NOMINATED MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT (Motion)

The Leader of the House (Mr Wong Kan Seng): Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move,

That this Parliament, in accordance with section 1(1) of the Fourth Schedule to the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore, resolves that there shall be nominated Members during the term of this Parliament.

Sir, the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore provides for the appointment of Nominated Members of Parliament (NMPs). Two NMPs, Prof. Maurice Choo and Mr Leong Chee Whye, were appointed in the last session of Parliament.

Parliament has to resolve to have NMPs within six months of the opening of Parliament if we are to have them in this session of Parliament. Once Parliament so resolves, the public will then be invited to submit nominations for consideration by a Special Select Committee of Parliament. The Special Select Committee will then recommend the nominees for the President's approval.

The principles underlying the need for having NMPs had been elaborated by the Prime Minister who was then the First Deputy Prime Minister when he moved the Second Reading and reiterated in the Third Reading of the Bill amending the Constitution. Some suggestions and improvements had also been incorporated by the Select Committee on the Constitution (Amendment) Bill after the public had made representations. So I am not going to go into great detail the principles or merits of having NMPs as these had been clearly stated and thoroughly debated in 1989, and NMPs are now provided for in our Constitution. I therefore do not expect Members to re-debate the principles all over again. What is before the Members today is only a motion asking them to decide whether or not we should have NMPs in this session of Parliament.

Sir, in spite of the fact that there are now four Opposition MPs in this Chamber, we should still have NMPs. We have seen how inadequately they have performed during the last Budget and Committee of Supply debates. In any case, Opposition Members will always oppose whatever the Government does. Their job is not to help the Government improve but to embarrass it. Whatever they say, therefore, represent a narrow sectional interest, the interest of the Opposition. No doubt people will want to hear the Opposition's views and hear them expressing them in Parliament. But being in the Opposition, they cannot resist the temptation of playing to the gallery and hence not dwelling on the substance of an issue. I do not blame them as this is to be expected of the Opposition.

The PAP already has 77 Members in this 81-Member Chamber. It does not need more voices to support Government policies. So NMPs are not here to speak up for the PAP. In the past, PAP MPs also played the role of the Opposition. People therefore were able to see a wide variety of views expressed by the PAP MPs. Now that there are four Opposition Members in this Chamber, the PAP MPs will not play the role of the Opposition but they will close ranks instead. On this issue, however, we will make the exception of lifting the Whip because the Prime Minister in his speech in 1989 had agreed to lift the Whip. But let me say that the public and the Members here should not expect this to happen again because the PAP MPs will close ranks.

NMPs, on the other hand, reflect an independent, unbiased view as they are non-partisan. They can concentrate on the substance of the debate since they do not have to play to the gallery. There are groups outside whose views may not be adequately aired in this Chamber, for example, those of the employers. I know there are PAP MPs here who are also employers and there are Opposition MPs who are employers, but they will necessarily, eventually have to reflect the party line. So there is room for those who are not partisan to play a role in this House and NMPs should therefore be part of our system. NMPs do not need to worry about elections or the votes. They can freely speak their mind giving objective inputs and concentrating on the substance of the issues.

We have seen the two NMPs in this last Parliament. I believe they have been fairly active despite the fact that they were in Parliament for less than nine months.

I therefore commend all Members here to support this motion.

Question proposed.

Mr Peter Sung (Buona Vista): Mr Speaker, Sir, the arguments on both sides of the issue had been made in the last sitting of Parliament and as the Minister urged, I would not go into them again.

There were two NMPs in the last Parliament and obviously their performance would be something that Members would want to look at to see whether NMPs should or should not be included this time.

The principles apart, I think it is important to look at the practice. I would like to touch on the possibility of NMPs being office holders in future.

Sir, are elected Members the ones that make the best Ministers or best office holders? Should we equate elected MPs as good or right as Ministers, or that unelected ones to be no good or not right? If you look at the history of nations, I do not believe there were many countries that were led by Cabinets which were fully elected at the height of their glory. Also, in our neighbourhood, Tun Daim is well known to have been a good Finance Minister. When he first went into Parliament he was not an elected MP. I think we should keep our options open despite whatever pronouncements that have been made on this subject. It will give us the flexibility of bringing in people to manage our country for the long-term good of the citizens should this be required sometime in the future.

Mr Speaker, Sir, in the last Parliament we had two NMPs. For this House to vote against NMPs this time would mean that when we want to reintroduce them in future, it would be slightly more difficult. Therefore, I would like to support this motion in order to give ourselves this flexibility.

It remains for the Government to bring into this House suitable persons who can and will perform their roles in a manner that will justify the high expectations we place on them.

On this note, and with this expectation, Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the motion.

Mr Bernard Chen (Brickworks GRC): Mr Speaker, Sir, in his Second Reading speech on the Bill made on 29th November 1989, the Prime Minister, then First Deputy Prime Minister, clearly stated the intentions of the Bill and these are, to summarise, firstly, to offer Singaporeans more opportunities for political participation in keeping with his style of consensus government; secondly, to reach out for more alternative views which are non-government and non-opposition which may represent another probably sizeable cross-section of the people; thirdly, to tap those Singaporeans who for one reason or other would not or could not go through the election process and take on the full duties of elected MPs but who, nevertheless, could contribute their experience and points of views on major policy issues; and fourthly, to achieve these objectives with minimum disruption to the present parliamentary system.

Subsequently in his Third Reading speech on 29th March 1990, the Prime Minister also elaborated further on the question of whether NMPs should be allowed to hold political office. In his view, the provision will provide future governments the flexibility to secure suitable people to perform specialised complex jobs.

This Bill was considered in detail by the Select Committee and passed by Parliament in 1990.

In considering the motion tabled before the House today, I think we should consider whether any changes in the past two years have affected the fundamental objectives of this Bill and therefore we need to take a different stand. I would submit that we should maintain the decision to have NMPs in this Parliament. The last General Elections in August last year saw the entry of three more Opposition MPs. If we consider the NCMP in the last Parliament, there is actually only a net increase of two non-government MPs. The need for more non-government and non-opposition views still remains. The appointment of NMPs will therefore fill this gap as was originally intended.

Some MPs expressed in the debate on the Bill in 1989 and 1990 their reservations on whether the NMPs could make effective contributions in this House. The two NMPs we have in the last Parliament had just about nine months in this Chamber before Parliament was dissolved for last year's General Elections. This period is surely too short for us to assess the NMPs' effectiveness.

I would urge that we should give this new system a further try. It takes away nothing from the proceedings of this Parliament. Far more likely we shall get the benefits of additional views and comments which will help in formulating major Government policies.

I would, therefore, lend my support to the motion of having NMPs in this Parliament. 1.45 pm

Dr John Chen Seow Phun (Hong Kah GRC): Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to support the motion standing in the name of the Leader of the House.

Sir, the basic aim of having NMPs is to enrich and enhance the political system by giving Singaporeans more scope for political participation through the airing of more alternative views and encouragement of constructive dissent. The NMP provision enables Singaporeans who, for good rea-sons, have no desire or are actually unable to enter politics to make a contribution.

Many benefits derive from having NMPs in this House. When NMPs question the Government and argue for alternative courses of action where necessary, their experience, expertise and insights into economic and social problems are tapped. NMPs serve to increase the input of diverse ideas in Parliament, and thus guarantee greater representation. As they are non-partisan, they need not pander to popular whims to win votes. Therefore, by hearing the views of NMPs, people are better able to judge the worth of arguments espoused by MPs of any political party.

NMPs promote consensus democracy and dampen adversarial democracy, thus putting pressure on the Opposition to be more constructive in its criticisms of the Government. At the same time, they exert a degree of pressure on the Government itself through their objective criticisms, thereby making it more responsive to dissenting views.

Sir, a review of the 1989 House debate on NMPs reveals that there were fewer arguments against the Bill, though some were quite heated ones. Some felt that NMPs would end up being 'stooges' of the Government and that the PAP was simply appointing its own people. On the other hand, some felt that there would be too much pressure on them to criticise the Government simply to avoid being viewed as "yes-men".

But the most outstanding argument against NMPs is that they have no electoral mandate; they are not chosen by the people and, thus, have no political clout to wield any influence in Parliament. They have come in through the 'back door' and are seen to have been unwilling to make sacrifices because they avoid the rough-and-tumble of political life. They, therefore, have 'power without accountability'.

In fact, NMPs do, in any event, enjoy the indirect mandate as they are selected by the very Members of this House who have already won the trust of the electorate which voted them into office to begin with. Thus, they are accountable to Parliament.

Furthermore, let us remember that the NMP provision is subject to a built-in 'self-destruct' clause, according to which the retention of NMPs must be approved by each successive Parliament. This represents a positive step in the evolution of the democratic process as we have known it; it is a good modification, calculated to reap benefits that far exceed the scope of change involved, without contradicting the principle of democracy.

Sir, I also think that many of the misgivings levelled against NMPs stem from bigotry. When NMPs were nothing more than an abstract concept back in 1989, fears were already being voiced about how they might well turn out to be ineffective, opportunistic, afraid to speak their minds, afraid not to speak their minds, etc. This was before any NMPs were even nominated or given a chance to perform. And have these initial fears materialised thus far? I think not. Indeed, the record will show that the performance of our NMPs in the last Parliament proved that such apprehensions were nothing more than the groundless prejudices that they were.

Ultimately, we must also ask ourselves one basic question: what best serve the interests of Singapore and Singaporeans? All of us, whether PAP or Opposition MPs, must be able to rise above the level of partisan politics, if we are to conscientiously carry out our number one role and, that is, to act in the best interests of our people at all times. And I contend that the presence of qualified and committed NMPs is an important step in that direction.

Dr Ow Chin Hock (Leng Kee): ( In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, let me raise some views for the reference of my parliamentary colleagues. First, the views from the Feedback Unit ( ). On the question of Nominated MPs, the Feedback Unit conducted three dialogue sessions in 1989. From the notes of these dialogue sessions, we could see that the majority of the participants did not support the appointment of Nominated MPs, or were sceptical or had reservations about the Bill that was going to be passed at that time. A few days ago, the Feedback Unit contacted 41 active contributors to the Feedback Unit. Among them, 34, or 59%, felt that there is no need to have NMPs in this Parliament. The reasons they gave were, firstly, there are enough Opposition Members in this Parliament. Secondly, the two NMPs in the past did not make specific contributions. Thirdly, the Government has enough channels for feedback. Another 17, or 41%, felt that there should be NMPs in this Parliament. The reasons they gave were that the NMPs could contribute better by giving views from various perspectives in a non-partisan manner, so that matters could be discussed more thoroughly and, secondly, Parliament should give the NMPs more time so that their performance could be better assessed. Two of the contributors recommended that Parliament should appoint women and community leaders as Nominated MPs.

The second point I wish to raise is whether the NMPs should stand aloof in the midst of the elected MPs ( ). My personal view is that there is no need to have NMPs in this Parliament because we have three more Opposition MPs. As the Prime Minister said on 29th November 1989 in this House [Hansard, Vol. 54, Col. 700]:

'The objective or aim of the Opposition MPs has been not to help find the right solution or settle correct policies, but to embarrass the Government and trip it up in order to discredit the Government so that they can win office for themselves.

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

This was what the Prime Minister said then.

The third point that I want to raise is the representation of Nominated MPs ( ). Nominated MPs do not belong to any party. They are not partisan and they are in a position to raise their own independent views. Let me make an observation: Since 1959, our voters had never voted in any Independent candidates to be Assemblymen or Members of Parliament. The last Independent candidate who was returned was in 1959, Mr A.P. Rajah. That was 33 years ago. In the 1991 General Election, there were seven Independent candidates who received a total of 14,598 votes, taking up 1.9% of the total of 783,612 votes polled. And from the constituencies they contested, the Independent candidates' votes ranged from 1.2% to 24%. Of course, the quality of the Independent candidates is an important factor. The other explanation is that our people do not like to elect Independent candidates to be MPs. Since our people do not want to have Independent candidates to be their Members of Parliament, then why should Parliament insist in appointing independent people to be Nominated MPs? The NMPs do not have the mandate of the people. They are not the voices of the people. So when they speak in Parliament, are they reflecting the views of the people? Or are they expressing their own views?

Another point I would like to bring up is the political responsibility of the elected Members ( ). The imminent task of the ruling party is to collect the feedback from our people and to care for the well-being of the people so as to strengthen the relationship between the Government and the people, in order to win back the lost ground. That is a very important task. But the appointment of NMPs has no bearing to this. If a PAP MP and an NMP both disagreed with a Bill and criticize it sharply, but when it comes to voting, the NMP can vote against the motion but the PAP MP cannot vote against it because he is restrained by the Government Whip. So it would look as though he is not voting according to what he has said and this would affect his credibility and the ruling Party's image. So the question lies in the constraint of the Government Whip. It is not that the ruling Party does not have Members who dare to speak up in Parliament.

Another point is that the NMPs and the elected MPs, although in the same Parliament, face different degrees of pressure ( ). Our elected MPs have to sacrifice their family life and career. They have to spend a lot of time and effort to work for the people in their constituencies and in the Town Councils. They also realise that despite their hard work, there is no assurance that they will win the next election. This is a political risk that they have to take. At this juncture, if we appoint NMPs who are not willing to face the voters, how would it affect the morale of the elected MPs? Some say that we can appoint female professionals as NMPs. I do not know how Dr Seet Ai Mee and her supporters will feel about this and how are we going to convince more female professionals to take part in the General Elections? How could this contribute to good government?

The last point I want to raise is that I agree with the Government that we should attract more talented people to participate in politics and in our nation building ( ). We can encourage our professionals, management staff, trade union leaders and community leaders to contribute their views through the Resource Panels of the GPCs or the Feedback Unit. And on important Bills, they could also contribute by writing to or testifying before the Select Committees on the respective Bills. Some outstanding people can be appointed as Members of the Council of Presidential Advisors, National Wages Council, the Institute of Policy Studies or the National Arts Council. Another argument is that some Ministerial posts, like the Minister for Finance, Minister for Law or the Minister for the Arts, will have to be undertaken by specialists. These people may not wish to take part in elections but they could be competent to take up these Cabinet posts. This argument is irrelevant and meaningless as far as this Parliament is concerned. Our Minister for Law is in his prime, our Finance Minister enjoys good health and our Minister for Information and the Arts has made every effort to promote cultural activities. Apart from that, we have two MPs, namely, the former Education Minister and our Minister for National Development who have sound financial management experience. They are good leaders. Why should we go for outsiders instead of appointing people who are with us?

So I hope that my parliamentary colleagues could take these points into consideration, and calmly and objectively discuss and decide whether this Parliament should have Nominated MPs.

Mr Chiam See Tong: Mr Speaker, Sir, at this point of time, it is more appropriate if the Minister could tell us when the by-elections will be held, instead of trying to get this House to make provision for more NMPs. After all, the local press has reported that the PAP is ready for the by-elections and its members are raring to go at it. Surely, the appointment of NMPs is not to get fresh blood into this House. This can be done at the coming by-elections which was promised by the Prime Minister. Neither do I believe that the appointment of NMPs is to bring in women MPs, as has been suggested by a Member. Nor is it to have a third point of view. In fact, there is no such thing as a third point of view. Either you are for or against a motion or an issue in a debate.

Was there really a third point of view when we had two NMPs in the last session of Parliament? I do not think so. The last two NMPs were specialists in their fields of work and they tended to speak very narrowly, confining themselves to their expertise knowledge. We do not need such people in Parliament. If Parliament wants experts or technical advice, it could easily obtain them from experts outside the House.

In Parliament, we need people who are committed, who have a vision, who have fresh ideas for change for the good of society and for Singapore. These people, if they have the commitment, will go through, as put by another NMP, the agony of an election and get elected, and in that way, to be in this House and contribute to society.

The reason for the need for NMPs, in my view, is more likely that the Government has need for potential Ministers. The last Member mentioned that he went through the list and said that there was no replacement. In my view, there is still one area which need replacement, probably the Finance Minister. This was specifically mentioned in the Prime Minister's speech in March 1990 in Parliament, whereby NMPs could be office holders and one of them could be a Finance Minister.

Probably the Government feels that they cannot replace one or more Ministers with a person whom the Government has in mind if the person has to go through the by-elections, because the Government probably feels that that person cannot win at the by-elections. I think that is the real reason why we want more NMPs. If this were true, then I am afraid having NMPs in the House is more for political reasons of the Government than to improve the parliamentary system or the quality of persons in Parliament.

Mr Chew Heng Ching (Eunos GRC): Mr Speaker, Sir, Members will recall that this issue of Nominated MPs was keenly debated about three years ago in this House when the Bill amending the Constitution to provide for the appointment of non-elected MPs was read and passed. Consequently, we saw the nomination of Mr Leong Chee Whye and Prof. Maurice Choo to this House. Though their presence in the House was shortlived, I believe they had contributed many a lively debate in the House, with indepth analysis of issues and timely reminders to the Government about the impact and repercussions that its policies might have on the governed.

Contrary to what Mr Chiam See Tong has said, I believe they make good sparring partners, much to the love and disappointment of PAP MPs as to Opposition MPs, because they were non-partisan. By their show of knowledge and substance in Parliament, they had dispelled the last lingering doubts that NMPs are simply tools of the PAP, lame ducks that only quack when asked to.

Sir, at the debate on the Bill in November 1989, I said that if we did not have good MPs, we could not have good Ministers, Ministers of State and Parliamentary Secretaries. Although we were reminded by the then First Deputy Prime Minister in this House that it was not the intention of Government that NMPs should be eligible to become Ministers or other office holders, I feel that this preclusion from holding office should be re-examined. We should provide for a scheme where NMPs could be office holders. It is a form of safeguard or insurance for the future.

Sir, I am aware that my proposal to the Government appears a radical and controversial one, as some people will quickly call it undemocratic. But I would urge these people to look at it from a broader and national perspective, as a natural desire to find and put up the best men for a difficult and, if I may say so, an unenviable job. These men would be a valuable asset to the nation. Sir, I am saying this to safeguard ourselves against a day when we may have difficulty finding, as what some of my colleagues said, a Law Minister or a Finance Minister from amongst MPs, because this is a very highly specialised job. The NMP scheme allows us to tap talent and to appoint well-qualified persons to the job.

Sir, this concept of putting a non-elected man into Government is not new, neither is it novel. The Secretary of State of the United States is appointed. Dr Henry Kissinger was a top calibre man. Mr James Baker is of no lesser light. They are good examples of men of exceptional capabilities, testimony of a system that has succeeded in identifying talented men and women and installing them in positions which they would not otherwise be interested, because of the need to go through a political avenue.

Sir, lest it be misunderstood, I do see enough good men and women in this House now who are of ministerial calibre or potential office holders who can even become Finance Ministers, contrary to what Mr Chiam said. I do not propose that we get an NMP to be a Minister now. But I do propose that the Government has this possibility built into the concept. We do not need it today, and we may not need to use it at all. But like the saying goes, it may be too late to start digging a well when one gets thirsty. Worse, not one, but the whole entire nation is thirsty. We might need the expertise and services of a maestro, a specialist, one day for a very specific task in Government. And with this possibility in place, we could immediately enlist him for the job when the need arises.

Sir, I support the motion moved by the Leader of the House, mainly because we could use the NMP scheme to bring into this session of Parliament other talented men and women in our society. For example, I feel a need to have a representative from the employers' organisations, one from the clan associations, even a representative to help voice the needs and concerns of the fairer sex, and even a specialist in the arts. Sir, I believe these people could fill a niche, contribute and enhance the quality of debate in this House in areas that our existing MPs may not be too familiar with. They will certainly be an asset to the House and help generate new ideas to the Government in the implementation of the many programmes in the Next Lap.

Mr Umar Abdul Hamid (Ang Mo Kio GRC): Mr Speaker, Sir, the objective of introducing NMPs is to provide opportunities and an avenue for wider political participation. It is meant as an extension for more alternative views to be heard and the generous accommodation of dissenting voices. It is the paramount duty of this House to ensure that the best brains are galvanised to run the country. I believe the NMP scheme is the best among the available alternatives that we have considered so far. A good yardstick, in my view, to measure an adroit government is in its ability to adopt the past, adjust the present and adorn the future. Singapore is one fine example. It is a responsible Government that will use its initiatives and do what is best for the future of Singapore and its people.

The people have elected the Government of the day and have entrusted in its representatives in Parliament to do what this country's future deems fit. The choice of NMPs will thus be made on the "oblique mandate" vested by the electorate.

Sir, Singapore is not limited in talent as it is in land. What better way can there be than to have the professionals, lay experts and renowned leaders of institutions, to contribute in this House as NMPs? Perhaps as successful businessmen or surgeons, they might not realise the constitutional contribution to the nation until they are here to be part of the legislative process. Hopefully, by being here, they may change their perceptions as they could then understand the process and the significance of their roles better. These professionals of good standing will keep to their all-time best as they are in their own respective fields. Thus, eluding the notion that they might be easily lobbied or to be seen as opportunists. No person who has reached his pinnacle would jeopardise his reputation and integrity by being here to perform less than what the system expects and to the extent of disappointing the public.

As a matter of fact, they deserve all the admiration as individuals who without the privilege of equal monetary allowance and voting would do their homework and shoulder parliamentary responsibility as much as the hon. Members of this House.

At this juncture, Mr Speaker, Sir, I find it hard to ignore the statement made by Mr Chiam in yesterday's Straits Times that NMPs will give rise to the new classification of MPs being labelled as "third class" MPs. The PAP, as the governing party through the will and choice of the majority, is undisputably not to be deemed as second class MPs. That in order will leave the Opposition to fill in the gap. Is the unofficial Leader of the Opposition declaring that Opposition MPs are second class MPs? I am utterly positive that it is not in his interest to have the Opposition being seen as second class. If that is so, it will not be wise then to label others what he himself is struggling hard to avoid.

Sir, NMPs are not subjected to political Whip and party philosophies. Hence, they would be free to air unlimited but constructive dissenting views. Indirectly, it extends the mechanism of oral checking on Government policies. The quality of their opinion is indisputably free from political affiliations. They would serve the kind of role that some sectors of the population is expecting. I share the purpose of NMPs in having more views to be heard in this House and, as far as responsible views are concerned, we should not worry about its detriment.

As has been proven by the last NMPs, their presence proved to be a viable asset to Parliament. This is in tandem with the free market principle that Singapore practises, ie, the allocation of human resource without reservation.

I will further illustrate this point. There are tens of thousands of professionals who are aloof to party politics but, definitely, do not fall short in their capabilities to contribute equally as elected Members. For all we know, these non-partisan, independent NMPs could convincingly commit themselves responsibly in debates full of substance equally, if not more. This is possibly so, since they neither toe the Government line nor do they have the biasness of the Opposition. They, without the precedence in perception, may be in a better position to see and judge issues through the eyes of a lay expertise than a pledged politician. In other words, scrutiny of Bills and policies can be done in a way that all of us here might not be able to. This is, to my regard, an upgrading of democracy, far from being the institution that is seen with shredded doubts of mandate and accountability.

Sir, democracy should be construed in the Singaporean context. A western defi-nition does not take into account the peculiarities found solely in this country. Are we to adopt democracy for the sake of democracy regardless of the composition and political climate? Adaptation, after all, has been the key to Singapore's success and stability.

Sir, in the light of the above and in the interest of this nation, I deliver my confidence and support towards this motion.

Mr Chiam See Tong rose ---

Mr Speaker: Mr Chiam, you had your say already.

Mr Chiam See Tong: I want a clarification from the Member for Ang Mo Kio GRC. In fact, I have two points to bring up. Firstly, he said that an NMP in this House has an oblique representation. I just want him to clarify whether or not he thinks that the elected MPs have a right to appoint other MPs? In other words, have the voters given us the mandate to appoint other MPs?

The other point is this. He commented that I have said that NMPs are third-class. If he wants an explanation, I will be too happy to explain to him why I call them "third-class".

Mr Umar Abdul Hamid: Sir, we are elected by the people, and Singaporeans put their faith and trust in us. Therefore, I believe that we have the right to appoint Nominated MPs.

Dr Arthur Beng Kian Lam (Bedok GRC): Mr Speaker, Sir, the issue before the House today is whether this House, the Eighth Parliament, should have NMPs. We have debated on this before, and the Bill was sent to a Select Committee. In March 1990, the Report of the Select Committee was debated. The concept of NMP has been accepted by the House, and this still stands.

Sir, my personal stand is clear. I have stated on 29th March 1990 that I had reservations on the NMP concept. The fundamental rule of democracy that MPs should be elected must be adhered to. The Prime Minister (then First Deputy Prime Minister) was very persuasive, sensitive to feelings of Members of the House and very accommodating. He urged that we give the scheme a try, and I quote him: "... I urge, give this a try ...". He also said, and I quote:

'And if you are not convinced after trying out this scheme for the remaining period of this Parliament, in the next Parliament you decide.'

He went on to reassure us, and I quote:

'The Whip will be lifted and you can decide how you want the NMP Scheme to go in the next Parliament.'

Based on these reassurances, many of us agreed to try out the scheme. I am indeed glad that the Leader has announced that the Whip has been lifted for today's sitting.

Today is the day for decision for the Eighth Parliament.

Sir, I remain unconvinced regarding the need for NMPs in this Parliament. Unfortunately, the concept of NMP has been accepted by this House and is thus not the subject of debate. It is now in the context of this House, that is of the Eighth Parliament, that we are discussing the NMPs. In this House today we have four Opposition Members. They were returned at the elections by their respective constituencies. It is their responsibility now to show that they can do better than the PAP. It is no longer the role of the GPCs to "play opposition" and relieve them of their duties. It is no longer the role of the NCMPs to do this, and we have none in this House. Likewise, it is not the duty of this Parliament to appoint Nominated MPs to play this role. We, as PAP MPs, will heed the Prime Minister's advice, and will express our views, more often, in private and at party meetings. The GPCs will continue to be active but behind the scene. The Leader of the House has reiterated yesterday, and I agree, we will close ranks. I will refrain from giving my own views of the NMPs for very obvious reasons.

Sir, let me say that before we agree to nominate NMPs we must consider NCMPs. If this House feels that it needs more views, then the Non-Constituency MPs who stood for elections have more of a right to be in this House than the Nominated MPs.

Sir, we should allow this Parliament to show the effectiveness or otherwise of the Opposition Members. One only needs to turn to the Hansard and the media's review of the Budget debate to know how they fared. Let us put NMPs aside for this Eighth Parliament and watch the Opposition perform. Then the people can decide. This will be a good exercise in political education. To me today, the urgency to have the additional NMPs to voice alternative views is not necessary.

Sir, today is the most significant day, not because of the issue of NMPs, but because of the lifting of the Whip on a political issue which, I believe, is for the first time. For me, the Prime Minister and the Party's integrity, sincerity and honour have been reinforced even further. Every word that was uttered by the then First Deputy Prime Minister, now Prime Minister, has been delivered today. Some Singaporeans and several foreign journalists doubted whether on a political issue the Whip will be ever lifted. Today, the Whip is lifted and the sceptics will be silenced. The onus is now on us, the elected MPs, candidates chosen by the Party, to respond in a manner which will show all the sceptics (within and outside the Party) that political stability and the cohesiveness of the Government and party can remain intact despite the Whip being withdrawn. Indeed, it will make for better Government. I have mentioned on 29th November 1989 in this House that given "more flexibility in this House" we can have better debate. No one should doubt the PAP MPs' commitment to nation and party. Now that the Whip is lifted, I will not say "Yes", but will close ranks with my comrades in the Party.

Mr Ling How Doong (Bukit Gombak): Mr Speaker, Sir, most of the pros and cons in respect of NMPs have been well canvassed before, and most of them are stale ones. Of course, mine would not be the exception.

Sir, we, in the SDP, are not in favour of NMPs on the following grounds. Firstly, it is repugnant to our parliamentary democracy as it strikes at the foundation of one-man-one-vote system. Secondly, it infringes the principle of delegatus non potest delegare. In law, a delegate cannot delegate. In other words, when powers are given to a person, that person cannot delegate that power to another person. More so, when it involves Parliament. When the people voted for the Members of Parliament, I am quite sure they have complete trust and faith in the respective Members of Parliament. They trust them, they vote for them, and they expect them to carry out their duties and functions as Members of Parliament. You must go back to them to ask them whether they are prepared to give MPs these extra powers to delegate this power to someone else.

Quite obviously, NMPs are not the representatives of the people. We are a representative Government. What sort of representative Government can we have when Members of Parliament are not the representatives of the people? Of course, for the time being there is only provision for six NMPs. What is there to prevent this House from amending the Constitution and make provision for 40 NMPs? If you can have six, I say we have no reason not to have more. Where is the check to increase the number of NMPs in Parliament? What is there to prevent an NMP from becoming a Cabinet Minister? If you look at the Constitution, an NMP can become a Cabinet Minister. Sir, imagine for a moment you have an NMP who becomes a Cabinet Minister. Where is the accountability? Would the people accept this NMP if he is in the Cabinet? It is against our parliamentary system, as there can be no accountability in this respect. Sir, accountability is one of the pillars of democracy. If he is elected by the people there can be checks and balances, and the people would not vote for him if he were to stand for election again.

Sir, the next point I would like to say is this. With the appointment of NMP, we have created a very dangerous precedent in Parliament. It is the first time in history that we have created a very dangerous precedent. The logic and reason is not difficult to follow. What is there to prevent this House from appointing a non-citizen to be an NMP? It is simply because the Constitution can be amended. At the moment, you require that a candidate must be a Singapore citizen to stand for election. Sir, imagine for a moment you have a Government which is formed of crooks and unreliable people. What is there to prevent this group of people from amending the Constitution and making non-citizens to be NMPs? What is there to prevent this from happening?

An hon. Member: We are in trouble.

Mr Ling How Doong: Of course, we are in trouble. That is why I am speaking against the motion. If we are not in trouble, I would not be speaking against this idea of NMPs. Therefore, we owe a duty to the people who voted us into Parliament, and for the very reason that there must be safeguards that anyone who wants to be in Parliament, anyone who wants to hold the post of Cabinet Minister, must be duly elected by the people, and not nominated by Members of Parliament here. I have heard Members here referring to the Secretary of State in America. One cannot just draw a comparison in that way because America has got a very different system. The President is elected but the rest of his colleagues are all appointed by the President. We do not. We have the British parliamentary system here. Therefore, one cannot draw a comparison and say, "Look at the United States of America."

Sir, the next point is, if anyone who is not prepared to be examined in public, if anyone who is not prepared to go through the rough-and-tumble of politics and get elected through the due process of election, he is not fit to be here.

Dr Tan Cheng Bock (Ayer Rajah): Mr Speaker, Sir, on 22nd November 1990, two Nominated Members of Parliament were sworn in. This was after two heated debates in this House. After some hard bargaining, the Prime Minister, then First Deputy Prime Minister, persuaded this House to accept Nominated MPs and to give it a try or, as he said, we will never know whether Nominated MPs will be useful or not in Parliament.

Over a period of eight months, which I consider quite a long time, this House heard and saw the performance of the two Nominated MPs who were both competent and respected men. I do not want to be personal. I have no other way of judging how Nominated MPs perform but through these two people. They put forward their views on a few subjects. And over that period, one Nominated MP spoke only seven times while another Nominated MP spoke four times in this House, and within that period this House sat on 22 occasions. The topics they chose were the same as the PAP MPs. The views they expressed were no different from that of the PAP MPs. On ageing, health, medical technology, cultural and social issues, the depth and breadth of coverage by such elected Members of Parliament like Aline Wong, Dr Vasoo, Loh Meng See, Peh Chin Hua are more than adequate, and they covered most aspects of these subjects. We have also others like Chandra Das, Heng Chiang Meng, Chng Hee Kok, Augustine Tan for their more vocal and in-depth presentations on business and economic problems. These elected PAP Members of Parliament, I am sure, culled their speeches from many expert resources.

My question is: has the quality of debate in this House changed because of their presence in this House? My answer is no. Nominated MPs cannot set standards. Elected Members of this House always set very high standards. They know the ground well and they have presented their arguments adequately here. It is not that these two NMPs are no good. They have presented their arguments reasonably well. But what I am saying is that their presence cannot do more than what the elected PAP Members can do. In other words, Nominated MPs have not made any point not covered by elected Members of Parliament. They have not taken up any significant issue not taken up by the elected Members of Parliament. They left very little impact in this House. In essence, their contribution was minimal. I suspect if we continue with this experiment, we will get more of the same, for by their definition or inclination, they are disinterested in real politics and would rather put all their attention and energies in their career, business, or whatever.

Mr Speaker, Sir, in the Third Reading of the Constitution (Amendment) Bill on Nominated MPs, the Prime Minister, then First Deputy Prime Minister, asked this House to "approach this from the higher interest of the nation and not on how the NMPs would affect us personally" and urged us to, I quote him:

' ... give this a try and I believe you will see the merits of the scheme and the contributions of the NMPs when they come into this House. And if you are not convinced after trying out this scheme for the remaining period of this Parliament, in the next Parliament you decide [that means, we decide]. The Whip will be lifted and you can decide how you want the NMP scheme to go in the next Parliament.' [Hansard, Vol. 55, col. 1047].

I hope Members are convinced that they have done a reasonably good job in this House.

The Prime Minister has kept his word. He knew that some of us had very fundamental reservations on this. He respected our views and introduced a clause allowing future Parliaments a say on whether we want Nominated MPs or not. And as he said, he is prepared to lift the Whip. These are very generous concessions.

His generosity and personal style make it more painful for me to vote against. But my own feeling on this fundamental democratic principle of having only elected Members of Parliament in this House is too strong to be compromised.

Mr Chiam See Tong: Hear, hear!

Dr Tan Cheng Bock: I cannot support this motion.

Mr Speaker: Order. I suspend the sitting and will take the Chair again at five minutes past three.

Sitting accordingly suspended at 2.38 pm until 3.05 pm. Sitting resumed at 3.05 pm

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

Debate resumed.

Mr Heng Chiang Meng: Mr Speaker, Sir, the Member for Bukit Gombak asked earlier what was there to prevent crooks from becoming the majority in Parliament, and changing the Constitution to suit them. Sir, I agree that there is nothing except the peoples' votes at the General Elections and that is why we, in the PAP, have always emphasised the importance of making sure that the people vote for upright, honest and capable people. The people of Singapore are smart and that is why they continue to vote for the PAP.

Sir, the arguments for having Nominated Members of Parliament as part of our Parliamentary system are not new. Similarly, the arguments against are also not new. So I do not wish to go over the old grounds. However, for the purpose of this debate, I feel that I need to reiterate one point. While I agree that there is some merit in some Members of this House insisting that Members of Parliament must be elected representatives, yet, having non-elected Members as part of the Parliamentary system, or elected Houses, is not new.

Sir, I can quote several examples. One of the best examples that comes to my mind is in the original Westminster system, the House of Lords. They are all nominated, or they inherited their seats. And the Malaysian Senate is also not elected, and these Members can also become Ministers. In many other Parliaments where there is proportional representation, there are also Members who are not elected but nominees of their respective parties. Some may even be defeated candidates and it can be said that, in fact, they have been rejected by the people and yet they too can become Members. Eventually some of them may also become Ministers. In the US system, Cabinet members are also not elected but nominees. So the concept of non-elected Members and Ministers is not new.

Sir, I bring up this point to show that there is nothing wrong, or right, in having NMPs. It all depends on each country's needs. Each country's political system must evolve to suit its own development. We have had two NMPs in the last Parliament. The question now is: should we continue with this modification to our system? When it first surfaced, I considered it an experiment, a modification worth trying. But the question now is: is it still needed for our political system? Should we continue to have it? As Mr Bernard Chen, the Member for Brickworks GRC, has said earlier, the period in the last Parliament was just too short for any conclusion. More time is needed.

Sir, I think the reaction of some of my Parliamentary colleagues against the concept of non-elected Members is an emotional gut reaction. But as I said earlier, this concept in the world is certainly not new. So let me appeal to my Parliamentary colleagues, especially my friend, the Member for Ayer Rajah, who are against this motion: let us give this concept a chance. Let us give it more time. Sir, at best, it could provide for good men to come into Parliament. At worst, we can still reject it in the next Parliament.

Sir, I support the motion.

Mr Eugene Yap Giau Cheng (Mountbatten): Mr Speaker Sir, many of us in this House had the opportunity to listen and to watch how the NMPs performed last year. But they were with us not for long before the General Elections were called in August 1991. So we would not have heard much from them. And it is exactly this fact, ie, that the two NMPs did not have the benefit of a full term to prove themselves, which demonstrates that we ought to nominate some Members of Parliament for this present term.

Sir, the question is: have the two NMPs contributed during their short period with us? And if so, were they constructive, or otherwise? I cannot recall that they were negative. But I can recall that they brought up some rather useful points. I have looked through the Hansard and if I may just quote a few examples. True, they were men specialised in their own fields, like many of us here are also. But Prof. Maurice Choo, being specialised in his own field, could speak of "outcomes management" vis-a-vis rising medical costs. He could also speak of the weak and the elderly. And for Mr Leong Chee Whye, he is also specialised in his own field. But in my 13 to 14 years in Parliament, I have not come across a Member suggesting improvement in the debates in this House. He suggested that Ministers change their format in presenting Bills, mainly that more information should be given at the First Reading stage rather than at the Second Reading stage, so that more time could be given to discuss matters. True, not many of us can come out with brilliant ideas all the time. I think this applies to NMPs as well. But the fact that they can bring up one good idea in the short eight to nine months speaks volumes of their worth.

Sir, may I now ask what is wrong in a few good minds, with different experiences in life, being brought here to contribute? Nothing wrong, right? What is wrong if the Constitution allows it? Nothing wrong, right? Why must it only be through an election for the Member to be able to come to this House and contribute? In fact, I would go one step further. We should keep evolving Parliament in order to survive competition.

Times have changed, Sir, and we must survive competition not only through representation of our constituents' problems in this House but, at times, we need other people to look at problems in a more detached manner and, together with us, help Government to run the country. So why should we be against bringing in a few non-partisan contributors with good minds to contribute? We are all very busy people and I am sure many of you would agree with me. I would be very surprised if some say that they are not busy. The PAP MPs have to run CCCs, they have to run community centres, they have to meet the people, they have to run Town Councils, and the list goes on. If there are people who are not willing to go through the hustings, for one reason or another, and they decide that they would come and help and complement our work, why not? They can help us think through issues and solve problems. Let us welcome them! For after all, we are not just about going to do away with elections, the one-man-one-vote system. We are certainly not introducing third-class MPs, neither are we delegating our powers. We are improving the whole system.

We are, in fact, evolving a Singapore system of government. Or if the end result is to bring in people to evolve a more effective governing system to ensure the survival of our constituents, the very people who sent us here, to help us work better, think better and govern better, why not? Bringing in more varied ideas is the product of our thinking. I am proud of it, and I support it.

Mr Chng Hee Kok: Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of the motion standing in the name of the Leader of the House.

Sir, I agree with the Member for Bukit Gombak - and it is not very usual that I do agree with him - that in a general election, a bunch of crooks may be elected into this Chamber to form the Government. This age-old warning of the PAP can now be best understood by people coming from the Opposition.

Sir, the Member will now understand why the PAP Government felt the need to have an Elected President. It is for this eventuality and possibility of a bunch of crooks coming into Parliament that we feel the need and necessity for an Elected President.

Sir, the argument that this bunch of crooks can come to Parliament to change the Constitution also reinforces the argument that Parliament should have Nominated MPs. If such a bunch of crooks comes into Parliament in future, I think the Nominated MPs can then help to check abuses or whatever misdemeanours that may be committed by the government then. Unfortunately, the problem really is that the NMP can only be activated by a motion of Parliament and in such a case, with a bunch of crooks running the Government, it is very unlikely that they will then agree to support such a motion. In fact, going by this argument, the NMP scheme should be enshrined and Parliament should have no more say in whether we should or should not have NMPs.

Sir, the NMP scheme was born on the need to widen the representation of the public through a non-partisan viewpoint. The point made earlier by my colleague, Dr Tan Cheng Bock, that the first two NMPs that we had in the last Parliament have made points which were so similar to those made by the PAP MPs. This being so, it goes to show that the views of PAP MPs are, in fact, supported on a non-partisan basis, that means, the views of the PAP are current and are not necessarily wrong. They are quite correct.

Sir, the NMP scheme is quite unlike the NCMP scheme. When the public elected four Opposition Members to this Chamber, the NCMP has no further role to play. The NCMPs are, by definition, Opposition Members - MPs whose main task, it seems, is just to take the Government to task, without offering any alternative programmes. In contrast, the NMP is non-partisan and that person may be selected to represent such special interest groups as business or even the arts. The first two NMPs served barely nine months - I think a very short period in parliamentary life and this comes from very personal experience. In their defence, I think we should not judge this need for NMPs on the performance of Prof. Maurice Choo and Mr Leong Chee Whye.

What we must do is open our minds to the possibility of Singaporeans like Prof. Tommy Koh sitting in this Chamber as an NMP. I have spoken to a small number of Singaporeans and, if I conclude correctly, the public is not fired or excited by this idea, as they feel that NMPs will not be able to represent their interest. However, when I suggested Prof. Tommy Koh as an NMP, the response was rather different and very positive. I think this is because Prof. Tommy Koh has the intellect, stature and eloquence and Singaporeans listen to him. In short, it is the person rather than the post which will make the NMP scheme work and be acceptable to the people. I therefore look forward to the nomination of Prof. Tommy Koh when this motion is carried in this Parliament. For the long-term, if Prof. Tommy Koh is willing to serve in this Chamber, the NMP scheme will be very much like the NCMP scheme which will become another accepted feature of Parliament.

There are other Singaporeans who have the ideas and the eloquence, but do not have Prof. Tommy Koh's advantage of a public platform. If such a Singaporean is not brought into this Chamber, and over time whose views may be listened to, then I think Parliament and the country will be the poorer for it.

In an affluent Singapore, not many have the stomach for the hurly-burly world of politics. Their refusal to pitch into the rough-and-tumble of politics has, in many instances, deprived our society of their contribution to good government.

It is no disgrace to admit that however wide a net our PAP Government may cast in seeking to recruit future leaders, and however good the catch, we will still miss a number of good people, the ones that were allowed to get away. With the NMP scheme, the many talented people in Singapore who have a wealth of experience in public matters and high intellect will have a platform to air their views. They can help to crystallise the viewpoints and feelings of people on the ground and a wider segment of our nation on sometimes important and critical matters that will affect the long-term future of our society. On such important matters, the NMP scheme does not make the nominated person any less qualified to articulate the concerns of Singaporeans or make their views any less important or relevant.

Sir, the 81 Members in this Chamber do not have a monopoly on good ideas or eloquence and I commend to my colleagues to support this motion.

Mr Leong Horn Kee (Thomson GRC): Mr Speaker, Sir, the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore (Amendment) Bill was debated and passed about two years ago. Then we saw the implementation of the concept with the appointment of two NMPs. During this period, we have more time to ponder about the NMP concept and the possible repercussions.

One of the main reasons for introducing NMPs is to allow for a wider representation of views to be expressed in Parliament. On deeper reflection, I am coming round to the view that it may not be necessary to interfere with the democratic process of having elected MPs in Parliament just to allow for more views to be expressed in Parliament. Even if we can attract persons to become NMPs and they have special areas of interest, how can we be sure that their views are representative of their interest areas, as they have not been elected by the members of their interest groups. If we wish to seek alternative views, I believe there are many other and more extensive channels to gather feedback without the need for NMPs. As we know, we have now four Opposition MPs in Parliament who could provide alternative views. Therefore, it is my opinion that there is no need to introduce NMPs just to provide for fuller expression of views in Parliament.

As I see it, there is one practical use of the NMP concept, ie, if the Government needs to urgently recruit a very capable and suitable person outside Parliament to fill a Ministerial post, and there may be various reasons why we cannot arrange for this person to become an elected MP, then the NMP process is indeed a very speedy and convenient route for this outside person to fill the Ministerial post. I believe we Singaporeans are quite pragmatic. If we can get a better person to take up an important Ministerial job, it would be better for the country.

However, I wish to caution that this route should only be used sparingly and only during an exigency. At the appropriate time in future, the NMP who joins the Government Bench as a Minister should contest in an election in a constituency and seek a personal mandate from the people to become an elected MP. We are all aware of the advantages of subjecting an MP to public scrutiny through an election process whereby people can review his background and make an assessment of his ability before he becomes an elected Member to join this House.

Notwithstanding this positive aspect of the NMP scheme, on balance, I would rather take a very purist approach that Members of Parliament should go through the electoral process. Although I have previously voiced some support for this NMP scheme, I am now less enthusiastic and not supportive, as I am inclined to feel that, fundamentally, Members of this House should be elected. 3.20 pm

Mr Low Thia Khiang (Hougang) (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, first of all, let me respond to the question raised by the Member for Mountbatten. He asked, "What is wrong with Members of Parliament being admitted to Parliament without having gone through the General Election, and what is wrong with the Constitution providing for Nominated Members of Parliament?" Of course, the question lies with the fact that the People's Action Party has an overwhelming majority in Parliament. It can amend the Constitution any time it likes. So long as it is necessary, it is, of course, legitimate to amend the Constitution. It can even amend the Constitution to such an extent that it may not have to win a General Election to form the Government. Then, in accordance with the Constitution, it is also legitimate!

Mr Speaker, Sir, when the then Deputy Prime Minister, Mr Goh Chok Tong, introduced the Bill on Nominated MPs in Parliament, he gave the basic principles and needs of the Bill. Two of the basic principles were: first, promote political participation and contribution by encouraging talented people who have ideas on how to run the country better to come forward and render their service; secondly, to accommodate constructive dissent and other views. My doubt is: By appointing six NMPs, can it really encourage political participation? Can it spur our Singaporeans into coming forward to serve the people? If the people who are accepting the appointment to be NMPs are sincere in wanting to serve the people, then they should dedicate themselves to the nation, face the people, stand for election, and let the people themselves return them to Parliament directly to be their representatives to serve the people.

As for the accommodation of constructive dissent and other views, if the Government is sincere, then it should encourage the various professional bodies and community organisations to express their political views in the names of their respective organisations, and should not amend the law to restrict them from expressing their views. For example, Parliament passed the Legal Profession (Amendment) Act, restricting the Law Society in their rights to express their views. Is this the Government's policy of embracing divergent views? I believe that by allowing the professional bodies and community organisations to express their views, the Government will definitely benefit much more. Political participation will be more active. There is no need to go through the process of appointing NMPs.

At that time, Prime Minister Goh mentioned that there were only two Opposition Members in Parliament then, and by adding six NMPS, there will be eight non-Government MPs in Parliament. This would have been quite a lot - equivalent to 10% of the total number of Government MPs. However, the fact remains that the Nominated MPs were MPs nominated by the Government.

Mr Speaker, Sir, in this present Parliament, there are four bona fide non-government MPs, albeit still short of Prime Minister Goh's target of having eight non-government MPs in Parliament. I must say it is such a pity! However, if Prime Minister Goh is sincere, then may I suggest to the Prime Minister to create some opportunity at the coming by-elections, so that there will be more elected non-government MPs in Parliament to present divergent views to the government? Would this not be more perfectly justifiable?

Mr Speaker, Sir, now let me talk about parliamentary democracy and Nominated MPs. The people go to the polls to return their MPs who in turn formulate the policies to govern the nation. This is the root from where Parliament derives its right to legislate. Members of Parliament have the right to vote when decisions are to be made in Parliament. This is because the MPs are voting on behalf of the people who have voted them into Parliament. This is the meaning of democratic representation. Nominated MPs do not go through the election process, yet they have voting rights in Parliament. This is in contradiction of the true spirit of the democratic parliamentary representation system. Who gave the mandate to the Nominated MPs to exercise the right to vote in Parliament? Who do these Nominated MPs represent?

Another important principle is: when the electorate elects their MPs to represent them in Parliament, it does not necessarily mean that they have given their elected MPs the right to nominate other Members to represent the people. Nominated MPs are also Members of Parliament. Yet, they are appointed by Members of Parliament. This is contradictory to the spirit of having to hold a General Election under the one-man-one-vote system to elect Members of Parliament.

Mr Speaker, Sir, if we allow the Members of Parliament, as representatives of the people, to appoint other Members of Parliament, and these appointed Members have the rights almost identical to the elected MPs, and even the right to become Ministers, or Prime Minister, then, will it come a day when the people need to return only 40 MPs, and allow the 40 elected MPs to appoint another 41 Nominated MPs to represent the people, thus, making up a total of 81 Members in Parliament? Worse still, under the premise of saving time, money and efforts, maybe just 10 Members will be elected by the people. Then, the 10 elected MPs will appoint another 71 MPs to make up the number of 81 Members in Parliament. This can also be legitimate! Is this going to be the direction of our political development? Or perhaps, this is what some people describe as an oriental and unique style of democracy. This is a matter of concern to me.

Generally, ever since the system of Nominated MPs was approved by Parliament, Parliament has appointed Nominated MPs. Today, may I ask all the hon. Members in this House: has the appointment of these Nominated MPs achieved the objectives laid down by Prime Minister Goh when he introduced the Bill in 1989? Have the Nominated MPs made up for the level which the PAP has failed to reach, and for the group of Singaporeans who have been neglected? Ever since the Nominated MPs entered Parliament, has the Government's policy been changed because of their presence? Moreover, by introducing this motion of appointing Nominated MPs, once again, does it mean that the leadership in the PAP feel that among the PAP MPs today, there is still a lack of professional technocrats, or that the PAP has failed to persuade the top talents in the various sectors to serve the nation?

Mr Speaker, Sir, in my view, appointing Nominated MPs, who have not been elected by the people and yet enjoy voting rights in Parliament, is in breach of the spirit of democracy. It has also deprived our people of their right to elect directly their representatives in Parliament. I feel that the PAP's motive in introducing Nominated MPs in this Parliament is rather vague. It will not achieve the objectives of the concept of Nominated MPs which were publicly announced previously. For this reason, I oppose the motion.

Mr Peh Chin Hua (Jalan Besar GRC): ( In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the motion standing in the name of the Leader of the House, Mr Wong Kan Seng.

Sir, when the last Parliament passed the Bill on Nominated MPs, the system of Nominated MPs started a new chapter in our parliamentary and political systems. Regrettably, the term of the two Nominated MPs was a very short one. They had served for less than a year when Parliament was dissolved.

Just now, I heard Dr Tan Cheng Bock very eloquently presenting his strong objection to the appointment of NMPs in this Parliament. The moment he completed his speech, he immediately received a warm round of applause from the four Opposition MPs. This led me to some kind of misconception that Dr Tan Cheng Bock seemed to have replaced Mr Chiam See Tong as the Leader of the Opposition. However, I understand Dr Tan Cheng Bock's stand on the NMP. He does not support the People's Action Party's stand on the NMP, neither does he support the Opposition's stand. At most, I would say that Dr Tan Cheng Bock is non-partisan, as far as this issue is concerned. In my view, people like Dr Tan Cheng Bock are the most suitable candidates to be appointed NMPs.

The Opposition Member, Mr Ling How Doong, said that this act of the Government was against the principle of parliamentary democracy. He also stressed that it is against the democratic system of one-man-one-vote. In other words, he feels that this is against the Constitution. Mr Low Thia Khiang also said that the Government can amend the Constitution at random. From my observation, psychologically, they seem to have a very strong repulsion against the idea of NMPs. We know that the Constitution has already provided for the positions of the Speaker and Deputy Speaker of Parliament to be assumed by people nominated under the Constitution. Therefore, the system of NMP is just an extension of this foundation. This does not deprive our people of their basic right to elect their own representatives, neither is it against the one-man-one-vote system, because the appointment of NMPs has to be approved by each Parliament, with the support of the elected Members of Parliament in this House. It does not go against the rights of the elected Members. At the same time, it provides the electorate an additional political service in addition to the one-man-one-vote system. Therefore, the Nominated MP system is in compliance with the principle of our Constitution and, at the same time, does not contradict the right of the people to elect their own representatives.

The Member for Hougang said, a moment ago, that the Government could amend the Constitution at random, and that some 10 elected MPs can appoint another 70 to 80 other MPs to form the Government. If that is the case, and if the PAP Government is really amending the Constitution at its whims and fancies, then Mr Low Thia Khiang can file a petition at the High Court to take the Government to task on this. Has the Constitution been amended at random? If I were Mr Low Thia Khiang, and I feel that the PAP is amending the Constitution at random, then I will mobilise the people to support the Workers' Party to topple the PAP at a General Election.

Mr Speaker: Order. Mr Peh, please address your remarks to the Chair.

Mr Peh Chin Hua (in Mandarin): Mr Low Thia Khiang also pointed out that this act of the PAP was a reflection that the quality of the Members from the political party was in doubt. That is ridiculous. At the last General Election, the Workers' Party fielded 13 candidates, and only one of them was returned. The SDP had nine candidates, and they did slightly better, they won three seats. Out of the 81 PAP candidates, 77 were returned. Does this not show that the electorate, under the one-man-one-vote system, had expressed more confidence in the quality of the Members from the ruling party? On the other hand, I feel that the establishment of Nominated MPs would help in supplementing the inadequacy in the quality of Members from the Opposition. I hope that the Members from the Opposition, as well as my PAP colleagues in this House will not feel psychologically uneasy with the appointment of Nominated MPs, and to repulse them. They should not worry about competition from these NMPs and prevent them from making their contribution to this House.

On 24th January, 1990, the Leader of the Opposition, Mr Chiam See Tong criticised the establishment of NMPs, saying that the NMPs were entering Parliament from the back door. He even said that any one who had any self-respect would not accept the appointment as a Nominated MP. I feel that Mr Chiam's remark is an insult to the talented and dedicated Singaporeans who are prepared to serve the people. It goes further to show that the opposition parties are very jealous of the talented. It is precisely because they are jealous of the talented that they are unable to attract good talents to join them. Therefore, let us open the doors of this Parliament to those who are eligible and who are prepared to serve the people to enter this House. In this way, they will be able to help Singapore and provide extra political service to the people.

Dr Arthur Beng also mentioned that he was not fully supportive of the NMP system. Yet, he suggested the acceptance of Non-Constituency MPs. I do not understand him. If we do not accept NMPs, why should we accept Non-Constituency MPs? Non-Constituency MPs came in because the people did not want the Opposition Members in this House. At that time, there was only one Chiam See Tong. With only one Member from the Opposition in the House, and if we fill in a number of Non-Constituency MPs, they may serve a purpose. Now, we have four Opposition Members in this House. I do not see why we should need any more Non-Constituency MPs in this House. In short, the continuation of NMPs is in keeping with the need of the country. We must cast our net wider to get more dedicated people, especially the professionals, members of the fairer sex and community leaders, into this House so that they can contribute to the country.

As a matter of fact, the NMP system is not a concept unique to Singapore. Many democratic countries in the world, such as the United Kingdom, France and the Scandinavian countries, and even in countries with Lower and Upper Houses, have Nominated MPs. In Indonesia, for example, there are 360 elected Members of Parliament and 100 Nominated MPs. In the Philippines, there are 184 elected Members and 17 Nominated MPs. As such, I feel that we should give this NMP system a try, by giving the NMPs a longer time and a fairer opportunity to prove their worth. Only then can we see the merits in retaining this NMP system.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the motion.

Mr Chiam See Tong rose ---

Mr Speaker: Mr Chiam, Mr Sinnakaruppan has the floor.

Mr R. Sinnakaruppan (Kampong Glam GRC): Mr Speaker, Sir, considering that many MPs have spoken up, I shall be brief.

Sir, the real question before us is whether NMPs have a role in the new Parliament to make our political process more representative, our policy debates more thorough and our feedback on issues more accurate. The NMP concept has been experimented during the latter half of the last session of Parliament. Though the general sentiment is that the merits of the scheme are not very clearly evident, I feel that we should not be too hasty to come to the conclusion that the concept will not be effective in the context of this new session of Parliament. We must take a fresh approach to the concept to see if it is worthy of acceptance, perhaps with some modifications under the renewed circumstances of the new Parliament.

Sir, there are twice as many Opposition Members as there were in the last Parliament. But far from lending themselves to contribute to improving the quality of the debates, the Opposition MPs have chosen instead to indulge in populist deliberations on our policies and our system. This has led to the political process to be somewhat disruptive instead of being constructive. As a result, many PAP MPs, quite naturally, have to close ranks and debunk the Opposition's baseless but damaging remarks. This has taken up significant time and effort which otherwise would have been focused on more thorough policy debates. Nominated MPs would therefore be able to provide for a more balanced and broad based policy debate in the context of the new Parliament.

3.44 pm

[Mr Deputy Speaker in the Chair]

Mr R. Sinnakaruppan (Kampong Glam GRC): When the Bill was first introduced in 1989, our Prime Minister, then the First Deputy Prime Minister, said, and I quote from the Hansard:

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

This statement by the Prime Minister is even more relevant to the present circumstances. Sir, Nominated MPs must be politically non-partisan. This non-partisan, neutral role of the NMPs, should not be restricted only to making speeches in Parliament. The role of NMPs should be enlarged so that they are tasked to play a more pre-eminent role in parliamentary Select Committees and perhaps take a lead role in the Feedback Unit. Their non-partisan role would help to reach out to a wider cross-section of Singaporeans who would perhaps be more forthcoming with their views and feedback on Government policies. As such, NMPs can become more effective and can make a greater impact and would be able to express the views of the people and at the same time voice their own thinking on policy matters. This would help to build consensus, encourage political participation and contribution and thereby strengthen our political process.

Sir, finally, I would like to suggest that for NMPs to be regarded as truly non-partisan, it is important that the Special Select Committee, which nominates NMPs, comprises a larger proportion of people who are not linked to any political party. In this way, there will be greater acceptability of the NMPs and their loyalties would not be questioned.

Sir, I support the motion.

Mr Cheo Chai Chen (Nee Soon Central): ( In Mandarin): On the issue of Nominated MPs, different people have different views. I feel that the most important point is whether we need to have Nominated MPs. In my personal opinion, we do not need to have Nominated MPs. My reasons are as follows:

First, we are a small nation. We have already a lot of MPs.

Secondly, in our country, we have trade unions for the various trades and industries, and they can express their views to the Government.

Thirdly, we have the Feedback Unit to collect feedback from the people. Besides that, the people can also express their views through the Select Committees of Parliament, newspapers and other publications.

I personally feel that MPs are representatives of the people. They do not represent just their own views or contribute their own professional expertise, but, more importantly, they have to reflect the feelings of the people, and state the demands of the people. In my view, professional expertise is not an absolute necessity. It will be better for a Member of Parliament to be an all-rounder. In our Government, there are many professional organisations and specialized people who can help to formulate the Government's policies. Therefore, it is not necessary for us to have Nominated MPs here to assist us in our legislative process. I feel that MPs should be elected directly by the people, and not appointed. When Parliament has to pass an important legislation, it can set up a Select Committee to conduct public hearings, and seek the views of the people. We can seek the views from those people who have the specialized knowledge relating to the subject matter of the legislation. They can be invited to present their views in Parliament, or make a representation in writing to Parliament or any Member of Parliament, or express their views through the MPs. As it is, we have various channels, as Dr Ow mentioned just now. We have many channels for the public to present their views.

In this present Parliament, we have four Opposition MPs. All the more, we do not need to have Nominated MPs. I feel that if anyone wants to be a Member of Parliament, or wants to present his views in Parliament, he should be dedicated, and subject himself to the voters through a General Election. In my view, the Government can play a very important role in this matter. The Government should encourage more Singaporeans to participate in politics. One thing the Government must always remember is that: if the Government wants more people to participate in politics, then it should seriously review the existing political culture which is unique to Singapore. It is because of this unique political culture that many people shy away or are afraid to participate in politics.

I wish to reiterate that I oppose the motion to appoint Nominated MPs. Just now, we, the four Opposition Members, applauded Dr Tan Cheng Bock because Dr Tan dared to voice his personal opinion and feelings on the issue. He supported our stand.

Dr Tan Cheng Bock: Sir, I did not support their stand. It is my own personal stand.

Mr Choo Wee Khiang (Jalan Besar GRC): ( In Mandarin): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, just now, Mr Cheo Chai Chen mentioned that Dr Tan Cheng Bock had supported the stand of the Opposition, and shared their views. I feel that they are in the habit of confusing the issue. Why should they want to do so? You can say what you like, and express your views as the Opposition. But Dr Tan is a PAP Member and he spoke in his capacity as a PAP Member, albeit he did not support the motion. This had led my parliamentary colleague, Mr Peh Chin Hua, to say that he could not help feeling that Dr Tan had appeared to be the Leader of the Opposition. That is because our Party Whip has lifted the whip to allow Dr Tan to express his personal views freely. He belongs to the PAP.

Dr Tan Cheng Bock: Sir, may I clarify? I am not the Leader of the Opposition, please!

Mr Choo Wee Khiang: ( In Mandarin): Yes. This is a typical PAP MP. When it is "No", he would say, "No!" When it is "Yes", he would say, "Yes!"

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, all the 81 Members of Parliament in this House went through the General Elections to win our seats here. After the General Elections the feelings may be different from individual to individual. Of course, some Members may look at the Nominated MP as someone who appears to have taken a short-cut to get into Parliament, and feel short-changed. This is quite inevitable. But I will appeal to the 81 Members, including myself, in this House to search our conscience. Why do we come into Parliament in the first place? We are here not to quarrel with the Opposition Members, we are not here to throw tables and chairs at each other. No! I feel that the Members of the Opposition, Dr Arthur Beng and Dr Tan Cheng Bock are here to serve the country and the people. So they join their respective parties, contest the General Elections to enter this Parliament. We are here to serve the people and the country. Otherwise, we are not fit to be in this House at all. So if we can really attract these non-partisan people in Singapore, accept their patriotism, accept the fact that they also can make contribution in this House, to serve the country and the people, then what is wrong in allowing such people to come into this House? The Nominated MPs were in Parliament for only nine months. Dr Tan Cheng Bock said that their performance was not good. He went by the number of speeches they made. When they spoke less, it did not mean that they were not capable of good performance. They were like children learning how to walk. Let them have a longer time to learn how to walk, then they will perform better. So let this system have more time.

Dr Tan Cheng Bock: May I clarify? I did not say that the Nominated Members of Parliament were not so good. I said that the views they expressed were not something so extraordinary that the PAP Backbenchers were not able to express.

Mr Choo Wee Khiang: ( In Mandarin): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, if the views and the contents of NMPs' speeches were similar to those of the PAP Members, then it does not mean that their performance was poor. Right? From another angle, we can see that their performance was as good as our colleagues.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I fully support the motion to have Nominated MPs in this Parliament. When we join a political party, it is like taking on a religious faith. It is a kind of belief. Some believers go through their church or religious organisations to serve the people, to serve the society --- I am just making an illustration. Similarly, there are many people in Singapore who do not want to associate themselves with any political party but, nonetheless, they are equally eager to serve the people and the country. So we must create the opportunities for such people to come in. Are we afraid of them performing better than we do? Are we afraid that they may out-shine us? No! We should not fear that they perform better than we do, so long as they have the sincerity in serving the people and the country.

Just now, the Members of the Opposition remarked that one day an NMP may be appointed as a Minister. If an NMP has got the quality to become a Minister, why should we oppose it? If we are really sincere in serving the country, then we look at the long term interest of the people. If the Nominated Members of Parliament can really play a positive role in this House, then I would appeal to all of us here not to repulse or reject them.

Mr Chiam See Tong: Point of clarification.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Do you want to give way, Mr Choo?

Mr Choo Wee Khiang: ( In Mandarin): I am sorry, I am not giving way. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, Mr Chiam See Tong has described the NMPs as Members of Parliament who are being led by the nose by the PAP Government. I do not agree. We should support this motion if we really want knowledgeable people to contribute to the country and to serve the people. If they can play a positive role in this House, and do not create dissension and confusion, then we should give them our full support. For this, I appeal to all the Members in this House, including all the PAP Members, as well as Opposition Members, to support the motion.