NOMINATED MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT

4.55 pm

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.

The Constitution of the Republic of Singapore provides for the appointment of Nominated Members of Parliament (NMPs). Even so, at the beginning of each Parliament Session, Parliament must resolve to have NMPs before they can be appointed. The first two NMPs, Dr Maurice Choo Hock Heng and Mr Leong Chee Whye, were appointed in November 1990, but they were in Parliament only up till July 1991, as the Seventh Parliament was dissolved early. Members of the House were not able to adequately assess the usefulness of the NMP scheme, even though two NMPs had spoken up on a wide range of issues.

Hence, in the last Parliament, we debated at length the merits and usefulness of the NMP scheme again and eventually, Parliament resolved to have NMPs in the Eighth Parliament. So 10 individuals were appointed as NMPs in the last Session of Parliament. Two of them, Dr Kanwaljit Soin and Assoc. Prof. Walter Woon, served two terms.

Having seen the performance of the NMPs, I am of the view that the NMPs have acquitted themselves very well. They have fully justified the privilege conferred upon them by Members of this House. The NMP scheme has proven to be viable and credible. All the NMPs were very active. I do not think I am giving away any secrets if I say that some of them were so active that they made many civil servants and office holders worked very hard. The NMPs have helped to raise the quality of debates in this Chamber. Their non-partisan and independent views showed that they were not "yes-men or women" of the PAP. They did not play to the gallery. They asked many questions, moved motions and took part in the debates on a wide variety of subjects. If there were to be a prize for the MP who asked the most number of questions, Members will no doubt give this prize to Dr Kanwaljit Soin who, I am told, asked a total of 287 questions during her sojourn in Parliament.

Depending on the merits of the issues, the NMPs have, at times, been dissenting and critical, sometimes supportive and other times constructive in their views. Assoc. Prof. Walter Woon, for instance, had even persuaded this House to pass the Maintenance of Parents Bill submitted by him. If there were to be a prize for innovation for Members, we would award it to him. But he was also highly critical in his views, eg, when the Miscellaneous Offences (Public Order and Nuisance) Act was amended. Although Dr Kanwaljit Soin did not get the approval of this House for her Family Violence Bill, many of her suggestions were incorporated in the amendments to the Women's Charter subsequently. Indeed, Sir, some will even say that the performance of the NMPs outshone that of the two SDP Members who are no longer in this House.

Sir, there are now only two elected opposition MPs in this House. As opposition Members they will generally take an adversarial position in the debates, though sometimes they have been constructive. We also have a Non-Constituency Member of Parliament who was reported in the Straits Times on 24th May 1997 as having said that he is "not going to be one of the `constructive opposition MPs' who are just smiling and want cosmetic changes." There are only two elected opposition MPs here, so his criticism must surely apply to his Assistant Secretary General, Mr Low Thia Khiang. Anyway, with a lone voice in wilderness, and in his moment of delusion, he has vowed that he wants "complete change". I think I read somewhere that he told the Foreign Correspondents' Association on 27th January 1997 that he and Mr Low Thia Khiang do not have much power, hence it is very difficult for them to make any proposals in Parliament. In just five months he has changed his mind. We all will hold our breath with expectation to see what "complete change" he can bring about as an NCMP in this Session. All we could remember of him during his six years in Parliament in the first half of the 1980s was that he had to be disciplined six times by the Committee of Privileges. It is an unenviable record. If there were to be a prize for the MP who was the subject of Committee of Privileges hearings for the most number of times, it will surely go to Mr Jeyaretnam. I hope he will not have the dubious honour of receiving that prize again, in this Session.

Sir, to make up for the decline in the number of elected opposition MPs, I will, when the Bill is ready, move an amendment to the Constitution to increase the number of NMPs from six to nine so that Parliament can give vent to views which may not be canvassed by the PAP or opposition Members. They will help to fill the void left by the loss of two elected Opposition MPs.

When the Constitution was first amended to provide for NMPs, it is stated that "persons to be nominated shall be persons who have rendered distinguished public service, or who have distinguished themselves in the field of arts and letters, culture, the sciences, business, industry, the professions, social or community service or the labour movement." So far, three batches of NMPs had been appointed and they generally came from these key functional areas I just mentioned. After having operated this NMP scheme for more than six years, we should fine-tune and improve the selection process. Therefore, I intend to propose to the Special Select Committee that apart from inviting members of the public to nominate suitable and interested individuals for the Special Select Committee's consideration, we can invite the leaders of certain key functional groups to nominate their members for consideration. Initially, in this improved process, we can approach the following three key sectors to nominate their members for consideration by the Special Select Committee. They are: (a) business and industry; (b) the professions, and (c) the labour movement.

Members will note that many of the former NMPs came from these key sectors, though they were not specifically nominated by the organisations which make up these functional areas. What is new about this approach is that we will formally and systematically request these organisations to get together and nominate some individuals from among their membership for the consideration of the Special Select Committee. The detailed procedures will be worked out later and be considered by the Special Select Committee.

To conclude, Sir, in view of the merits and usefulness of the NMP scheme, I urge Members to support this motion.

Question proposed.

Mr Bernard Chen: Sir, the objectives of the NMP provision had been debated at length in 1990, both in Parliament and in Select Committee. It would be useful to remind, especially new Members in this House, what were the objectives of the NMP scheme. It is firstly to offer Singaporeans more opportunities for political participation in keeping with an open and consensus building government promoted by Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong when he assumed office in 1990. Second, it would also provide more alternative views which are non-Government, non-ruling parties and non-opposition. Third, it is to tap Singaporeans who have no political inclinations but nevertheless could contribute their experience and views on major political issues. Finally, as the Prime Minister put it at that time, the NMP scheme could be a way to appoint office-holders in the longer term, although it was proved not necessary even until now.

Members can see that in the seven years these objectives have been more or less achieved. It remains really for us to evaluate whether the NMPs have delivered the goods. As the Leader of the House says, most of them have, although I must add that in addition to making life miserable for Ministers and civil servants, some NMPs even made the Speaker wince by the number of questions that some of them asked, and some of these questions even the PAP MPs would not feel comfortable to ask. But they did make contributions. They had Private Member's Bills. There was one Bill that I almost threw out, much to the annoyance of the NMP concerned. I hope she would forgive me.

But there is one aspect that some Members may not appreciate and this is something that I talked to the NMPs when they were here. I think many of these NMPs have also made some sacrifices. They came here also at their own time and most of them have lost a considerable amount of privacy, which many of us MPs also value. I think their contribution of time and sacrifice should not be ignored and instead of saying that they are taking away the limelight of personalities, we should appreciate their presence here.

It is for this reason that I support the Leader of the House's motion to once again introduce NMPs in this House.

Mr Seng Han Thong (Ang Mo Kio): ( In Mandarin): Sir, in every new Parliament we have to debate on whether there shall be Nominated Members. In the last two Parliaments we heard various views on the pros and cons of Nominated MPs.

Personally, I feel that since the introduction of the Nominated MP scheme in 1990, the appointed Nominated MPs have contributed greatly to Parliament. Their collective performance is satisfactory and individually they had outstanding performance, as the Leader of the House pointed out just now. Singaporeans are gradually accepting this concept. I feel that this Parliament should also have Nominated MPs.

In the general election held at the beginning of this year, two things concerning Nominated MPs happened. First, one former Nominated MP contested as an independent candidate and lost. Secondly, a candidate for Nominated MP in 1992 who was not appointed, contested this general election as an opposition candidate. These two matters clarified some doubts that some people had about NMPs. Some people deem the NMP scheme as a stepping stone to becoming a Member of Parliament while others are worried that if the Special Select Committee makes a slip and lets in people with ulterior motives to Parliament, the dignity of the House may be undermined. However, the results of the general election showed that being an NMP itself does not guarantee that the same person will find his way into Parliament as an elected MP. If he does not have the support of the voters he will not be elected into Parliament.

I feel that this Parliament should have Nominated MPs. Apart from this system having been proven to be effective and that it has been accepted by Singaporeans, we actually need people who have constructive and independent views to come into this House. Like what Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong said, in moving the Constitution (Amendment No. 2) Bill in 1989, this is to strengthen our political system further by offering Singaporeans more opportunities for political participation, and to evolve a consensual style of government where alternate views are heard and constructive dissent is accommodated.

Take the second and third batches of NMPs, for example. They seem to represent the various functional groups such as the women's organizations, the employers' federation and the trade union movement. I feel that when we appoint NMPs to this Parliament, we should also focus on the various functional groups. I am very glad to hear from the Leader of the House that we will be amending the rule so that the various functional groups will be invited to nominate their representatives to be candidates for appointment as NMPs. I think it is a good idea to appoint NMPs according to our needs of the moment for the various projects and policies we are going to launch.

Singapore is looking at a world class land transport system. We are extending our MRT network, and are planning to have LRT. We are also going to improve our bus and taxi services. If we can get an expert in land transport system to be a Nominated MP, I am sure he or she will contribute substantially to our deliberations on the subject in Parliament.

We are now encouraging more students to study engineering. So why do we not get an engineer to be an NMP? We are encouraging our students to be more creative. So why do we not have an expert in critical thinking to be an NMP. Also, on housing, it may be good to have an NMP who is an expert on public housing or town planning. With our regionalization drive, a successful entrepreneur who has ventured overseas may be able to present this House with first-hand views as an NMP. Then, of course, a leader of the trade union movement who understands the urgency of training and retraining would be an ideal candidate as an NMP too. The PAP imposes very strict requirements on its candidates. All its candidates must be of high integrity apart from their talents. I think the opposition parties should also have this sort of quality control on their candidates. As for NMPs, the same principle applies.

Sometimes, I feel that integrity is more important than the system itself. A system which is not so perfect, but if it is run by people who are of high integrity, it could be gradually perfected over time. But, if we leave a perfect system to be run by people of doubtful character, it would collapse eventually.

[Mr Deputy Speaker in the Chair]

5.15 pm

Mr Seng Han Thong (Ang Mo Kio): Recently, I accompanied the Minister for Information and the Arts on an official visit to Vietnam. We went to an ancient capital city of Vietnam called Hue. Opposite the Royal Palace where the emperor used to meet his officials, there was an archway on which was inscribed the four characters: zheng zhi dang ping ( ) which means "upright and stamp out, without fear or favour." These four characters have left a very deep impression on me. At all times and in all countries, of all political systems, this is one basic requirement of a politician, that is, integrity and honesty.

I am confident that the Special Select Committee will select a batch of honest people with high integrity to come into this House and fill up the empty seats opposite me.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I support the motion to have Nominated MPs in this Parliament.

Dr Tan Cheng Bock (Ayer Rajah): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, for the past few days we have listened to speaker after speaker, inside and outside this House, calling on the people to be competitive and for Singaporeans to stay among the top league of nations, they must always work hard and compete intensely. In other words, competitive spirit must become a part of our culture. When we started to regionalise, we called on our people to be entrepreneurs, to take risk and be prepared to move into the business markets where only the brave dare to go. Yet this afternoon we have before us a motion standing in the name of the Leader of the House to allow Singaporeans into this Chamber without having to work hard, without having to compete and risk being defeated at elections. Is this not a contradiction of what we are trying to do - rallying Singaporeans to stay relevant and compete? Parliament is the highest prestigious institution in the land. It should not be seen to encourage non-risk takers. The NMP scheme is a soft option way of entering this Chamber, and Parliament must not be seen to lower its standards of entry.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I have fought and won five general elections. I can tell you each time it gets harder and tougher. Every general election, however, has a very humbling effect on me and I am sure for my other elected Members in this House. At every GE, we go house-to-house campaigning, asking Singaporeans to vote for us. It is not easy. You ask the newly elected Members of Parliament how they feel. How difficult it is for them to approach someone and ask him to vote for you. It is indeed a very humbling experience and it can also be a very embarrassing experience. If the voter turns around and says, "Why should I vote for you? You only come when you need my vote." How do you react? What must you say?

Mr Deputy Speaker, these are experiences that only those who have fought in the elections will know. After the general election, we continue to work the ground, doing our Meet-the-People sessions, listening to our constituents' problems and managing these problems as best as possible. We do this because we have the responsibility towards these people who voted for us. And here today we have this motion to allow non-elected Members, without the experience of working the ground, to enter this Chamber and give advice to all of you, elected Members of Parliament, on matters that he or she has very little knowledge of. It is no wonder that at one of our previous Parliament sittings, a Nominated Member of Parliament called on HDB to pass to Town Councils the maintenance of car parks, because it was not profitable. Surely if he has worked the ground, he would not have made such a suggestion. Because Town Councils are funded through S&C charges, and by taking an unprofitable programme, our residents will need to pay more. It shows a lack of grassroots feel. But does he care? No! Because he has no responsibility to anyone, but himself.

To me, this entry of non-elected Members is very hard to swallow and, worse still, taking advice from people who have not fought the elections or worked the ground, and who profess openly that they do not want to be involved in the politics of the day. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, is this House not a political institution? Every discussion in this House is political in nature. If this is a political institution, then those who do not want to be involved in politics have no right to come to this House.

In this House, we pass legislation affecting the people. Those without a mandate should not be telling Ministers and Members in this House what to do and what not to do. There are already adequate representations in this House. We do not need more lawyers, unionists, professionals, doctors and businessmen. Are you saying that all these professions are not represented in this House and that Members in this House are not able to present the views of these various professions? What is most important is whether Members in this House have brought up the people's concerns. If we are judged to have not done so, then we deserve Nominated Members of Parliament. If we go through past Singapore Parliament Reports and compare the topics brought up by Nominated Members of Parliament and elected Members of Parliament, you will find that there was no topic brought up by NMPs that had not been brought up by any elected Member of Parliament. However, the way these topics were brought up differed because of difference in style, presentation and emphasis. NMPs, being smaller in number, captured the attention of the media. And some, being more articulate than some of our Backbenchers, would receive more coverage and thus appear to be doing more work and be more effective than the Backbenchers. But it is not just speaking well in this House that makes one better than the other. It is the ground, the constituency that must be constantly nurtured that is important. If elected Members of Parliament were to neglect the ground and just concentrate on making speeches in this House, I am sure they can do an equally good job.

There is no doubt that NMPs, like Walter Woon and Kanwaljit Soin, have done well with their fine rhetoric in this House. In fact, Tan Sai Siong, the Straits Times journalist, acknowledged that the NMP scheme was a success, thanks to Walter Woon and Kanwaljit Soin, and I quote her: "As someone who used to agree with those MPs who are opposed to the scheme, the performances of this pair have convinced me that it is probably not the NMP scheme that is good, but the NMPs themselves who have made it so." However, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, there is a saying, "One swallow does not make a summer." One Walter Woon or one Kanwaljit Soin does not make the NMP scheme a success. [Mr Bernard Chen interrupted.] I am surprised that Bernard Chen acknowledged. He is an old MP here. He should be proud of the fact that he got elected and he has done well in this House.

I warned this House when the NMP scheme was introduced on vested interest groups trying to seek representation in this House. I see shades of this in the last Parliament when women's interests were expounded by NMP Kanwaljit Soin. She did well. But many have asked me if she is a representative of AWARE. I hope not. Dr Kanwaljit Soin is a good friend and colleague and I know she has very strong views of her own and I respect her for that. However, those who do not know her well may think that she is the spokeswoman of AWARE. Fortunately, AWARE is a good organisation fighting for women's rights only and has no hidden agenda. What, Mr Deputy Speaker, if some other organisations take the cue from Dr Kanwaljit Soin's performance and try to send their own representatives into this House? These organisations could be religious, communal groups, seeking to be heard.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, it would be a back-door entry for communal, religious and racial politics. Yet I remember very clearly that we came to this House to pass the Bill on Group Representation Constituencies to ensure that multi-racialism will exist well in Singapore. And yet I can tell you, and I am warning this House again, your Nominated MP scheme would one day be the back-door entry for all this type of politics. Because we are multi-racial, we cannot nominate only Chinese NMPs. The other races will be upset. The minority race will have to be included. Then, if you nominate only the professionals, the very well educated, questions will be asked on favouritism. What about the non-graduates? I hear the Leader of the House mentioning all the various professions. But this will stir a sense of unease among those non-graduates. Communal politics and clan interest groups want a voice. Even Tang Liang Hong tried to become a Nominated Member of Parliament. And if people like him are excluded, such groups can send in a seemingly good Singaporean to be their proxy representation.

I know we have a Special Select Committee to prevent this. How long can you resist these people knocking at your door every two years wanting to get in? If they are rejected too many times, again, there will be questions asked. If for some unforeseen reasons, one gets into this House, then this House will be in real trouble. This is going to be possible because you want more Nominated MPs and you might lower your guard in your selection process as a result of wanting more.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, after a while, the original purpose of wanting Nominated MPs becomes blurred. First, you started with non-partisan Singaporeans. Then we start to choose people because they represent interest groups - your employer groups, your unions, your business groups. What other changes are we going to make? People who want to come in are monitoring the pattern of selection and appointment. They are watching you very carefully.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, most of us will not be in this House forever. New Members of Parliament would be elected in. They have no history. They feel less for the issue because they were not involved in it in the first place and they have different value systems. I think I will rather plug all the loopholes than feel sorry later on. The last time we debated this subject, the Whip was lifted and I voted against it. This time the Whip is not lifted. Am I right? And I cannot vote against it because of party rules. However, my conscience tells me that this scheme is unnecessary and wrong. I am left with no choice. I will still continue to vote against it.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Mr Deputy Speaker, as the motion itself states, and as the Leader of the House said, it is necessary for every Parliament to decide whether there is a need for Nominated Members. It has to examine the question anew and not look back at what had gone in the past. So the question is: Is there a need for Nominated Members of Parliament in this present term of Parliament?

Singaporeans were told before the elections began that the PAP had combed Singapore and had the best batch that was suitable for entry into Parliament and they were going to introduce 23 of the best, of the cream, in Singapore into Parliament. Now we are told, "Oh, no, it is not good enough. We need six more Nominated Members."

An hon. Member: Maximum nine.

Mr Jeyaretnam: All right. You need nine. But you are going to increase it to 10, I thought, afterwards. We need nine more Nominated Members. May I ask why?

I will come to the reasons given by the Leader. I was not in this House when this scheme was first introduced. But I had a look at the debate in this House when the Bill to amend the Constitution to allow for Nominated MPs was introduced. And the present Prime Minister, who was then the First Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Defence, who moved the Bill, referred to the President's Speech at the Opening of the then Parliament. He referred to the paragraph on "Encouraging Participation" and "Accommodating Dissent", and he quoted the President:

`Singaporeans have shown that while they value good government, they also increasingly want alternative views to be expressed and dissenting voices to be heard. The Government will listen to alternative views and dissenting voices, and accommodate them where they are constructive.' I suppose the catch is "constructive". It is constructive as defined by the People's Action Party or by the Government.

May I say, without imputing any disrespect to the Prime Minister - I see he has left - that those words now sound a bit hollow in the light of what happened in the last eight days of 1996 and the first two days of this year. If it is dissenting voices in Parliament that they wish to be heard, may I assure the House that there would have been at least six MPs from the opposition were it not for the fact that the Prime Minister and the two Deputy Prime Ministers, as I said yesterday, sent the clearest message to the voters of Cheng San that if they were foolish enough to choose other than the Government candidates, they would lose everything.

The Hon. Prime Minister, in his speech earlier, referred to what he said were my corny excuses for not finding myself elected into Parliament. May I suggest to the Prime Minister that there is a simple test that can be done to see whether what I said were corny or whether they were real.

May I suggest, in all earnestness, to the Prime Minister and to the Cabinet that that be put to the test. Let the present PAP candidates from Cheng San resign and let us have another by-election. Let us have no more of these messages to the voters that they are going to lose everything - no more MRT, no LRT, no education benefits, everything - and let us not have the Prime Minister and the two Deputy Prime Ministers break the sections in the Parliamentary Elections Act and swoop on the polling stations to dissuade voters by their presence. Then let us see what the result is. I say this in all sincerity and earnestness. Then we will know whether the reasons I gave are corny or they are real. I am quite ready to be put to the test again to see whether the voters of Cheng San will reject me. If ---

Dr Tan Cheng Bock: A point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. We are discussing Nominated MPs.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Do you want to give way?

Mr Jeyaretnam: I am not giving way at the moment.

Dr Tan Cheng Bock: No, I am raising a point of order. We are discussing the Nominated MPs. I think we should not be distracted by all this.

Mr Jeyaretnam: I will come to that. The Leader, in his speech, gave what appears to be two reasons.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Jeyaretnam, Dr Tan wants to bring up a point of order. Would you give way to him?

Mr Jeyaretnam: I am referring to the reasons given by the Leader for this proposal.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Let him bring up his point of order first, please.

Mr Jeyaretnam: All right.

Dr Tan Cheng Bock: Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, we are discussing this Nominated MP issue and yet I hear Mr J.B. Jeyaretnam rambling on the Cheng San election which, I think, is not proper. I thought we have discussed this and spoken at length in the past few days. We have given him a lot of time and he should not be bringing up this matter again. He should stick to the debate on the issue of Nominated Members of Parliament.

Mr Deputy Speaker: All right. Mr Jeyaretnam, just try to keep within the point.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Mr Deputy Speaker, I am keeping to the point because I said I would be coming to the two reasons advanced by the Leader for this motion. One, of course, was that the previous NMPs had acquitted themselves. But that, with respect, is no reason or no need for NMPs in this Parliament. But the second reason is that he said there are now only two elected opposition MPs. And that is why my point is relevant. We would have had more than two elected opposition Members. We would have had at least six if the Government had been sincere in its intention to hear dissenting voices in this House and to be guided by what some Singaporeans are clamouring for. That is the whole point of my speech. Let us go back and see what the voters of Cheng San would want. Then you will get more than two elected MPs.

Having said that, Mr Deputy Speaker, I read during the election campaign that Mr Tang Liang Hong had been rejected for a seat in this House as a Nominated Member. He would have provided a dissenting voice, even if he was propounding Chinese chauvinist views, which I do not accept for a minute and I do not think the voters of Cheng San would have accepted. But if you are saying you want dissenting voices, then he should have found a place here. That is why I say all this sounds a bit hollow now.

Finally, may I say that I share the sentiment that was expressed by Dr Tan Cheng Bock. As I said, when speaking on the election of the Speaker, this is the people's House and it is the Members who are elected and represent the people who should be in this House. It may, of course, be said and I am sure it would be said, "But you are not elected." That is true, but only because of the Prime Minister and the two Deputy Prime Ministers making threats to our voters of Cheng San. Mr Deputy Speaker, yesterday I was told that I had gone back on my principle. My party had considered my coming into this House and we thought the situation was quite different and we should accept the seat. But may I say this, finally, before I sit down, that if it is thought that the Government needs suggestions or advice on any matter, it should not be difficult to obtain it outside the House. The Government may appoint, if they so wish, an advisory body - we have already got a body but we can have another body, if you like - to consider Bills or actions and to advise the Government. What is the special need or reason for them to be in this House? It is not that I have anything against the former NMPs who have acquitted themselves, but to have NMPs and then to go on increasing the number would be to demean this House.

Mr Sin Boon Ann (Tampines): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I rise to speak in support of the motion of the Leader of the House.

Sir, when the Government first mooted the idea of having Nominated Members of Parliament in the House in 1990, it received mixed reception from members of the public, including Members of this House. I was then a member of the teaching staff at the University. I was a lecturer in constitutional law. It was a compulsory subject for second year law students then. When you teach a subject such as constitutional law, you would follow the development such as Nominated MPs with some interest. What was foremost in my mind then was the question of legitimacy and the moral standing of the Nominated Member if he should come into this House, and this is an issue that was raised in some of the speeches we just heard.

Sir, an ordinary elected Member claims the legitimate right to sit in this august House because he is duly elected by his constituents. He owes a duty to his constituents to speak, without fear or favour, and to advance and protect their interest if need be. Such were the principles of democracy. It is to the people that an elected Member is accountable to ultimately.

An NMP, on the other hand, is chosen by a committee of this House without having to go through an election. In other words, he does not represent any particular constituency. His moral authority to speak on behalf of the people of Singapore is therefore apparently weak as a result. For this reason principally, Sir, I had my doubts initially as to whether the office of the NMP would strengthen and advance our political system.

The misgivings were expressed in this House when it was first mooted. There were some Members who said that this is something that goes against the grain of our development in the political system. It weakens the political system and people who are not prepared to go through an election, as you have just heard, do not have the qualities which qualify them to be Members of this august House.

Sir, when the idea was first mooted, the then First Deputy Prime Minister, Mr Goh Chok Tong, had argued that the principal purpose of the NMP scheme was to, in fact, strengthen our political system further by offering Singaporeans more opportunities for political participation, and to evolve a consensual style of government where alternative views are heard and constructive dissent is accommodated.

Mr Goh also said that although PAP MPs have been encouraged to play the role of a constructive opposition by suggesting alternative and even contrary solutions to problems, the point remains that they are still Government MPs, subject to the rule of the Whip within the party itself. Mr Goh also added that NMPs will help remove any misgivings that the Government is afraid of dissent.

Sir, NMPs are politically non-partisan. The NMPs can give a voice in Parliament to the views of protest voters, and those who are unhappy with Government policies. NMPs will, according to Mr Goh, play a constructive role. They can be relied upon to say things which no opposition MP will want to say; and NMPs can concentrate on the substance rather than the rhetoric of the debate.

Since then, over the years, I have watched the development and acceptance of the role of NMPs. As non-elected Members, it seems to me that their stature and standing have grown in the eyes of the people.

Sir, the law has laid down rather strict criteria for the selection of NMPs. If you look in the Fourth Schedule of the Constitution, it provides that only people who have distinguished themselves in private or public service may be considered for selection. The records of performance, as you have just heard, of the NMPs so far have clearly vindicated our belief that they can play a part in the debate in this House with added depth and breadth to the debates.

NMPs have also, in my assessment, helped us to move forward towards a more consensual form of Government which is receptive to alternative views and one which seeks to accommodate constructive dissent. We have also heard that NMPs have raised many questions for oral answer by the Government. We have seen examples of the sterling performance of people like Dr Kanwaljit Soin and Assoc. Prof. Walter Woon who through their efforts have made legislative changes and also raised questions which brought about policy changes within Government itself.

Sir, the Member for Ayer Rajah raised the point that these people have done well in Parliament simply because they are good people themselves. I would like to differ with the suggestion. I would argue that it is a scheme which allows good people to be thrown up, people who are interested enough in this country to want to participate in the debates, but who are not prepared to go so far as to identify with the ruling party. It is therefore a scheme which has allowed good people to come forward, and this is an indication of what the scheme tries to achieve as a result.

Sir, having NMPs in Parliament is one more reason why our Government cannot adopt a cavalier attitude in deciding policies. It provides an additional safeguard which serves to protect the interest of Singaporeans. To that extent, I think NMPs have helped to raise the standard of accountability in Parliament.

The point was raised in an earlier debate that NMPs serve no purpose when you have the Feedback Unit, the Institute of Policy Studies and the various agencies which provide feedback. However, I would hasten to add that these are feedback which are not canvassed in a public forum such as this, and therefore the people of Singapore may not have the benefit of such views expressed as it is in this House itself. In this regard, we should appreciate that a debate in Parliament on issues of national interest is different from getting feedback from agencies and groups in Singapore.

Sir, as I have said, one common objection against having NMPs in Parliament stems from the lack of moral standing of the NMP to speak as the people's representative. There is the perceived absence of accountability to any particular constituency of people. This ideal is premised on the notion that only those who have been voted in by the people would have the right to speak on behalf of the people.

Sir, there are as many definitions of democracy as there are countries that make up the world. We have accepted that we must, as a people, settle our form of democracy that would help us move forward as a nation. I do not deny that NMPs have no electoral base. I would, however, look at the issue of NMPs from the perspective of whether having NMPs is in the best interest of Singapore.

In this regard, I come to the point raised by the Member for Ayer Rajah. He said in his speech earlier that because the NMPs are not prepared to go through a competition in an election, they lack moral standing to represent the people in this House. However, if you look at the whole issue of the NMP from the perspective of whether their contribution in this House is in the best interest of this country, whether their debate in this House would strengthen policy making process in this country, and if the answer is yes, they do, then I think they serve the interest of Singapore and they serve the interest of the people.

Let us not forget that NMPs too are Singaporeans. We should accept as an article of faith that when the NMPs speak up, it is with the best interest of Singaporeans in their hearts. I do not believe for a moment that only the people's representatives in this House have the monopoly of the people's interest in this country. If by participating in this House, the NMPs can contribute to a more focused discussion and one that will help us to arrive at better solutions to our problems, then we should, in all honesty, support this motion and look forward to their presence here. That is sufficient moral authority for me.

It is not true that the NMPs are not accountable to anybody. On the contrary, they are held to a higher standard of conduct by virtue of the office they are called to and we take comfort in the fact that above all these, they are accountable to this House and to the people of Singapore for their actions. In this regard, I am not unduly worried by the comments made by the Member for Ayer Rajah when he said that they represent vested interest groups, because I believe that ultimately they will have to satisfy this House that they carry the right credentials and the right standing and qualification to speak in the interest of Singporeans, and not for any particular vested interest group in particular.

Sir, a government of the people, for the people and by the people is not premised on the foundation of elected representatives alone. A government of the people must be founded on the cornerstone of what is best for the people. And this must surely include listening to the voices of all people in this land, including the voices whom NMPs seek to represent.

I have said in this House that we should expand the space for participation in the governance of this country. I see the presence of NMPs as an example of expansion of this space. For this reason alone, if not for the reasons stated earlier, I beg to support the motion raised by the Leader of the House that there should be Nominated Members in this House for the term of this Parliament.

Mr Kenneth Chen Koon Lap (Hong Kah): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, after listening to the NCMP's speech, I have this horrible sinking feeling that we might have to listen to the Cheng San episode for the rest of the term of our Parliament. So I say, please, give it a rest; wait until 2002!

Sir, initially, I had reservations on the introduction of NMPs into this House. To a certain extent, I agree with Dr Tan on the principle that only elected Members should serve in Parliament, as only they have the credibility and the legitimacy because of the mandate given to them by the voters. But I have kept an open mind, recognising that we are very unique in Singapore, and we never shy away from adopting unconventional solutions when it is found that they are good for the system and the nation. Therefore, observing a few terms of NMPs' performance, I have now come to the conclusion that the positive contributions by the NMPs outweigh the negative. While I am still of the view that not all NMPs have performed up to expectation - in fact, some, in my opinion, did not use the opportunity given to them to the fullest, and some even over played their role as NMPs - nevertheless, I can appreciate the positive contributions made by some of the NMPs. Among them, they had given a wider perspective to the topics debated and contributed to a more lively debate in this House. They had, in some way, offered the Backbenchers as well as the Ministers the opportunity to have the issue at hand debated in greater depth. Most importantly, they, unlike the opposition Members, were not out to score political points and therefore did not confuse the general public when articulating their views.

I personally have engaged in interesting and meaningful debates with some NMPs, and I must admit that the experience has been, for want of a better word, refreshing. The NMPs also helped to correct the perception that, because of the overwhelming majority of the Government MPs, the Parliament sessions serve only as a rubber stamp to all the Bills passed. All these positive contributions will no doubt go a long way to compensate the somewhat below par performance of most of the opposition MPs. While I am prepared to accept and support the continuation of having NMPs in Parliament, nevertheless, I hope that they would not be just articulating their views and ask questions without recognising the heavy responsibility to assess the seriousness and consequence of such views expressed in this House.

I would also like to suggest that the term of appointment of any NMP should be limited to a maximum of two terms.

Mr Wong Kan Seng: Sir, I thank Members for speaking up on this topic. I think the merits and demerits of the scheme had been well canvassed when the Bill was first debated in the Second Reading in 1990; then it went to Select Committee; and it came back again for the Third Reading. But then there were still some Members who were not certain whether we should have this scheme. So the Prime Minister promised that at the next Parliament, we would lift the Whip and allow Members to vote freely and we could decide again whether we should have NMPs.

After having experienced six years of NMPs, including the first two in 1990, we all can recognise the contributions of the NMPs. I accept that some are more active than others; some are more articulate than others. But I do not think that it is just a matter of rhetoric nor that those who are more active just want to score points. I think they have made a very useful contribution and the fact that they have got some publicity and therefore might have overshadowed some of our own MPs, I think, is unfortunate. We have to find a way to correct that. If you make interesting speeches and useful suggestions, I have no doubt that the press will cover you, regardless of whether you are NMP, opposition or elected MPs. So we should not fear people who come in here and say things which may not be what we had wanted to say or dare to say. We should let them speak up and, as some of our Members and even the Prime Minister have said, it creates space for some of these people to express their views.

I can fully understand the passion that Dr Tan had in making his speech because, as I said, he won the elections. So did all of us. We all won the elections. But we also agree that there is indeed room for other people to come in here and give us some of their views. Sometimes, there can be useful contributions that we should accept. We must have an open mind and not just close our minds to changes.

I am glad to hear Mr Sin Boon Ann say that before he came in here he was against this scheme. And having read about the performance of the NMPs, he now feels that it is a good suggestion to have NMPs.

Dr Tan is worried about sectional groups, ie, religious, racial or interest groups, or as proxies of other people, finding their way into Parliament. If we open our eyes, put our ears on the ground and be more observant on the kind of the people who may apply to be NMPs, we should be able to keep them out. If not, in one term, we will find them out. We have the example of Tang Liang Hong in 1992. I think some of our own MPs who know of him felt that he really is not the type of people who should deserve a place in this Parliament. Therefore, they expressed their views quite strongly and eventually Tang Liang Hong did not come in. It has been proven by the last election result that indeed that kind of person is not what we want in Parliament. So I hope Dr Tan would be rest assured that we would be very vigilant in making sure that people like that would not come in.

I know that, as part of the procedure, the Speaker, as Chairman of the Special Select Committee, will circulate the names of those who have applied, including their CV, etc., and he will ask for comments from the Members whether they have any views on the suitability of these people who want to be NMPs. So please give us your views, Dr Tan, if you know of any individual who may, by accident, slip in under this proxy arrangement.

I am really not quite clear what Mr Jeyaretnam's position really is, whether he is opposed to this scheme. He kept griping about the Workers Party's loss of Cheng San. Like what Dr Tan said, this is not the place to debate it. But let us accept this. An election is an election, conducted fairly, openly and that the people have chosen. He said 50,000 people turned up at his rally but they eventually voted with their feet. That is not our fault. They came and heard the Workers Party team and said, "That is not the kind of people we want in Parliament." Therefore, they have rejected it resoundingly.

Mr Jeyaretnam: 44,000 voted for us.

Mr Wong Kan Seng: That may be so. But in this first-past-the-post system, one vote is a majority and you have lost, and that's it. Accept it, and be gracious about it, and not be so pathetic by bringing this up every now and then to remind yourself that you have lost this election, and lost sorely.

I suppose he endorses the virtues of Mr Tang Liang Hong as he had said that that is the kind of dissenting view that we should have in Parliament. I was wondering why, when the Workers Party was debating as to who should accept the NCMP seat, the Workers Party did not nominate Tang to the Returning Officer so that he can be here instead of Mr Jeyaretnam. Why is that? Because I believe Mr Jeyaretnam very much wanted to be an NCMP.

Mr Jeyaretnam: No.

Mr Wong Kan Seng: No? Then why are you here? I really find it difficult to fathom this.

Mr Jeyaretnam: May I answer that?

Mr Wong Kan Seng: Sure, please.

Mr Jeyaretnam: As I indicated earlier, the decision is not mine. The decision is the Party's decision. The Party decided at a meeting of the Executive Council that we should accept the NCMP seat because the circumstances were very different from the one in 1980 when we rejected it. We also accepted this NCMP seat in 1988, and Dr Lee was here. So it was the Party's decision and again it was the Executive Council's decision that I should take the seat, which was assented to by all the other candidates who stood in Cheng San.

An hon. Member: Against your advice.

Mr Wong Kan Seng: I am very glad that Mr Jeyaretnam brought this up and he said the situation has changed. Let us throw our mind back to 1984. In 1984, Mr M. P. D. Nair stood against Mr Heng Chiang Meng in Jalan Kayu. Mr M. P. D. Nair scored 48.8% of the votes, and Mr Heng Chiang Meng scored 51.2%. That was quite a substantial minority. Yet the Workers Party decided that it would not allow Mr M. P. D. Nair to accept that seat. In fact, here I have a September 1984 copy of The Hammer. That was before the election. It says: "Singapore does not need NCMP" and gave many reasons, eg, it is a second-class MP. And whoever wrote this article told the readers, "Do not be tricked. What Singapore needs is more men like Mr J. B. Jeyaretnam in Parliament, and not PAP stooges." If NCMPs are PAP stooges, I do not know what is Mr Jeyaretnam doing here, if he is not a PAP stooge. It goes on to say in this article that they would not accept the NCMP scheme.

Then in 1988, in the same publication of The Hammer, a different issue, again it ran through the arguments about why the Workers Party rejected the NCMP scheme in principle. I do not want to go through the reasons here because I think Mr Jeyaretnam himself is quite familiar with them. Of course, they tried to find a way out and gave this argument that "the Party was not unmindful of the fact that the Workers Party's candidates in Eunos GRC have as much a moral authority to represent the voters of Eunos GRC as the PAP candidates". Have they? They fought an election and they lost. But, for some reasons, I think Dr Lee Siew Choh wanted very dearly to get back into Parliament after many years and insisted on coming back, the Party had no choice but to let him come in.

It goes on to say in this statement that "the Party wishes it to be understood that this decision is not to be regarded as a precedent for the Party's decision in future cases." That means it is a one-time thing, an exception. Now, we hear the same argument in 1997. In fact, it has become the rule that if the Workers Party loses an election and is one of the highest winners among the losers, it would accept the NCMP seat. That is why Mr Jeyaretnam is here. Just accept it and own up that you have changed your mind. In the same way that you would change your mind if this NMP seat were offered to Tang Liang Hong, or a Workers Party proxy. You could send in a proxy. If we are not vigilant, for all you know, he could be here representing the Workers Party. In that case, you would have another voice in Parliament. So it is just an obsession that he must try to put aside and not to be too caught up with it.

This scheme has worked well for us in this Parliament and I think it will continue to work well for us. I can appreciate the sentiments of Dr Tan. I also heard the other Members who spoke up in support of this scheme. But lest Members get away with the impression that the PAP MPs are fully supportive of Dr Tan, after talking to the Prime Minister, I would lift the Whip, and let him vote. I think people would know that it is really an internal party position and, except for one or two Members who may not think that this scheme should be implemented, we will let Dr Tan decide. Maybe, he will have Mr Jeyaretnam join him, for all we know.

Dr Tan Cheng Bock: Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I just want to seek a point of clarification. The Leader of the House mentioned about these functional groups. Can he please explain what sort of grouping he is referring to? I know that apart from business people, the unions and so on, would he include the clan associations and religious bodies?

Mr Wong Kan Seng: Sir, the idea of improving the NCMP scheme is really something that we have been thinking about. I might say that even the Workers Party thought along the same lines many years ago when they were looking critically at the Bill and poking at the principle and so on. They also said, "Why did the Bill not require nominations from organisations and bodies that are involved in promoting the economy or the social rights of Singaporeans, for example, the Chambers of Singapore and the professional bodies?" So we will continue to make improvements and the suggestion of Dr Tan will be taken into account. But just to elaborate on this ---

Dr Tan Cheng Bock: I think you should not.

Mr Wong Kan Seng: I have not finished yet. Dr Tan wanted to know which are the bodies. I mentioned the professional bodies which will include doctors, lawyers, accountants, architects, engineers and people like them. For industry, it means the Chambers of Commerce, the Manufacturers' Association, the Federation of Chambers of Commerce and Industry, and the like. I also mentioned the labour movement, which means the NTUC. These are just the three categories that we have in mind in the initial experiment of this new selection process. As we gain more experience, we perhaps may look at it again and, in fact, the Constitution did provide for the general categorization. We may go to other social groups like the National Council of Social Service organisations, the culture, the arts, the universities and so on. So we are open to views.

Dr Tan Cheng Bock: Are you saying that there is a possibility you could include clan associations and the religious bodies into your functional groups?

Mr Wong Kan Seng: We are not deciding on this right now, whether it is going to be religious bodies or clan associations. What I am saying is that there are social community organisations and these are broad groupings. Of course, we are just trying this out and the first three groupings are what I have just mentioned.

Dr Tan Cheng Bock: That means you have some thoughts about this. There is a possibility that you could include all these people.

Mr Wong Kan Seng: Right now, the possibilities are these three groupings that I have just mentioned.

Dr Tan Cheng Bock: Finally, Sir, I would just like to make a little comment on Mr Sin Boon Ann's speech. I think he spoke like a typical academic arguing his case. I just would like to hear from him five years later when he becomes a more polished politician.

Question put, and agreed to.

Resolved,

"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."

Mr Jeyaretnam: Mr Deputy Speaker, may it be noted that I am abstaining on this vote.

Mr Deputy Speaker: So be it.

Mr Wong Kan Seng: That is very interesting. I thought I heard two "noes", and I suppose one of it is Dr Tan's, quite surely, and the other is Mr Low Thia Khiang's. These are recorded. Mr Jeyaretnam has abstained. I suppose he wants to reserve his position just in case one day he may come back as an NMP.