CONSTITUTION OF THE REPUBLIC OF SINGAPORE (AMENDMENT) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

The Minister for Home Affairs (Mr Wong Kan Seng): Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

Sir, I do not propose to go into the merits of the Nominated MP (NMP) Scheme this afternoon, as these have been extensively debated when the Scheme was first introduced in Parliament in 1989, and at the beginning of every Parliament session when we voted to continue with the Scheme. Our last debate on this was on 5th June this year when Parliament resolved to have NMPs in this Ninth Parliament. At that Parliament sitting, I have intimated that the Constitution would be amended to increase the number of NMPs from six to nine.

Sir, the NMP Scheme is now well accepted by practically all the Members, as it has proven its usefulness and worth. This is not by chance because we have deliberately chosen those individuals who can make a useful contribution. Under our current political system, good men and women either join the PAP, the ruling party, or they stay out of party politics altogether. Hence, the NMP Scheme has provided us a way to get some of them into Parliament and to make a contribution. We should therefore expand the Scheme so that more NMPs can be in Parliament to air views which may not be canvassed by the PAP or by the Opposition.

After operating the Scheme for six years, we should also fine-tune the selection process by inviting nominations from certain functional groups for the consideration of the Special Select Committee. For a start, the Special Select Committee has agreed that three Proposal Panels be set up to recommend candidates for consideration by the Special Select Committee. The three Panels are:

(a) Business and Industry, comprising the President of the Singapore National Employers' Federation, the Presidents or Chairmen of the Chinese, Malay, Indian and International Chambers of Commerce and Industry and the President of the Singapore Confederation of Industries.

(b) The Professions, comprising the President of the Singapore Medical Association, the Master of the Academy of Medicine and the Presidents of the Institutes of Certified Public Accountants, Engineers, Architects and the Academy of Law.

(c) Labour Movement, with Panel Members to be appointed by the Central Committee of the National Trades Union Congress.

I believe, Sir, you have met the leaders of these organisations about three weeks ago and they are supportive of this move. They are now deliberating among themselves and will be submitting their recommendations to the Special Select Committee soon.

As this is the first time that we are undertaking this exercise of inviting nominations from Proposal Panels, the list of members making up the Proposal Panels is not exhaustive. With experience, other members can be added to the list later. As we learn how to operate this new nomination process, we can, in future, further improve on it and increase the number of Proposal Panels. For example, functional groups which can represent those who are active in social or community service, and those who can eminently represent the arts, culture, sciences and academia may also be invited to form Proposal Panels.

In other words, we can, in future, increase the number of Proposal Panels to, say, five, so that the Special Select Committee can have direct inputs from these Panels and a wider field of people can then be systematically considered for appointment as NMPs.

Sir, let me assure the general public that they will not be left out of the NMP Scheme. They can still submit their nominations to the Special Select Committee which can then choose suitable persons from among the public nominees for appointment as NMPs.

Sir, we have evolved our parliamentary system to suit our needs. We have instituted the Group Representation Constituency Scheme to ensure that Parliament will always have minority representation, regardless of which political party's candidates are elected. We have established the NMP Scheme to bring into Parliament prominent citizens who can express views of certain sections of our community, views which may not be expressed or adequately expressed by the ruling Party or the Opposition. We have improved the nomination process, and formally invited key organisations to recommend suitable individuals for consideration. We are now proposing to increase the number of NMPs so that a wider cross-section of such views can be canvassed and expressed.

Sir, I commend Members to support this amendment to the Constitution.

Question proposed.

Mr Sin Boon Ann: Mr Speaker, Sir, this House sat on 5th June 1997 to debate, among other things, the motion to introduce NMPs into this Parliament. We are again confronted with the same issues, and this time by the Constitution (Amendment) Bill to raise the number of NMPs from six to nine Members.

There were a number of arguments that were canvassed against the introduction of NMPs in this Parliament, and these arguments were canvassed when we sat on 5th June. And I now want to address some of these arguments that were raised in order to fully consider the issues raised in the last sitting of Parliament.

Sir, there was an argument raised that allowing NMPs into this Parliament makes a mockery of the efforts of the elected MPs who had fought hard in the last election. A Member was concerned that the Government may be sending the wrong signal to the people of Singapore about having a competitive spirit or the lack of it, since NMPs are allowed to enter into this House without having to contest in an election.

Sir, as I have said before, whether or not an NMP fought in the election to get into this House is not an issue. What is an issue really is the question of the ability of the NMPs to raise the quality of debate in this House, and to ensure that the policies introduced by this House are fully considered. There is a danger in a House that is dominated by a single party, that the discipline of the party and the like-mindedness of those associated with it may blind Members to alternative views and options that may well be in the interest of Singapore. It is no argument to say that NMPs never compete to get into this House. On the contrary, NMPs to be chosen by the Special Select Committee have to go through a process of competition, and that competition lies in the comparison of their CVs. And I would say that the process of selection is really no different from a beauty pageant.

Secondly, there was also the argument raised that an NMP has little or no knowledge of the conditions of the ground and, therefore, the advice that he proffers in Parliament may be irrelevant or, at worse, harm the interest of the constituents.

I have two comments to make on this. First, the Constitution provides that only capable people and people who have proven themselves in various fields are to be considered for appointment as NMPs. Surely it will not be unreasonable to expect an NMP candidate to have the minimum amount of intelligence for making suggestions. It would be unlikely that a recommendation made will be a thoughtless one.

Secondly, proposals by NMPs are not binding on the MPs. If an MP considers a proposal to be useful and constructive, the MP is at liberty to adopt the suggestion. However, if in the process of adopting or implementing the suggestion, and the suggestion turns out to be a duff one, then I am sure the MP himself is as responsible for lacking the foresight and perhaps the intellect to adopt the suggestion of the NMP.

Thirdly, there was also a suggestion raised that there are enough lawyers and doctors in this House and, therefore, there is no need to have any more of such people in Parliament. The point is not whether there are lawyers or doctors, but whether the lawyers and doctors who are Government MPs in this House operate under the discipline of the Party Whip. There may be issues which a Government MP may feel strongly about and which he may not be at liberty to raise, because he is obliged to maintain party discipline. On the other hand, an NMP does not suffer from such constraints and, therefore, is not beholden to anyone when raising or abstaining from raising issues which, in some cases, may be embarrassing or damaging to the Government.

Fourthly, I believe that there was also a concern raised on the possibility of a back-door entry into Parliament by people who harbour strong communal, religious or racial sentiments. The argument was raised that allowing such people into Parliament is taking the first step down the slippery slope for Singapore. Concern was raised that one would increasingly find that NMPs would act as proxy representatives for the communalists.

If such arguments were raised by a Member with such fears, then I think these fears may not be founded, because there are presently adequate safeguards in the system. To begin with, an NMP has to meet certain constitutional requirements set out for an MP. Secondly, there is the Special Select Committee which sits to decide on who the suitable members are. It is much to the credit of the Committee that it is able to keep out extremists from Parliament to date through the NMP Scheme. And I would say that this is an important proof that a good system is in place.

In deciding to draw NMPs from the panels of labour, business and industry and the professions, I believe the Government is trying to have a broad based representation as far as possible. It is certainly not the intention of the Government to encourage narrow interest groups to send their proxies to Parliament. And if by chance they are able to do so, I believe they will soon be discovered and I do not think they will last beyond one term as NMPs in this House.

Sir, as I said before in this House, that the 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. To do this, they must listen to the voice of the people in this land, including the people whom the NMPs seek to represent.

For the above reasons, I support the Bill.

Dr Tan Cheng Bock: (Ayer Rajah): Sir, I do not want to go through again all the arguments backing my fundamental position against the Nominated MP Scheme. These are already on record in the Singapore Parliament Reports.

Today, I want to concentrate on the amendments to the Nominated MP Scheme. There are two basic shifts in the scheme. One, we are increasing the number from six to eight.

Some hon. Members: Nine.

Dr Tan Cheng Bock: From six to nine. That is even more.

We are formalising the introduction of functional groups in the scheme. In other words, these functional groups are going to be institutionalised.

In the last debate on this issue, the Leader of the House told us that he would move an amendment to the Constitution to increase the number of NMPs from six to nine for two reasons: (1) to give vent to views which may not be canvassed by the PAP or Opposition Members; and (2) to fill the void left by the loss of two elected Opposition Members.

Sir, the last general election should have settled the issue of repressentation in this House. If Singaporeans only choose to elect two Opposition Members, so be it. There is no need to replace the loss of two Opposition Members with three Nominated Members of Parliament. It is the people's choice, not ours. And if elected Members in this House are not able to vent their views, they have to face the electorate in the next general elections.

We started with two Nominated MPs in the House with a clear objective of providing non-partisan views in the House on many matters ranging from politics to education, business, trade, social and cultural issues, Later, in the last Parliament, we had a total of 10 NMPs altogether. Two of them served two terms. These NMPs were elected on their own individual merits, ie, they have distinguished themselves in the fields of arts and letters, culture, the sciences, business, industry, profession, social, community service or the labour movement. Although they were people who came from the key functional groups, their presence in this House was because they were individuals, and not as representatives of any of the functional groups. Now we are going to institutionalise functional groups.

To fine-tune the selection by inviting the leaders of certain key functional groups, as mentioned by the Leader of the House, to nominate their members for consideration, as proposed again by the Leader of the House, is to court trouble.

Sir, we are going to beg more questions than answers. What are the criteria of selecting one functional group over another? Is it because a particular functional group is inadequately represented in this House? In this case, I really cannot reconcile how we need another trade unionist in the House when there are already nine elected trade union Members in this House. Are you saying that these nine Members cannot give vent to views of the unions?

It is now inconsistent with the original objective of having a non-partisan voice in Parliament. For if an NMP must belong to a functional group, there is a likelihood that he will be lobbying for their sectional interest instead of articulating on national issues. Under your present fine-tuning selection, an NMP is non-partisan only in name but partisan in heart and spirit. Mr Speaker, Sir, I am sure you will agree with me on that. It could lead to a fractious Parliament.

Sir, there will be many functional groups wanting to seek representation when they see themselves left out. If the Singapore Medical Association has a representative, why not the Law Society or the Singapore Institute of Architects? Or for that matter, the taxi drivers' association or the hawkers' association. They are also functional groups. This list can go on and on. How then are we going to put a stop to the growing expectation and demand? We will create more dissatisfied groups, because we cannot satisfy all the requests. Soon SPCA wants a voice to speak for animal rights. Are we going to turn them down? If you kill a cat you can go to jail. Then the Association of Muslim Professionals, Mendaki, Sinda, CDAC, will also want a voice because they want to speak for the poorer community of the Malays, the Chinese, the Indians and I think they are an important functional group, and they should be given a voice, instead of only the professional and business groups. Of course, there are the consumers. I am sure CASE also wants a representative. So is the Singapore Motors Sports Club. The Automobile Association of Singapore will also want to seek representation because there is a large motoring population.

As functional groups get wise to the scheme, they will come in bigger numbers. Your clan association, the Singapore Hokkien Huay Kuan, I am a Hokkien speaker, and my Hokkien Association would want a voice here. What about the Hakkas, the Teochews, the Cantonese? They also want a voice here. Can you accommodate all of them? Thus, we may be opening a big Pandora's box for religious and communal groups and vested interest groups to come in. If you consistently pick representatives from selected functional groups, there will be cries of favouritism and unfairness from these vested and pressure groups. Soon, your nine NMPs will have to increase to 12 or more, if you want to accommodate the different functional groups. If you adopt an exclusion policy, like I have said, you will be harassed more by the many pressure groups. Selecting two Nominated MPs is manageable. But when you start to expand the numbers, to select nine, 12, 15, there is an increasing possibility of lowering one's guard in the selection process and you get one wrong man into this House and we are all in trouble.

Many in this House may think that I am exaggerating the situation. But if you have seen and had to treat riot victims, like I had to do in hospital, you will want to make sure that this does not happen again. That is why I supported the Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act and the GRC concept to ensure that multi-racialism and religious harmony in Singapore must always be the key pillars of our strength. So we must clean out all possibilities of allowing racial, communal and religious politics in this House.

This NMP Scheme, by way of institutionalising functional group representation, could one day be the back-door entry for religious, racial and communal politics. My young friend who just spoke said this is not possible. Well, he has not gone through the political life. He has not seen what riots are. Maybe he is too casual about this. But to me it is a very serious thing.

In the last two debates, the Whip was lifted, and I voted against it. My stand has not changed. Today, the Party Whip is not lifted. Is it correct?

Mr Wong Kan Seng: Yes.

Dr Tan Cheng Bock: You put me in a difficult position, for I have to vote along Party lines. However, my conscience is not clear if I vote along Party lines. To me, it is wrong.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I have no choice. I very reluctantly choose to abstain.

Mr Zainul Abidin Rasheed: Sir, thank you for giving me this opportunity to speak up on this Bill. I stand in support of the Bill. But first let me say that I have a lot of respect for Dr Tan Cheng Bock. He is a man of vast experience, very measured, very balanced. Thus, I seek his indulgence to disagree with him. I know he is the leader of my Southeast Asia Parliamentary Group. So I hope he would not send me to Siberia for disagreeing here!

I am one who has been through racial riots. I was almost killed in one, and I know what it means in terms of racial harmony.

On the point about making a mockery of MPs who have worked hard to get elected, I think Dr Tan will agree that Cheng San MPs are those who actually went through a hard battle and we won the battle convincingly. But for one of those who belongs to the Cheng San GRC, I say I am in support of this Bill. I see no harm in that because we have seen the track record of NMPs.

I remember sometime back when some of my friends were considering me as an NMP and I was sternly warned by some of my close friends, they challenged me. They said: Never go by the back-door if you want to go to Parliament. Such were the strong emotions of my friends.

But having seen the performance of our NMPs, I stand here in support of that and I give three reasons. (1) As I said earlier, the track record of the NMPs. Perhaps not all, but I dare say many, if not most of the NMPs in the previous terms, have proven their worth and they have played a very important role in making the concept work. (2) The track record of former Opposition MPs. I think we will agree that one of the reasons why, in fact, two of the former Opposition MPs lost the last election was because of their dismal performance in Parliament. So the people have spoken and I think it is a good indicator. (3) People's expectations. Yes, PAP MPs have done well in bringing up issues and speaking up on pertinent and very critical issues. Nevertheless, they are still seen as Government and PAP MPs and the people would like to see other viewpoints expressed by people whom Singaporeans consider as neutral.

Thus, I think the NMPs can play that role. So I think we must allow them to help us make this Parliament more efficient and more representative and the NMPs have a role to play to contribute towards the efficacy of Parliament.

Mr Wong Kan Seng: Sir, I thank the Members who have spoken in support of the Bill. I also hear Dr Tan Cheng Bock again giving the reasons why he is not happy with this amendment.

Having listened to him very carefully, I think he has now found a new reason why he is objecting to this amendment and it is that we are formalising the formation of functional groups. This is a shift in ---

Dr Tan Cheng Bock: May I seek a clarification?

Mr Speaker: Mr Wong, do you allow Dr Tan to seek a clarification?

Mr Wong Kan Seng resumed his seat.

Dr Tan Cheng Bock: If you remember, I did mention my fear about non-partisan Singaporeans coming into this House. I did mention very clearly that we must be very careful not to allow groupings to come into this House. So it was not a new thing. It was something which I have mentioned from the very beginning.

Mr Wong Kan Seng: Yes, I understand his definition of grouping, but the criteria as stated in the Fourth Schedule to the Constitution did cover the types of people whom we think should come into Parliament as NMPs. In fact, it says:

"People to be nominated shall be persons who have rendered distinguished public service, or who have brought honour to the Republic, 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;".

We think that people will turn up just by chance and say, "I represent so and so" and therefore they put in their applications. Having gained the experience in the last six years, I know that it just does not happen by chance. Therefore, this time round, we feel that maybe it is good to involve a wider group of people in finding suitable persons to come into this Parliament as NMPs and that is the reason why three panels are formed. From what I am told by somebody who is involved in the panel, he said that being involved in the panel and looking for candidates to recommend to the Special Select Committee, he now understands why it is so difficult even for the PAP to find good people. That is indeed a good lesson for us, that even among themselves it is not easy for them to find ideal and suitable individuals who are prepared to come into the House, not because there are no such persons but because of the public exposure. As NMPs, they have to speak up in Parliament. They are a public figure and they would be recognised and sometimes they are even not liked as a result of what they say in Parliament. So one benefit that we see in forming such groups is that now more people are involved in searching for candidates as NMPs. It is an exercise in collaboration with and encompassing as many people as possible to help us in this political process. I think that is one of the good outcomes that we have in this exercise.

Why do we increase the number? The last time I mentioned in passing that we have lost two Opposition Members. I was not lamenting the loss. I was just saying that we have lost them. The Government was already decided. We know that on Nomination Day, the PAP was returned to power. So it is not an exercise to elect the Government. The people have chosen not to have enough Members of the Opposition. That is their choice and we respect their choice. This exercise of increasing the number of NMPs is to involve more people in the political process of this Parliament. So I think it is a good way of inviting such people to Parliament so that such views can be aired.

I do not want to go into the details of whether individual functional groups or individual organisations would start to put pressure or not. I think we will learn how to operate the scheme. This is the first time we are forming these panels. So we have got to find out how to operate this more smoothly. I already know that at least one oganisation that is not named as a member of the panels did write to the Speaker and ask, "Can we be included in this?". We can consider it. There is no reason why we should exclude people if they can make a contribution in finding suitable candidates. So we can look at how we can operate this and eventually improve the process.

Whether extremists and people with ultra views would be allowed to come in or not, I think I mentioned the last time that, we have to be vigilant and careful, and the Special Select Committee will be on the look-out for such people. And all Members here play a role because the Speaker will circulate the names to the Members and they can then give us their comments whether the person is suitable or not. That was why Tang Liang Hong was not selected. So I think it is a good way of sieving out people. If we did not spot them, and they happen to come in, then in one term, in two years, we will find them out. So I do not think there is a fear about people with extremist views coming here and fanning emotions and starting riots. I think in today's Singapore people are more sophisticated and better educated. We can find ways of controlling such a situation. So I would not have such a fear right now. Of course, I cannot predict the future. I do not know what may happen. But in the Special Select Committee, we will do our job in trying to screen out such people with Members' help.

Dr Tan said he voted against this the last time. Actually the last time he voted against it was when I moved the motion to have NMPs in this Parliament. When we had the Constitution (Amendment) Bill, Second and Third Readings in 1989 and 1990, to provide for NMPs, Dr Tan was on record as voting for it. At that time the Whip was not lifted, neither would the Whip be lifted this time. So what he said today could not be consistent with what he did the last time.

Dr Tan Cheng Bock: Sorry. What did he say?

Mr Wong Kan Seng: In 1989 when we had the Second Reading, and in 1990 when we had the Third Reading, Dr Tan, the Member for Ayer Rajah, voted for the amendment.

Dr Tan Cheng Bock: Because the Whip was not lifted.

Mr Wong Kan Seng: The Whip was not lifted. And the Whip would also not be lifted this time because this is a constitutional issue. This is not an issue of life and death, not an issue of conscience, not an issue of morality. Therefore ---

Dr Tan Cheng Bock: Mr Speaker, Sir, I think it is an issue of conscience.

Mr Speaker: Mr Wong, are you giving way?

Mr Wong Kan Seng: He should not interrupt me. Let me finish first.

This is not an issue of conscience, not an issue of morality, not an issue of life and death, and therefore the Whip is not lifted. But when it comes to an issue of life and death, the Party will consider lifting the Whip.

Dr Tan Cheng Bock: I would just like to ask the Minister. He has not answered the question: what are the criteria of selecting a particular functional group over another? That is one question. The other point he did mention was that there is a possibility that in your selection process you could allow somebody with very strong racial views to come in. You are saying that you are prepared to allow this and let him come into this House for two years, and let him speak and air his views here. By then it would be too late.

Mr Wong Kan Seng: I thought I was very clear about this. I said that we would be very careful. The Committee would be very careful, and we hope Members also would be very careful, in watching out for such a person. But if inadvertently that person comes in - by accident we cannot find out because we do not know much of him - and he expresses such extremist views, then in one term, we will find him out.

Dr Tan Cheng Bock: It would be too late.

Mr Wong Kan Seng: What if it is too late, what is going to happen? We just throw him out the next time. That is all. No big deal!

What criteria do we use in choosing functional groups? If we look at the list that I have mentioned, when we say "business and industry", we look at the big business and industry organisations. If we look at the professions, we choose the professions which are large and representative of that professional group. For the labour group, there is one big organisation, that is, the NTUC. As for the other social and community organisations, perhaps the National Council of Social Service plus some other voluntary organisations, but I cannot give you the details right now. For the academia, the sciences, the culture, arts, etc., we know that there are enough cultural and arts groups, and we have the universities and polytechnics where they can get together and form a panel. So I think we should just wait and see how we implement this new format for the first time. We can then improve on it the next time.

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 56 Members, pursuant to Article 5(2) of the Constitution. Ring the Division Bells.

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

Division taken: Ayes, 77; No, 1; Abstention, 1. Ayes Abdullah Tarmugi Ahmad Mohd Magad Ang Mong Seng Chan Soo Sen Chay Wai Chuen Chen, Bernard Chen Koon Lap, Kenneth Chen, Peter Chen Seow Phun, John Chew Heng Ching Chin Tet Yung Chng Hee Kok Chong, Charles Choo Wee Khiang Davinder Singh Goh Chee Wee Goh Chok Tong Goh Choon Kang Harun bin A. Ghani Hawazi Daipi Heng Chiang Meng Ho Peng Kee Ho Tat Kin Hu Tsu Tau, Richard Ibrahim bin Othman Inderjit Singh Iswaran, S Jayakumar. S. Ker Sin Tze Koo Tsai Kee Lee Boon Yang Lee Hsien Loong Lee Kuan Yew Lee Yock Suan Leong Horn Kee Lim Boon Heng Lim Chun Leng, Michael Lim Hng Kiang Lim Hwee Hua Lim Swee Say Lim T. E., David Loh Meng See Low Seow Chay Mah Bow Tan Mohamad Maidin B P M Neo, Lily Ong Ah Heng Ong Chit Chung Ong Kian Min Othman bin Haron Eusofe Ow Chin Hock Peh Chin Hua Ravindran, R. Seng Han Thong Sidek bin Saniff Sin Boon Ann Sinnakaruppan, R. Tan Boon Wan Tan Keng Yam, Tony Tan Soo Khoon Teo Chee Hean Teo Ho Pin Toh See Kiat Vasoo, S. Wan Soon Bee Wang Kai Yuen Wong, Aline K. Wong Kan Seng Ayes (cont.) Yaacob Ibrahim Yao Chih, Matthias Yap Giau Cheng, Eugene Yatiman Yusof Yeo Cheow Tong Yeo Guat Kwang Yeo, George Yong-Boon Yu-Foo Yee Shoon Zainul Abidin Rasheed No Low Thia Khiang Abstention Tan Cheng Bock

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 Wong Kan Seng].

Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment.

Third Reading

Mr Speaker: Third Reading, what day?

Mr Wong Kan Seng: 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 56 Members, pursuant to Article 5(2) of the Constitution. Ring the Division Bells.

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

Division taken: Ayes, 77; No, 1; Abstention, 1. Ayes Abdullah Tarmugi Ahmad Mohd Magad Ang Mong Seng Chan Soo Sen Chay Wai Chuen Chen, Bernard Chen Koon Lap, Kenneth Chen, Peter Chen Seow Phun, John Chew Heng Ching Chin Tet Yung Chng Hee Kok Chong, Charles Choo Wee Khiang Davinder Singh Goh Chee Wee Goh Chok Tong Goh Choon Kang Harun bin A. Ghani Hawazi Daipi Heng Chiang Meng Ho Peng Kee Ho Tat Kin Hu Tsu Tau, Richard Ibrahim bin Othman Inderjit Singh Iswaran, S Jayakumar. S. Ker Sin Tze Koo Tsai Kee Ayes (cont.) Lee Boon Yang Lee Hsien Loong Lee Kuan Yew Lee Yock Suan Leong Horn Kee Lim Boon Heng Lim Chun Leng, Michael Lim Hng Kiang Lim Hwee Hua Lim Swee Say Lim T. E., David Loh Meng See Low Seow Chay Mah Bow Tan Mohamad Maidin B P M Neo, Lily Ong Ah Heng Ong Chit Chung Ong Kian Min Othman bin Haron Eusofe Ow Chin Hock Peh Chin Hua Ravindran, R. Seng Han Thong Sidek bin Saniff Sin Boon Ann Sinnakaruppan, R. Tan Boon Wan Tan Keng Yam, Tony Tan Soo Khoon Teo Chee Hean Teo Ho Pin Toh See Kiat Vasoo, S. Wan Soon Bee Wang Kai Yuen Wong, Aline K. Wong Kan Seng Yaacob Ibrahim Yao Chih, Matthias Yap Giau Cheng, Eugene Yatiman Yusof Yeo Cheow Tong Yeo Guat Kwang Yeo, George Yong-Boon Yu-Foo Yee Shoon Zainul Abidin Rasheed No Low Thia Khiang Abstention Tan Cheng Bock

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.