CONSTITUTION OF THE REPUBLIC OF SINGAPORE (AMENDMENT) BILL

Debate resumed.

Mr Chiam See Tong: Thank you, Mr Speaker, for allowing me to join in the debate. I will confine myself to clause 14 of the Bill.

In America, there is a saying that if anything can go wrong, it will go wrong. In Singapore, we can say that if anything the PAP can do to make it more difficult for the opposition to win an election, it will do. We have seen since 1984 that there are several changes to the election laws, all aimed at thwarting the opposition or making it more difficult for the opposition to win at a General Election. In 1984, the Non-Constituency Member of Parliament (NCMP) was introduced. Then in 1988 came the Group Representation Constituencies, followed by further amendments to the Constitution and the election laws to get Nominated Members into Parliament. In 1988, there were three MPs in a GRC. Then it was increased to four in 1990. Even with four MPs in a GRC, there is already enough obstacle put in the way of the opposition. Now, we see that this Bill before the House attempts to further increase the number of MPs in a GRC to six and also by subsequent legislation, to slash down the number of single-seat constituencies from 21 to 8, which is a very big reduction in the number of single seats.

I believe that these drastic steps are taken as a result of the scare the PAP suffered in the 1991 General Election when the opposition adopted a by-election strategy. The present Bill is a strategy of the PAP to counter or defeat the opposition's by-election strategy, if any, in the next General Election, and to reduce the opposition's chances of winning generally.

On the other hand, the enlarged GRCs of six members each do help the PAP in the elections. It is reported that there may be between 20 to 26 new PAP candidates to be fielded in the coming General Election. Most of the new candidates do not have a high public profile and are quite unknown entities. On their own, some of these new and weak candidates may lose if they contested in single seats. However, under the umbrella of the enlarged GRCs, they just need to hang on to the coat-tails of the older MPs and they can easily get elected and each has a seat in Parliament. If this were not the case, then I would ask that all the PAP new candidates be fielded in single-seat constituencies. If the ruling Party did that, then I would be the first one to say that the amendment to enlarge the GRC to six MPs is truly not to ruin the chances of the oposition in the coming General Election.

It is unfair of the PAP to be changing the election laws at a time when the General Election is just around the corner. These laws should have been amended at least two years earlier and not when the GE is to take place in two or three months' time. The unfairness is enhanced by the fact that the Electoral Boundaries Delineation Committee has still not published its report. As such, the opposition is in a quandary. They are unable to prepare fully for the General Election as they do not know which single-seat constituencies shall be converted into GRCs and which of the existing boundaries of the GRCs shall be altered. On this point alone, the opposition is put into the most disadvantageous position.

The Prime Minister's intention for wanting to increase the number of MPs in the present GRCs from four to six is to eventually make a six-MP GRC into a Community Development Council, headed by a mayor. The formation of the CDCs is a mere administrative exercise. Even with the present four-MP GRCs, CDCs can still be formed by merely splitting a four-MP GRC into two, one half of which could join up with another GRC to form a larger unit comprising six MPs. I do not see any problem to that. At the moment, single-seat PAP wards are joined up with the neighbouring PAP GRCs for the purpose of running their town councils. If that can be done, I do not see any problem for part of a four-MP GRC to be divided so that part of it could join another GRC to form a CDC. The boundaries of these merged GRCs could be arranged to be contiguous, if that is the worry of the Prime Minister. Formation of CDCs is only administrative in nature. Administratively, even under the present election system of four-MP GRCs, the CDCs envisaged by the Prime Minister can be formed. There is no need to so drastically amend the Constitution.

The Prime Minister has spoken only about formation of CDCs within the boundaries of six-MP GRCs. He has not mentioned about the remaining eight single seat constituencies. Will each of these eight single seat constituencies be eventually absorbed into a CDC? In any event, if the CDC is such a great thing, it will appear that by the present Amendment Bill, the individual single-seat constituency shall be excluded from any CDC. As far as I can see, the reason given by the Prime Minister to increase the composition of a GRC from four to six MPs with a view to forming CDCs with enlarged GRCs is a weak one. The more plausible explanation to change the present election system is to reduce further the chances of the opposition to win at the next General Election.

Dr Tan Cheng Bock: Mr Speaker, Sir, many points have been raised and therefore I do not want to go over them, except that I would like to ask the Prime Minister to address two points.

The first point is to address the issue brought up by many young Singaporeans that this GRC or team MP concept diminishes the weight of the individual vote and thus it is not democratic. Their argument is that their single vote has to be shared by three, four or six candidates, and some of the candidates may not be of their choice. But I think Walter Woon has put up a very good case on this team MP concept and I fully agree with him. I hope that the young Singaporeans will read what he has said just now. However, I can reconcile this because I believe that this concept of the GRC would entrench minority representation and, to me, this is a very, very important trade-off. It is for the good of Singapore in future and I hope that they would also come to terms with themselves that this sort of arrangement would be for the better good of all of us. But perhaps the Prime Minister can elaborate more on this.

The other small point I want to bring up is the boundary of the CDC. I was wondering whether it is possible that we should follow the boundary of the towns that HDB has built. HDB has planned and taken a lot of trouble, I am sure with URA, to plan all our towns. Therefore, if you want to have a mayor, it will be easier for him to run a town and the town must have a nice boundary, and this boundary has already been clearly laid out by HDB. I guess it is more practical and logical to do it this way. Moreover, it will be easier for the residents to identify themselves with this particular town and I hope that the sense of belonging and bonding will be easier. I hope the Prime Minister would take this into account.

Mr Imram bin Mohamed (Nominated Member): Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to address the amendments relating to the Group Representation Constituencies.

The concept of GRCs was first introduced in 1988. One of the objectives is to guarantee minority ethnic representation in Parliament. Although the GRC concept is in conflict with Singapore's established parliamentary democratic system where the people exercise their fundamental right to choose their political representative freely on an individual candidate basis, its promise of ensuring communal peace has been accepted as a strong enough justification to tamper with the basic system. The number of candidates in a GRC was then set at three, which must include at least one member from a minority community. This was increased to three or four candidates per GRC in 1991 with minority representation remaining at one Member. The increase to four Members per GRC was still in line with the objective of ensuring minority representation. A GRC's normal composition of three Members who are of Chinese origin and one from the minority community is representative of the ratio between Chinese and others in Singapore. In this regard, four in a GRC, with the ratio composition just mentioned, would constitute the ideal number to represent an electoral division.

The Bill now proposes to amend the maximum number in a GRC to six. This is a retrogressive step as far as minority representation in Parliament is concerned. As the minimum number of minority candidates in a GRC is still maintained at one, it could result in an under-representation of minorities in Parliament. To prevent this from happening, more than one minority candidate needs to be fielded in some GRCs. However, there is no compulsion for any political party to do this. The ruling Party may be committed to having adequate minority representation in Parliament and may field multiple-minority candidates in some GRCs. But there is no guarantee that these minority candidates will be returned in an election. The GRCs may be won by opposition parties who only fielded the minimum number. The Prime Minister may be confident of winning all the GRCs with his full slate of minority candidates in the forthcoming election, but laws should be passed with a longer term view in mind.

Sir, GRCs restrict the right of the people to elect precisely who they want. Having larger GRCs accentuates this restriction. Candidates too tend to become faceless in a big group and the electorate is denied making an informed choice of their candidates. They may end up casting their vote based on a couple of prominent candidates in the team and in the process allow the non-deserving ones to have a free ride through. The converse may also happen where an eminently suitable candidate gets dragged down by his less deserving colleagues and depriving the country of a good leader. Both these scenarios are totally undesirable as in a vulnerable economy like Singapore, it is always important to have the right calibre people in political office. This includes members of the opposition if they were to provide an effective check on the Government.

Sir, there is no real requirement to enlarge the GRC size from its present level. The formation of CDCs to build social cohesion or the integration of constituencies to build a critical mass for town councils to be effective need not necessarily be conflated with the election process. These plans could still be instituted while still maintaining the GRC size at the present level. Town councils could merge together if it so necessitates.

Finally, Sir, many people believe that the proposed Bill is really intended to diminish the opposition's chances in the election. This may not be the Government's intention for introducing the amendments, as the Prime Minister has confirmed earlier. However, whether intended or not, it is quite obvious that the smaller political parties and independent candidates will be disadvantaged by larger GRC size and the reduction in the single-member constituencies. What I am more concerned though is the impact on the election process itself. An election is not unlike a football match which is played on a level playing field with clear rules of play. The outcome of the match will be determined solely by the calibre of the players on the field as it ought to be. The flexibility in the size of GRCs creates a fluidity in the rules of the game which has the effect of tilting the playing field in favour of one side. This makes the match less than fair.

Mr Choo Wee Khiang (Jalan Besar GRC): ( In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, having heard the Opposition Members, I feel a great sense of regret. First of all, let me say that I am proud of what Prof. Woon said just now. Because in Singapore, we have a very neutral Nominated MP who speaks with great sense and reason. It is a great asset to our whole political system. So I hope that the people of Singapore will listen very carefully to what Prof. Woon said over TV tonight and perhaps read the report in the newspapers tomorrow so that they will understand the long-term effect of this Constitutional amendment to Singapore.

Having heard Mr Ling and the other Opposition Members, it gives the impression that the opposition parties just want to remain as Opposition Members forever and they want to support PAP as the ruling party all the time. If you have such an attitude, from the perspective of an opposition party, you feel that by creating this GRC, it is unfair to you, then I can understand your point. But Mr Low Thia Khiang said in the conclusion of his speech that this GRC system in Singapore is a very regrettable one. It gives us the impression that the political system in Singapore is finished. There is no future. This is inconceivable. I feel that Mr Low should think over it carefully and think over what Prof. Woon had said. He had also mentioned ---

Mr Low Thia Khiang: Mr Speaker, Sir, can I clarify?

Mr Choo Wee Khiang: Mr Speaker, Sir, let me finish first.

(In Mandarin): At the same time, Mr Low has also said that the PAP is a "political bully". What does he mean by a "political bully"? Are we corrupted? Or have we received money from outside sources? As Prof. Woon had said, this GRC system cuts both ways. If the opposition party, particularly the Workers' Party, one day wants to be the ruling party, then I think it should study from what Mr Ling How Doong said in Hokkien just now. "If you want to win, you must win handsomely." You must show by your action. Do not adopt this by-election tactic to fight this general election.

The opposition parties should have a tacit agreement to cooperate and to field their best candidates. They can also participate in the GRCs as well as the single-member constituencies so that they can let the people of Singapore give them a clear answer as to whether or not they want the opposition to represent them. If they concentrate only on the single-member constituencies and if they feel that the single-member constituency is the only way to reflect the choice of the people, I think they have been very narrow in their view.

Every vote counts. It decides the government for the next five years. It decides the Member of Parliament for that constituency for the next five years. It does not imply that every vote that is cast is not directly linked to who should rule Singapore. I think the voters are very clear in their minds. They know what they want. So when they vote, they know what they are looking for. Just now, what Mr Low said gives me the impression that he was very arbitrary in his speech. It is like a very unreasonable man making such unreasonable comments. So I hope that the opposition parties should not look at the whole thing narrow-mindedly. They should look at the whole system and look at the long-term benefit that this system will bring to Singapore.

The Prime Minister: Mr Speaker, Sir, there are two groups of amendments to the Constitution. The first group refers to changes relating to the Elected President's power, the second to our proposal to expand the GRCs from a maximum of four to six. On the first group of changes to the Constitution, I take it that the House supports the changes unanimously. There were no criticisms and no clarifications required of me, so I would not have to go into that particular category of changes.

On the second group of changes, I could divide the comments into three categories. The first category is whether the proposed expansion of the GRCs from a maximum of four to six deprives the basic right of voters to choose the individual candidate they want. The second group of comments from Members refers to whether it affects the minority representation, ie, whether the minimum will be reduced, and there were suggestions as to how we could ensure an adequate representation of minority candidates in Parliament. The third category of comments refers to the fact that the changes will benefit the PAP.

Let me deal first with the first group of comments. It is not correct to say that by changing the system, we are depriving the voters of a basic right to vote for the candidate they want. Mr Ling may not be aware that most European countries have proportional representation in Parliament. They run a system where the parties field a slate of candidates and parties contest on the basis of a slate of candidates. The voters have no right to choose who they want to be in Parliament. The people who are returned to Parliament will be decided by the number of votes received by each party and their position on the party list as the name of the candidates at the top will be the first to be returned. So voters do not have the right to choose a particular candidate they want. In New Zealand, they have a mixed system where some candidates are returned on a single-member constituency basis and others on a proportional basis. Likewise, for Japan.

So it is not right to say that when we change the system, we therefore do not allow voters this fundamental right of choosing the candidates they want. In our case, we are moving from the concept of a single-member constituency to a mixed concept of single-member constituencies and GRCs. In Luxembourg, they divide the country into four zones - North Zone, South Zone, East Zone, West Zone, that means, North, South, East, West. Each zone will be required to return a certain number of candidates. The largest zone will return 23 candidates. So each contesting party will field a maximum of 23 candidates, and voters will decide which party they want to represent them in Parliament. And the voters can vote either on a party list basis or to choose the candidates they want. So this is a variation of the proportional system in other countries where you have no choice of the candidates. And if they give a vote to a party, all 23 candidates will be considered, in accordance with the votes received by the parties when all the votes are tallied.

The point I am making is that there are different systems of electing people into Parliament, and ours is different from the others. Ours is evolved from the basis of our experience that we want to have a multi-racial slate of representation in Parliament and also we want to encourage team work which is why we have moved into Town Councils and also CDCs. Basically, it is to encourage team concept, to encourage cohesion in our communities and to encourage team work in governing and in constituencies.

You may also wish to know, and this is what we have learnt from Luxembourg, that you can actually give two votes to one candidate, although each voter would have the number of votes which is similar to the number of seats for the zone. For example, if the zone is required to return 23 candidates, each voter will have 23 votes. But the voter can decide to give a maximum of two votes to one candidate, that means, you do not have to give all 23 votes to 23 people, but you can give two votes each to several candidates. So what we are doing over here is therefore not really unusual in the democratic processes of the world.

Mr Low Thia Khiang: Mr Speaker, Sir, can I clarify? The Prime Minister said they can give two votes to a candidate in other countries. From the point of view of the candidates, there are six candidates in a team whereby the voters vote for the team as a whole. Therefore, in that case, each member in the team will have only 1/6 of the vote from the voters. So the representation may not be as much as a candidate who is given two votes in other countries. What is your view?

The Prime Minister: I am a little confused by that. I do not quite follow the point. In our case, you have a vote and you vote in a party of six. In the Luxembourg case, each voter has 23 votes. You can give all 23 votes to one party and the party will decide to whom the votes go to. Or you can select the candidates you want, or you can give a maximum of two votes to each candidate. In our case, it is one vote for six. So it is not really one-sixth.

Mr Low Thia Khiang: It is one-sixth.

The Prime Minister: No. It is one vote for six. It is not one-sixth of the vote. Each voter has one vote. It is not one vote divided by six. It is one vote for a team of six.

Basically, what we want to achieve is to move towards a new form of selecting representatives and to build cohesion within each community. As you would have noticed, we have gone into town councils. Our experience tells us that town councils work very well. There is much more autonomy to the town councillors, much more authority and responsibility to the Members elected by the people. And from the experience gained from town councils, we therefore thought we should have this new concept of Community Development Councils to complement the town councils. It is our intention to give more responsibilities, more authority, more power, to the CDCs, so that they will actually bring Government closer to the people. The people will then be able to have a team whom they want to look after their interest, town councils and CDCs.

Mr Chiam made a point that we could actually do all this without expanding the GRC from four to six. The answer is yes, we can actually do so. We can actually have a GRC of four combining with two singles to form six, for the CDCs and also for the town councils. But what happens if, as in the case of Toa Payoh, a single member constituency belongs to the opposition? You cannot group it under Toa Payoh even though it is perhaps ideal for Toa Payoh to have a larger town council to look after its interests.

Likewise, Dr John Chen made a point that he actually thought the residents of Bukit Gombak are using the services of Hong Kah and it could be part of Hong Kah. I think under the present rule, we cannot just get the town council from the opposition camp into the PAP camp. So I want to move into this concept of a larger GRC so that in time to come, you will find that the people whom the voters elect will be in charge together with the grassroots leaders of each enlarged constituency. That way, over time, I believe that they can evolve a sense of working together between the people and the Members of Parliament.

The important point is you must have the right people for the scheme to work. And we are trying to force the system to produce the right people. The PAP has no problem in identifying people, screening them, putting them through two or three hurdles of interview before we select them for the choice by the people. But this is completely absent in the case of opposition parties. They do not screen their candidates very well. They catch hold of anybody who they could do so or they allow anybody to walk into the party and field them. And they capitalise on the sentiments and the mood of a particular time, agitating the ground on cost of living and other issues and touting the by-election strategy. There is a danger that in some seats, we will lose them to people whom the voters do not actually want to be in charge of their lives, but in that mood, they elect as opposition MPs. And as I explained in my speech, if we do not pre-empt this and we allow this by-election effect to take place, you are going to end up one day with a very weak government, because the party that is elected to form the government may be deprived of some key digits for the Cabinet, and in the extreme you may end up with a freak election result.

Mr Low Thia Khiang: A point of clarification, Sir.

The Prime Minister: Could I finish before you raise your clarification? Otherwise, you are upsetting my trend of thought.

Mr Low Thia Khiang resumed his seat.

The Prime Minister: Would a referendum be required for this? This is not such a major change. It is an expansion of the current scheme that we have. I do not think that we require to go to the people for this, because the Constitution provides that the changes have to be made with a two-thirds majority in Parliament. So we have that mandate from the people in the last election to make changes to the Constitution, provided we are able to carry them with a two-thirds majority.

How will this affect the minority representation? Actually, the change does not affect the minority representation in any way. Under current law, the theoretical minimum for the minority communities is six, as provided for under the Parliamentary Elections Act. This change does not alter that at all. The minimum number of six GRCs or a minimum number of six candidates from the minority communities remains unchanged. So it does not affect them in any way. I think the fear perhaps stems from the fact that the larger size GRCs may lead them to conclude that there will be fewer GRCs. But no matter how few it is, it will not go below the current minimum as provided for by law.

This is actually more a political exercise than a legal exercise. I am not in favour of fixing a quota for representation in Parliament. I think it does Singapore no good. It does nobody any good because if we fix a quota, you have got to fill the quota. And you are not going to have candidates competing on the basis of their strengths. It will be perhaps on the basis of filling in numbers. And also having a fixed number, a quota to reflect this adequate representation, we will tie our hands. It becomes too rigid. I am more in favour of the current situation where there is a theoretical minimum but each party that wants to win the hearts and minds of the people must be able to appeal to all communities. I think that is more important.

The PAP will continue to field more than the minimum of six. We are going to field the same number of MPs that we have from the Indian, Malay and Eurasian communities in the coming election. There will be therefore no reduction in representation as far as the PAP is concerned when we change the scheme.

In the future, for some perhaps strange reasons, we have a change of government, the government of the day wants to change the law back to single member constituencies or to reduce the number of representation for the minorities in Parliament, it can do so, provided it has won more than two-thirds of the number of seats contested in an election. But for that party to do so and win the coming election, that party must be able to win the support of the minority communities. I do not think it will be so easy for a party that swings to single community contest will be able to win the support from the minorities. So the political exercise is more important. And from our point of view, we think it is wise for parties which contest in the elections to exercise this political judgment that we have a minimum. In fact, I would advise the opposition, if it wants to ever form the government, to begin to build up a multi-racial slate. If you do not have this multi-racial slate, you would have no chance ever of forming the government, because I do not think you will get the support of the minority communities.

The third category of comments refers to the fact that the scheme is designed to benefit the PAP. That is wrong entirely. The scheme is neutral. It is like playing badminton or tennis. First, you have a singles court, one against the other. Then we decide to play doubles. We enlarge the court. We add one more player. How does that help one party against another? The team that has a stronger pair will win the tennis match or badminton match. And if later on we have a new game, we want to have a foursome for tennis or badminton, we will double the size of the court. But both would then have four players. And whether one or the other wins depends on the strength of the players.

So the scheme is objectively, theoretically, if you like, scientifically, neutral. The key is who can produce the better team. I take it that it is a compliment to the PAP when you say that the scheme is biased in favour of the PAP. Because what you are saying is you cannot match us and that we are going to beat you in the GRCs. I think the answer is yes, it is so for now. It benefits the PAP for the coming election because we have got a stronger team. And we have got stronger teams for the different GRCs. Is that the fault of the PAP or is it something which we want to consolidate? I think we want to build up the system which produces strong teams to be in charge of constituencies and in charge of the country. Again, over time, if the opposition is able to build strong teams, I do not think it necessarily favours the PAP.

Mr Chiam talks about the PAP bringing in new candidates with strong people in charge in the team. The answer is yes. I think it helps the new candidates that we will bring in. Again, is this for the benefit of the PAP or for the country? Do we bring in new candidates for our own purpose? Or is it to prepare for succession in government, succession in Parliament, good, honest and able people coming into Parliament so that in time to come, they will gain the necessary experience to take over the governance of Singapore?

Yes, the coat-tail effect of the Ministers helps in bringing in these new candidates for the PAP. But I am sure Mr Chiam will not deny that he also has some coat-tail effect. And perhaps Mr Low Thia Khiang too, I think, would recognise that he has some coat-tail effect. If he says he does not have, then I will be very sorry to hear that after so many years he does not have any coat-tail effect. So again it is neutral. If it benefits the PAP now, it is because our coat-tail is bigger than yours. And I think there is nothing wrong in having a large coat-tail.

I have been to Bukit Gombak and I went quietly to Hougang last weekend. For what purpose? It is to make sure that my coat-tail will bring in some support for the PAP advisers and PAP candidates there.

Mr Chiam commented that the opposition is unable to prepare fully because of the late changes. But in the nature of things, concepts always take a long time to refine. And in this case, it took us quite some time, first, to have the idea, gain experience and then for us to refine the idea and, lastly, to put it to Parliament for consideration. But the opposition parties know that an election will be due within five years and from day one, after the election, they should start preparing for the next election, like we do in the PAP. The moment an election is over, we prepare for the next election. Likewise, had the opposition parties been doing that, they would not have to worry about all these changes, because, in the ultimate, when you face the people, it is your quality of people that counts, the programmes that you offer, and your ability to persuade people to your candidates, to your programmes.

I believe I have covered most of the points under the various groupings. And if I have missed out any points, I will be happy to answer your clarifications or queries further.

Mr Low Thia Khiang: A clarification, Sir. May I confirm with the Prime Minister, as he mentioned just now, this amendment to enlarge the size of GRCs will benefit the PAP?

The Prime Minister: Yes. As I said just now, I think for the coming election, by enlarging the size of the GRCs, because we have a much stronger team than the Workers' Party, it will benefit the PAP. But it does not mean that the scheme is not neutral.

Mr Chiam See Tong: Sir, I am glad that the Prime Minister took the analogy of playing badminton and tennis because there are fixed rules and the players know exactly what they are going in for. But in the case of elections, the opposition are still in the dark. Where exactly are 3-, 4-, 5-member GRCs going to be? Can the Prime Minister clarify how many 4-member, 5-member and 6-member GRCs will there be? Do we have all 6-member GRCs or some 5-member GRCs? So we are at a disadvantage.

The other matter is about boundaries. Can the Prime Minister announce which are the eight single-seat constituency boundaries? Then it would be like playing badminton and tennis. As for the number of GRCs, how many will there be? If we do not know these things, I do not think it is a game of tennis and badminton.

The Prime Minister: Mr Speaker, Sir, it is a game of tennis and badminton, except that we do not know where the courts are at the moment. But once we tell you the venues, you will go there and the rules are fixed. They can play badminton and tennis once the venues are known, and whether it is hard court, grass court or clay court, once they are announced, you should be ready to play. I see no difficulties in that.

Mr Chiam See Tong: So when will they be announced?

The Prime Minister: That is the question which everybody wants to know. We will announce them fairly soon.

Mr Low Thia Khiang: A clarification, Sir. I understand that the CDC's boundary will be drawn according to the enlarged GRC boundary. I presume that will be linked closely politically in terms of the functions of CDCs and the purposes of the CDCs. If it is for fostering community cohesion, will it be better to have an independent boundary for CDC where it is non-political?

The Prime Minister: Ideally the boundary of the CDC should coincide with the boundary of the Town Council. But it need not be so because of this requirement that the town councillors must be Members of Parliament. So you can have opposition Town Councils next to the PAP Town Councils and CDCs may include the opposition wards. It may not quite coincide. But this is the present stage. My own vision is for the CDCs and Town Councils to evolve into one, as suggested by Dr Tan Cheng Bock, that over time, as our population becomes more settled in the various new towns and old towns, they should have a situation where a CDC and Town Council would be in charge of an organic town.

At the moment, it is not possible. You will find that the Electoral Boundaries Review Committee has configured the towns in such a way which suit the election purposes but does not quite suit the natural organic town for purposes of administration. But my own ideal will be to move to that situation where you have the Town Council and the CDC coinciding with the town and you have a mayor in charge of a fairly big town. So we have got to let the system evolve because the population movements are not quite yet settled. In my own calculation, it might perhaps take three or four elections before we can have a fairly stable pattern for CDCs and Town Councils. So I would expect quite a few changes in the next one, two, or three elections.

Mr Chiam See Tong: I have a clarification for the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister says the CDC will bring the Government to the people. What does he mean by that?

The Prime Minister: It is the social aspect of the Town Councils. Town Councils are also like bringing Government to the people. The elected MPs are now in charge of certain municipal functions. For the CDCs, I have in mind of allowing them to handle funds to assist the residents in the community. Take, for example, educational bursaries. Bursaries are now handled by the schools or by the universities or the polytechnics. Of course, many CCCs have their own bursary fund. But that is rather inadequate. So my scheme will be for the CDC to give financial assistance to poorer students. For example, university bursaries. Instead of the students from poorer families applying to the university for the bursaries, in future they apply to the CDC for the bursaries. The CDCs will be required to raise some funds from within the community or from without to support the bursary scheme for the poorer students. Of course, the Government will be generous enough to contribute in the ratio of $3 for every dollar raised by the CDC. That way, we have this community effort for the better off to support the less well off because the leaders within a community are required to raise funds to help those who do not have the means to go to university. This is one example.

A second example would be in the rendering of financial assistance to poorer families under Medifund. At the moment, they have to apply to the hospitals for their Medifund assistance. Under this CDC scheme, in future, poorer families who cannot afford to pay for their medical care in hospitals will apply to the CDC for assistance. The CDC will be assisted by social workers and the decision whether to give the assistance or not to the applicant rests with the CDC, ie, the local authority and not with the hospitals, which is part of the Government. So we bring this particular function down to the community level. That way, over time you build up this relationship and understanding between the people and the members of the CDC will be in charge of the social development and the requirements for assistance in some of these cases. Again, we start off on a modest basis. If the scheme works, with experience, it is my intention, and the Government's intention, to identify more such responsibilities to be handed over to the CDCs.

Mr Low Thia Khiang: A clarification, Sir. As regards the CDCs, the Prime Minister has mentioned about what he had in mind of their functions. He also mentioned in his speech just now of allowing voters to have a bigger stake when they elect a team who will probably be managing a CDC. Is he implying that where an opposition is elected in a GRC, these functions and the fund which the Government has given will not be given to an opposition ward which probably will form a CDC?

The Prime Minister: For the time being, CDCs and Town Councils are two different organisations. When you have a larger Town Council and the town is won by whichever party, that party will be in charge because those are municipal functions which we are quite happy to pass on to the Town Councils. But CDCs are part of the governmental functions. So we are not intending to hand over this governmental function to the opposition. We will hand over to the CDC which can be, in the case of opposition wards, handled by non-MPs in charge.

Mr Low Thia Khiang: Second Adviser.

The Prime Minister: Second Adviser in charge. But, again, this is for the foreseeable future. I do not know in future how the system will evolve. Again, it is theoretically possible that when we are more confident, in fact, some day in the future, we will merge the two Councils.

Mr Low Thia Khiang: Who will handle the funds?

The Prime Minister: The funds will be handled by the CDCs. They would not be handled by the opposition. But in cases of education and financial assistance, as I have said before, the CDCs are there to forge this community bonding. So even though applicants come from the opposition wards, if they are really poor and they can prove that they are very poor and need assistance, the CDC will handle their case. But that function will be handled by the Government.

Mr Ling How Doong: May I seek clarification from the Prime Minister? As regards the funds handled by the CDC, would there be discrimination as to PAP or opposition ward, or would it be based strictly on merit? In other words, when an applicant comes forward and applies for medical assistance or bursaries or grants, would it be considered on the basis of merit? A man will be sent out to carry out investigation and when he is deserving, that is it, assistance will be given.

The Prime Minister: Yes, the CDC will be in charge and the CDC will decide. So whether there is merit in a particular case or not will depend on the judgment of the CDC for that particular constituency.

Mr Low Thia Khiang: I have some more clarifications, Sir.

Mr Speaker: Some more?

Mr Low Thia Khiang: Yes. The Prime Minister is not clear when he said that the judgment will rest with the CDC. Can the Prime Minister assure that this judgment in terms of assessing the merit of the case will solely be based on the circumstances rather than political consideration?

The Prime Minister: I said it depends on judgment because I do not want to draft a set of rules for the CDCs to decide. If I want to draft a set of rules, I might as well let this function be handled by the hospitals or by the universities. The set of rules, if it is left to the Government, will be: if they earn below a certain figure they qualify, and above a certain figure they do not qualify. There is a margin where you require judgment. I will leave it to the people handling the case to judge. Because when you pass this function down to the constituency level, it is likely that somebody in the constituency will know the circumstance of a particular case, whether it is genuine or not. Sometimes his case can be above the financial guideline for giving out assistance but the people in charge will argue for a case and they decide. The Government does not decide. The question is, if such question comes before the CDC from a resident of an opposition ward, how would the CDC decide. I think the CDC will decide fairly.

Mr Low Thia Khiang: The Prime Minister in his speech just now mentioned the reason for enlarging the GRCs. One is flexibility, because it will have more members in the team and the second is about a critical mass. I would like to know from the Prime Minister whether it will be possible that, one day, based on the principle of enlarging the GRC, Singapore would become five big GRCs - North, South, East, West and Central?

The Prime Minister: They have this in Luxembourg. So theoretically it is possible.

Mr Low Thia Khiang: Would it be better off?

The Prime Minister: If we move into these theoretical five big GRCs, whoever is in charge at that time, must come out with strong arguments to convince the Members of Parliament.

Mr Low Thia Khiang: Why does the Prime Minister think that the person will need to have strong arguments to convince Members of Parliament? I thought he would use the same principle to enlarge the GRC from four to six.

The Prime Minister: Yes, if he wants to enlarge it to that size, I think he will build on the same principle which I have when I initiated it over here and whatever reasons he has for enlarging it from six to 20-odd. It is again like badminton and tennis. If you want to double the size of the doubles-court, then you have to give the reasons why.

Mr Low Thia Khiang: Is the Prime Minister saying that the GRC should not be enlarged to oversize?

The Prime Minister: No, it depends on the particular situation. If you look at the system in other countries, they change with time. New Zealand has a first-past-the-post system for many years. In the last election, they have changed it to a mix of single-member constituency, first-past-the-post plus a proportion basis on a party basis. So it is a mix for first-past-the-post plus proportional representation. Japan used to have multi-member constituencies. That means for each constituency, it would have several candidates fighting for several seats in Parliament and you can have several candidates from the same party contesting for the seats in the constituency. Over time, Japan, for its own historical or political reasons, changed that system to a mix of first-past-the-post, single-member constituency plus the proportional representation. So politics has to change to suit the particular time and to anticipate the future.

What is the main purpose of any changes that we make? It is to ensure that there will be political stability for the country and, most importantly, to ensure that there will always be good government for the country and for the people.

Mr Low Thia Khiang: It seems to me that the countries that the Prime Minister cited about having big constituencies or returning multi-candidates, would also have proportional representation to ensure the views of minorities are represented. Will the Prime Minister consider some form of representation in case the minority views are not represented, not only the minority races?

The Prime Minister: We have already made changes for that through the Non-Constituency MPs. It is meant for minority views to be represented in Parliament should the situation arise when no party, other than the ruling Party, wins a seat in Parliament. Or if it wins less than three, it would also be entitled to one or two NCMP seats. And we have also introduced the Nominated MPs. Again, it is to allow views, other than those of the ruling Party, to be reflected in Parliament. We are against proportional government for the simple reason that it will quickly degenerate into votes along racial line. Because if you specify, say, a certain percentage which will qualify a party to have a candidate returned to Parliament, you are going to have some parties appealing to a particular racial group, because you have got to fix the percentage at a fairly low level, say, 5% and above. Then you begin to compete along racial line.

Secondly, even if you solve that problem, you will end up with a weak government, a coalition government, as you can see in the case of many European countries. Because if you go on proportional government, the first few are likely to be elected. So the candidates will judge for themselves. If they stand for election for a particular party and that party is unlikely to win more than a certain percentage of votes, they may not get elected. So they may form their own party. And you will end with a coalition party which will be a much weaker form of government for the country. In the case of Singapore, we have always believed that you need strong government to run the place. You need a strong government to come out with strong policies, which may be unpopular, in the coming election but which we know are right for the future of Singapore. So, in our case, we therefore would not go in for a system which will throw up very weak governments.

Mr Speaker: The Question is, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

A Division will be taken to ascertain that the Second Reading of the Bill is supported by the votes of not less than two-thirds of the total number of elected Members of Parliament, which is 54 Members, pursuant to Article 5(2) of the Constitution. The Clerk will ring the Division Bells.

Question put, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

Division taken: Ayes, 64; Noes, 4; Abstention, Nil. Ayes Abdullah Tarmugi Ahmad Mattar Beng Kian Lam, Arthur Chandra Das, S. Chay Wai Chuen Chen Koon Lap, Kenneth Chen Seow Phun, John Chew Heng Ching Chin Harn Tong Ch'ng Jit Koon Chong, Charles Choo Wee Khiang Goh Chee Wee Goh Chok Tong Goh Choon Kang Harun bin A. Ghani Ho Kah Leong Ho Peng Kee Ho Tat Kin Ibrahim bin Othman Jayakumar. S. Ker Sin Tze Koh Lip Lin Koo Tsai Kee Lau Ping Sum Lau Teik Soon Lee Boon Yang Lee Hsien Loong Lee Kuan Yew Lee Yiok Seng Lee Yock Suan Leong Horn Kee Lew Syn Pau Lim Boon Heng Lim Chun Leng, Michael Lim Hng Kiang Loh Meng See Low Seow Chay Mah Bow Tan Mohamad Maidin B P M Ong Chit Chung Othman bin Haron Eusofe Ow Chin Hock Peh Chin Hua Sidek bin Saniff Sinnakaruppan, R. Tan Cheng Bock Tan Keng Yam, Tony Tan Soo Khoon Teo Chee Hean Teo Chong Tee Umar Abdul Hamid Vasoo, S. Wan Soon Bee Wong, Aline K. Wong Kan Seng Wong Kwei Cheong Yao Chih, Matthias Yap Giau Cheng, Eugene Yeo Cheow Tong Yeo Toon Chia Yeo, George Yong-Boon Yu-Foo Yee Shoon Zulkifli bin Mohammed Noes Cheo Chai Chen Chiam See Tong Ling How Doong Low Thia Khiang Abstention Nil

Mr Speaker: The Second Reading of the Bill has been carried by the votes of not less than two-thirds of the total number of elected Members of Parliament.

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. - [Mr Goh Chok Tong].

Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment.

Third Reading

Mr Speaker: Third Reading, what day?

The Prime Minister: Now, Sir. I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Third time."

Mr Speaker: The Question is, "That the Bill be now read a Third time."

A Division will be taken to ascertain that the Third Reading of the Bill is supported by the votes of not less than two-thirds of the total number of elected Members of Parliament, which is 54 Members, pursuant to Article 5(2) of the Constitution. The Clerk will ring the Division Bells.

Question put, "That the Bill be now read a Third time."

Division taken: Ayes, 64; Noes, 4; Abstention, Nil. Ayes Abdullah Tarmugi Ahmad Mattar Beng Kian Lam, Arthur Chandra Das, S. Chay Wai Chuen Chen Koon Lap, Kenneth Chen Seow Phun, John Chew Heng Ching Chin Harn Tong Ch'ng Jit Koon Chong, Charles Choo Wee Khiang Goh Chee Wee Goh Chok Tong Goh Choon Kang Harun bin A. Ghani Ho Kah Leong Ho Peng Kee Ho Tat Kin Ibrahim bin Othman Jayakumar. S. Ker Sin Tze Koh Lip Lin Koo Tsai Kee Lau Ping Sum Lau Teik Soon Lee Boon Yang Lee Hsien Loong Lee Kuan Yew Lee Yiok Seng Lee Yock Suan Leong Horn Kee Lew Syn Pau Lim Boon Heng Lim Chun Leng, Michael Lim Hng Kiang Loh Meng See Low Seow Chay Mah Bow Tan Mohamad Maidin B P M Ong Chit Chung Othman bin Haron Eusofe Ow Chin Hock Peh Chin Hua Sidek bin Saniff Sinnakaruppan, R. Tan Cheng Bock Tan Keng Yam, Tony Tan Soo Khoon Teo Chee Hean Teo Chong Tee Umar Abdul Hamid Vasoo, S. Wan Soon Bee Wong, Aline K. Wong Kan Seng Wong Kwei Cheong Yao Chih, Matthias Yap Giau Cheng, Eugene Yeo Cheow Tong Yeo Toon Chia Yeo, George Yong-Boon Yu-Foo Yee Shoon Zulkifli bin Mohammed Noes Cheo Chai Chen Chiam See Tong Ling How Doong Low Thia Khiang Abstention Nil

Mr Speaker: The Third Reading of the Bill has been carried by the votes of not less than two-thirds of the total number of elected Members of Parliament.

Bill accordingly read a Third time and passed.