRCs.

But in the last election, in spite of all its advantages, the PAP nearly lost in one GRC. It also had very close encounters in a few others with the Opposition parties. The PAP has therefore now thought it more prudent to make it still more difficult for the Opposition parties, all in order to improve the chances for the PAP in future. Now using the excuse that there might be more voters staying in large constituencies, this amendment is introduced in the Parliamentary Elections Act to provide that GRCs shall elect groups of four Members of Parliament if the Government, ie, the PAP, so decides. And now the number of candidates in GRCs is going to be increased from three to four. I ask, Sir: is it fair to keep changing the rules of the game all the time?

What is there to prevent it from further increasing the number to be elected in future GRCs, from four to five or even six, whenever the PAP should find it prudent to do so? Is that part of the new set of shared values now pushed by the PAP? If Government believes that there should be a more even spread of voters for the election of MPs, then the correct way is to institute a system of proportional representation. MPs become elected on the basis of the number of votes a party wins in an election. But it would appear that though the PAP Government waxes eloquent on shared values, it will still continue to place PAP interests above those of all others.

In parliamentary elections, the PAP has never given Opposition parties a fair chance. This Bill is but yet another example.

Mr Chiam See Tong (Potong Pasir): Sir, I rise to oppose this Bill.

In principle, this Bill dilutes our democratic system. At first, we started with one man casting one vote for one candidate. The voter can vote for the person whom he wants to represent him in Parliament. But then the number was increased to three in a GRC - one vote is cast for three candidates. Where is the principle of representation when one vote is cast for three candidates? Because the voter may only want to vote for one of the candidates, and not the other two. So whether he likes it or not, he has to vote for the other two candidates. Now the position is even worse. You have to cast one vote for four candidates.

The Goh Chok Tong Government says that it would encourage participatory democratic style of Government and I support that. But, unfortunately, the ideal is inconsistent with the action taken so far. It would appear that only lip-service is given to this principle of participatory democratic style of Government. How can there by participatory style when you cast one vote for four candidates? In fact, the participation in this democratic exercise has been reduced.

It is obvious, like the sentiments given by Dr Lee, that the purpose is to make it difficult for the Opposition. The PAP has tried everything - from Elected President, NMP, to now having four candidates, instead of three, in a GRC. Instead of having this dilution, the Government should show its sincere intent on having more real participation from the people and there can only be real participation in the democratic process if there are more Opposition Members in Parliament, and not to keep them out. What we want is really a two-party system in Singapore. More opposition and there shall be real participation on the part of the people and it should not try to close the doors and make it more difficult for elected Opposition members to be in Parliament.

The Government has tried everything - from Elected President, NCMP, NMP and the lot. But I think the Government is going to find it difficult because the people do want real representation in Parliament, as indicated by the increase in the number of votes for the Opposition in the last election. If the Government is not careful - I think it should heed the warning - the people would say enough is enough and I think there will be a backlash on the Government. The number of candidates for the Opposition in the next election, whether there are four candidates in a GRC or not, I think the people will definitely not agree with the Government and they will elect more Opposition candidates.

It is quite obvious why the Government wants to have four MPs in a GRC. I think their intent is to finally make the whole of Singapore Group Representation Constituencies instead of having single constituencies. Then the number of minority representation would be about 25%. If the Government intends to make Potong Pasir a GRC, I would certainly welcome that.

The Prime Minister and Minister for Defence (Mr Goh Chok Tong): Mr Speaker, Sir, I find that there are contradictions in both Mr Chiam as's well as Dr Lee Siew-Choh's argument that we are making things more difficult for the Opposition. If Dr Lee Siew-Choh sincerely believes that we are making things more difficult for him now, as well as in the last election, can he explain to this House why then did he choose to stand in a GRC? He had plenty of single-member constituencies to choose from, but he chose to stand in Eunos GRC. That tells us that he believed that his chances of winning in that election were much better in a GRC. He has therefore contradicted himself.

The answer to the Opposition MPs' problem is to find more candidates. If they can find more candidates and their candidates are as good as the PAP's, then they would not be worrying whether it is a single-member constituency or GRC. Do not blame your problems on what we are doing over here, which is to make things easier under certain circumstances for the Electoral Boundary Review Committee when it comes to reviewing electoral boundaries.

I would not want to enter into a debate on proportional representation over here because it is irrelevant to the debate this afternoon. If Dr Lee Siew-Choh believes that proportional representation is good for Singapore, he can always bring this matter up either in a Question for oral answer or in an Adjournment Motion, or even in a motion before the House and we can have it debated.

Mr Chiam hopes that Potong Pasir will be made into a GRC. That is a contradiction, because if he thinks we are making things more difficult for him, why does he hope that Potong Pasir should be made into a GRC?

Mr Chiam See Tong: There will be a backlash. I said so.

The Prime Minister and Minister for Defence (Mr Goh Chok Tong): If he thinks there will be a backlash because of the change in have more GRCs, surely he and Dr Lee Siew-Choh should welcome our stupid move, is it not? Because it must be the height of absurdity for me to miscalculate or misjudge the electorate. I think he does not believe that we have made a mistake in our judgment.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House.

The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. - [The Prime Minister and Minister for Defence].

Bill considered in Committee.

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

Clauses 1 to 8 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill.

New Clause - "Amendment of Section 20 of the principal Act is section 20. amended by inserting, immediately after subsection (2), the following subsection: "(3) Where a new electoral division is created under section 8 by the amalgamation of the whole of two or more existing electoral divisions, or where there is no change in the boundary of any electoral division specified in a notification under section 8(1), section 10 shall not apply to that electoral division unless the Minister otherwise directs; and the certified registers of electors in operation for those existing electoral divisions which have been amalgamated to form any new electoral division shall be deemed to be the register of electors in operation for that new electoral division at the next general election.".". - [The Prime Minister and Minister for Defence].

Brought up, and read the First time.

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

Sir, I have earlier explained that, following the provisions of the Constitutional amendments on the Elected President, we have to amend the Parliamentary Elections Act so that a GRC can return either three or four MPs each.

A new GRC for three or four MPs can be created in several other ways. First, parts of two or more constituencies can be carved up and joined to create a new constituency. In that case, the boundaries of several constituencies will obviously be affected. It is clear in such a case that there will be a need for a new register of voters. This is because the names of voters in the newly created constituency will be found in various parts of other registers.

Another situation could be where the entire of two or more single-member constituencies are joined up to form a new GRC constituency.

A third scenario is where an existing GRC (without any change to its boundary) is joined up with another single-member constituency.

In the second and third situations, since it is the whole of the constituencies which are being merged, and since there is no splitting up of any constituency, their existing registers of voters would be unaffected and can still be used. However, section 10 of the Parliamentary Elections Act, read with section 8, would require new registers of electors to be created even for the second and third situations which I described. This requirement is really not necessary.

To illustrate: suppose all the registers of electors had been revised in December 1993. Suppose we then decide to have general elections in the first quarter of 1994. Suppose some new constituencies are created purely by the amalgamation of the whole of two or more existing constituencies. It does not make sense that we have to republish all the registers for the new amalgamated constituencies. All we need to do is just to use the current registers of those constituencies which have been amalgamated as the register for the newly-created constituency. The same should apply for existing constituencies where there is no change to the boundaries, eg, where it is decided to have four MPs instead of three in a GRC.

The amendment before the Committee is to meet this point. It provides that where a new constituency is created by amalgamating the whole of two or more constituencies, the existing registers of voters for those constituencies will be taken as the register for the new constituency. This will also be the case for any existing constituency whose boundary has not changed. This applies to both single-member constituencies and GRCs.

The amendment also gives the discretion to the Minister to direct otherwise. This is in case the registers are not current and should be updated. This is consistent with the provision in section 10 giving the discretion to the Minister.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time and added to the Bill.

The Chairman: This new clause is to be inserted immediately after clause 3. Existing clauses 4 to 8 will be renumbered as clauses 5 to 9 respectively.

Bill reported with an amendment; read a Third time and passed.