LESS ADVERSARIAL PARLIAMENTARY SYSTEM

Mr Speaker: This motion is subject to the signification of support by at least one Member. Does it have the support of any other hon. Member?

Dr Lee Tsao Yuan: I support.

Mr Shriniwas Rai: Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move,

That this House recognises the need to evolve a parliamentary system which is less adversarial and which will further strengthen the process of consultation, consensus and conciliation.

Sir, when the Shared Values motion was debated in Parliament in 1991, consensus, not conflict, became one of our shared values. Members will recollect, one of the five values discussed was "consensus instead of contention". Finally, "contention" was left out and it emerged as "consensus and not conflict".

[Mr Deputy Speaker in the Chair]

5.46 pm

Mr Shriniwas Rai: Sir, it is in this spirit that I am seeking this House's permission to debate this motion. We should avoid conflict. We can and should debate issues. We may disagree on points, we may have differences of opinion, but we should try to reconcile to reach consensus.

The message which this motion puts forward is an extension of our Shared Values. We should encourage consensus rather than contention. The Shared Values did not deal with the political culture. I hope this motion will help to do so.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the Constitution provides for the appointment of NMPs to give non-partisan views. It is in this spirit that I propose this motion. It is therefore reassuring to recollect the words of the Leader of the House, Mr Wong Kan Seng, in this House when he spoke on 5th June 1997. I quote:

`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.'

Sir, we are conscious of the fact that after the ruling party, the NMPs form the second largest number of Members in this House and whatever views we express in this House will be closely watched by the people.

If you would allow me, Sir, at this juncture to outline the role of Parliament, as I see it. Parliament is the final forum of discussion where ideas are put forward and debated. So, by its very nature, Parliament is adversarial. There is no running away from it. The question is: do we want it to be more adversarial or less adversarial?

Sir, Parliament also has other roles. It enacts laws, raises taxes, Government policies are discussed and Ministers are accountable to this Parliament. Questions for Oral Answer provide a valuable device to query the Ministers. And this morning, we have seen how supplementary questions were asked to elicit information for the benefit of the public.

Sir, we have inherited from the British the Westminster system of government. In Britain, it has taken more than 500 years to achieve this position. It was not an easy journey. Those of us who studied constitutional history know that Parliament and the King would be in conflict. Not everybody had the right to vote. Full franchise was only achieved during this century.

The British democracy was not always what it is today. In earlier centuries, heads had to be beheaded. The Tower became home for some. Civil wars came and went. Even the true sense of Greek democracy could not serve the purpose today. I do not believe in Greek cities where people met to propose or to oppose. Perhaps they met to discuss the common will of the people. . Sir, the British parliamentary system has undergone changes. Just to illustrate, the office of the Speaker has not been so secure and safe as it is today. The Speaker, in the real sense of the word, was a speaker. He spoke to the monarch on behalf of the Commons. And many a time, the message he carried was not a welcome one.

Sir, the Western critics, especially the human rights groups and even a small group of our own people, feel that the Western democracy, in the British sense of the word, is the ideal model to be emulated. Maybe it is or maybe not, that is for the individual. We may be wearing Western clothes and speaking the English language, but in basic necessity of human life like diet, we still prefer and love our fried rice, noodles, rendang, thosai and prata. As the saying goes, one man's meat is another man's poison, more so if you are a vegetarian.

Sir, I can do no better than to quote Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru who was a great admirer of British democracy and who was a great freedom fighter, whose speeches have been quoted in this House before. Let me quote him. This is what he told the Indian Constituent Assembly before independence. He said:

`We are not going just to copy, I hope, a certain democratic procedure or an institution of a so-called democratic country. We may improve upon it. In any event, whatever system of government we may establish here must fit in with the temper of our people and be acceptable to them. We stand for democracy. It will be for this House to determine what shape to give that democracy, the fullest democracy, I hope.'

Sir, I think one of the basic tragedies of Asian leaders was that they copied the constitutions of Britain, France and America. They imported Western government values to eastern societies. As a result, most of the constitutions have failed. Very few have succeeded and I will come to that later.

Sir, I have an abiding faith in the people of Singapore and also the political leadership and that we could have a better system of governance. We have won international praise for economic miracles for our sound financial policies, for our housing scheme, for our security and safety, and even for our environmental matters. But what is saddening, Sir, occasionally, what comes under criticism is our governance. I have faith and hope that in the next 10 years, we will succeed even in this area. We, the people and the Government, must work out a system that will not just be a praise from the West but that the people of Singapore themselves will feel that it is a system ideally suited to our soil.

Sir, the motion is very straightforward. It is not a binding resolution. Members are free to speak. The Government can respond in the way it feels best.

Sir, as I said earlier, in many British colonies, the British Westminster model was held as an ideal form of government. And most of the nationalist leaders like Mahatma Gandhi, Nehru, our former Prime Minister, the former Malaysian leader, Tunku Abdul Rahman, were all educated in England. They were mostly lawyers and socialism was a respectable creed. Sad to say, as I said earlier, few countries have their constitutions intact. Some countries had to impose emergency rule. Even those who have succeeded had their constitution suspended and had to live with a bout of military dictatorship.

In Singapore, we have even a shorter history of constitutional development. Election was first introduced after the war in 1948 and it was very limited. There was no full franchise. But the turning point came in 1959 with the attainment of self-government. Prior to this, the Government which constituted basically the Governor and his Secretary and the colonial office in London decided our fate and future.

Sir, only those of us who have lived during the colonial days can understand the denial and humiliation. The joy of gaining self-rule was evident when the people of Singapore celebrated with joy the attainment of self-government. Speaking from the steps of City Hall in June 1959, Mr Lee Kuan Yew echoed the feeling of the people when he said:

`Once in a long while in the history of a people there comes a moment of great change. Tonight is such a moment in our lives. Last Saturday saw the end of an era. This morning the new Constitution was promulgated. We begin a new chapter in the history of Singapore. The powers of the people through their elected government is limited to our internal affairs. It is not what we really want. It is but a step forward towards merger and Merdeka.'

Sir, we have succeeded because we changed the system to suit our needs. We must keep an open mind and bring about changes which will strengthen our system. We have an elected President, GRCs, NCMP, NMPs and the Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act, just to mention a few. Outside Parliament, we have the Feedback Unit, GPCs and bodies like the Institute of Policy Studies (IPS) and other civic bodies. In short, we are evolving our own practices to suit our economic and social needs.

In the case of IPS, it has regular discussions with interested groups. Its "Singapore the Year in Review" is an important discussion which gives an overview of Singapore's issues.

Sir, I have attended two of these discussions and the way panelists, including my Friend, Dr Lee Tsao Yuan, were questioned assured me that our young people are not conformists and they have a questioning mind. In short, they will not accept things at face value.

Similarly, I hope bodies like the Roundtable will flourish. It is important to have non-partisan institutions. Therefore, I was saddened to see its motive questioned by some of our leaders. I thought that the Roundtable was being very helpful for its review of the last general elections, pointing out some of its pitfalls. However, Sir, I am glad and reassured that two of its members, Mr Simon Tay and Mr Zulkifli, now sit in this House. We should try to support groups like the Roundtable.

In many countries of Asia, confrontational politics has divided the people and retarded economic progress. Political parties have mushroomed and people with doubtful standing have contested and won elections. Parties enter an alliance to share power. Politicians change parties to be in power. The end result is that the people have suffered, and the parliamentary system has been put to stress. Perhaps I could, for the benefit of Members, give some synopsis of the Westminster's system of government.

Under the Westminster's system of government, the government is divided into three organs - the Legislature, the Executive and the Judiciary. Both the legislature and judiciary are highly adversarial.

Sir, allow me to show how our judicial system, which has been mentioned by the Minister of State earlier, has become less adversarial. As we all know, in the court trial every argument has to be challenged and demolished in order to be won. Singapore has implemented mediation, conciliation and arbitration to settle disputes. As the Minister of State, Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee, had earlier pointed out in this House, we are now implementing community mediation. Our judicial system has been held as a model. I know some Members may not agree but the general tone is, both in Singapore and outside, we have a first class judicial system. I know of one particular Chief Justice from the Commonwealth countries who has shown some interest. In fact, he has sent some judges to study this system. This change came about without any pressure from the public. The judiciary had recognised the need to transform because there were backlogs of cases. The new Chief Justice felt that we could not carry on with the old and he introduced new methods. The backlog has gone. Cases are dealt with more expeditiously and so there is no waiting time for criminals. They get their just dessert in time. Can this Parliament similarly take the lead in bringing about some change that will benefit the country?

Sir, Members may ask why there is a need to discuss this motion when the system is working well. Many of our citizens take for granted that the system will survive forever. Experience of other countries provides valuable lessons. Some countries take pride of their democracy, but even local communities are often divided on political line. Sometimes families, relatives and even areas are divided because of political affiliation. They adopt very confrontational politics. Violence, arson, killing of political opponents, criminals run for office and in some countries, booth capturing has become a political art.

A younger generation encouraged by political debate elsewhere may want to emulate the confrontational politics. They look forward to heated debate in the House. Some think that if there is no controversy in the House, it is a lame duck Parliament. It is not the intensity of the debate but the quality of the debate which should be the hallmark. The question that has to be asked is this. Has the policy improved the living standard of the people? Has it brought a more just and equal society?

In Singapore, Sir, we are a multi-racial, multi-lingual and multi-religious nation. People and political parties must recognise that there are fundamental matters which we must never transgress. These are beyond questions. To do so would result in undermining the foundation on which our peace and prosperity is built. Similarly, in dealing with the judiciary and security we have to be very circumspect. Whenever our national institutions are under attack, we must close ranks and defend. We cannot be divided when our sovereignty and security is questioned.

Sir, how do we go about bringing a change in the thinking and mindset? I would appeal to the ruling party and hope to persuade them to consult the opposition parties in Parliament whenever major issues - I emphasise "major issues" - are discussed. When the ruling party is prepared to listen to views from the public, why not political parties in Parliament?

The opposition parties in Parliament must give constructive views that will help policy and not to oppose the policy just because it is a Government policy. If I could recollect, Sir, when the Select Committee was discussing the amendment to the Constitution, one political party's representative made an absurd proposition that the Bill was unconstitutional. The learned man was challenging a Member of the Select Committee, Prof. Jayakumar, who had lectured Constitutional Law at NUS. The politician was a British trained lawyer. He had not studied the Constitution of Singapore as a subject. Had he studied it in some detail, he would have realised that there was precedent for non-elected Members in the Constitution even before it was amended. I speak of the appointment of Speaker from outside the elected Members. Sir, we must avoid a similar situation. Opposition for the sake of opposition is negative and futile. I think the opposition parties must change their thinking. If they want to contribute to the political process, they must review their stand. It calls for a change in outlook. It is hard to believe that the Government does not deserve the praise for many of its achievements, be it in housing, transport, education and the banking system.

Before a policy is discussed in Parliament, some of the best minds in the civil service would have studied the matter over many months, often making comparative studies with other countries and trying to avoid any shortcoming. Our Ministers and MPs consult the public through feedback and through political discussions among the PAP activists. They have to convince the people. No policy can succeed unless it has popular support from the people.

Sir, there is a feeling among some members of the public that some Members of the PAP treat the opposition with contempt. The PAP has succeeded in being elected with such an overwhelming support. This may lead to some MPs thinking that opposition parties are peripheral. Success sometimes brings some degree of intellectual superiority.

I would like to reiterate that there is a place for opposition parties in Parliament. Some constructive opposition will be good to our system. But to say that there is no democracy without opposition is an intellectual dishonesty. In the final choice, the people must decide whether they want an opposition or not. It is not for the opposition to decide. For that matter, it is not even for the PAP to decide whether there should be an opposition or not.

I have the benefit of visiting some countries and observing their system. In many countries, they not only abuse each other verbally but physically in Parliament. Shoes and slippers fly in the well of the Chambers. Even the Presiding Officer is in fear of himself. Sir, it is a credit to our Parliament that even during the hey-days of Barisan Sosialis, the proceedings in this Chamber were conducted with decorum and dignity. This is what Parliament is and we should aspire to be so.

In many countries, it has become a part of life to enjoy conflicts. The media especially enjoys reporting this conflict. We too had our share of confrontational politics when the question of merger was discussed. The House sat past dinner time many a night to debate the issues. The Ministers, instead of concentrating on economic development, had to spend hours of their time defending the Government's existence. Those of us who were young can remember it.

Sir, there is a tendency among some of our younger citizens to expect Parliament to have heated debates. They think it is fun and game. They think it is tamasha, a show to be enjoyed.

Because it is fashionable to be confrontational, some of our intellectuals think that democracy without confrontation is a tame democracy or, worse still, no democracy. We have to tell them that the ultimate test is whether the Government has brought happiness to the lives of the people and whether the people can live a life of dignity and freedom instead of fear.

Sir, how do we strengthen the consultative process? This is a question that I pose to this House. In the last 10 years, more avenues have been opened up. Our Prime Minister is a firm believer in the consultative process. He has set up Government Parliamentary Committees (GPCs). These Committees also include members from the public as resource panel members, and I am one such member of the GPC for Community Development which is headed by Dr S. Vasoo.

Sir, in February 1991, I wrote to the Prime Minister about the enhanced role of the GPCs. The Prime Minister gave a positive reply and, in fact, in the President's Speech in February 1991, the matter was dealt with. May I quote from the Speech of the President:

`Government Parliamentary Committees will play a more prominent role. We will encourage the public to give their views to the GPCs, especially on issues which do not go to the Select Committee. The GPCs should not only express these views in Parliament, but also follow them through by proposing amendments to improve legislation.'

Sir, I have two observations. First, bring the GPCs within the purview of the House. At the moment, it is not so. Secondly, GPCs should be given manpower and money to play an enhanced role. On important Bills, GPCs should invite the public to give written representations. I wonder why the Government's plan has not been implemented, especially when it was first announced in 1991.

Sir, the Ministry of Community Development has started its Feedback Unit. The Unit in fact has improved and a number of Committees have been set up to study different issues. The members are well qualified and respected members of our community. I can foresee an important input by the Feedback Unit, now that the Minister of State, Dr John Chen, a Government Minister, is at the helm.

Sir, our media is taking an active interest in topical issues. The Straits Times has a political desk and its "Insight" covers current issues with some depth, getting views from people of all strata. The lead articles give opinions on topical issues. The Straits Times through its lead articles and Forum Page helped in changing the tone of the Maintenance of Parents Act. Because of this input, the Act is a better Act now.

Having said this, let me add that there is a lingering perception in the minds of some sections of our intelligentsia that our print media is overtly pro- Government. It is for the print media to take the heed. But there is no running away that in the case of the Straits Times, it has come of age as a result of its ability to draw out some of the best young men and women.

Sir, we have a very lively Forum column. People express their views. But again there is a small minority which feel that if they criticise the Government policy, they would be ridiculed or, worse still, questioned by the authority. These fears, I would like to assure them, are unfounded. Catherine Lim was an unfortunate episode. The boundary line for discussion has to be redrawn from time to time. Our leaders sometimes act like over-protective parents. They must learn to trust the people. Singaporeans are pragmatic. They know which side of the bread is buttered. They are not going to be taken away by sweet talks. They value political stability more than anything.

If the past is any gauge of the future, there seems to be a dim possibility of any credible and strong opposition emerging in the near future. Parliament may have to consider other options to strengthen the present system. Those who do not agree with the ruling party should have a channel of communication. We may want to institutionalise some of them. I have spoken of that earlier. Perhaps the Town Councils and the CDCs could provide valuable inputs in addition to the existing channels like RCs and CCCs. These bodies could be further strengthened by soliciting ideas from the residents. As their meetings are mostly closed door, it will encourage a free flow of ideas.

In this regard, I am glad that private housing estates are also going to form their own Committees. My plea is that these Committees should work with the existing institutions in the HDB heartlands.

Sir, may I urge the Government leaders to consider reviewing the electoral arrangement. Whilst the present electoral arrangement should be largely adhered to, maybe about 10% of the Members of this House could be elected on proportional representation. I know the danger of proportional representation. But yet I am making this plea. This is why I am keeping only 10% as the upper limit. Or, perhaps, even the NCMP scheme could be enlarged. Sir, I know when the NCMP scheme was first announced, some parties opposed it. But parties have changed position, I hope, for the good of Singapore and for themselves as well.

Sir, our civil society is growing; our clan associations and self-help bodies can help in giving input as well. It is in our Republic's interest to nurture a civil society. Therefore, I found it reassuring that the Prime Minister told this House last year that he wanted a civil society to grow. May I quote from his speech, Sir? He said:

"We need a civil society to mobilise our people's energies and talents, and to create a cohesive and resilient nation. When people participate actively and become involved in community and national issues, they build ties among themselves and bond to the country.

We must change the mindset that only a few leaders at the top of the system need to think and take responsibility for social and national issues, while the rest of society can simply mind their own business and go about their daily lives. All Singaporeans must feel a responsibility for solving local issues and shaping their own communities. They should not wait for the Government to solve every problem. The Government itself must be prepared to take a step back and perhaps even a back seat, especially on local community issues, and allow some free play to develop.

One good way to do this is for concerned citizens to get involved in voluntary work or in the running of their own local communities, through the Town Councils, CDCs or RCs. Singapore's political life must evolve in the direction of greater participation by the people, more willingness to shoulder responsibilities, and more giving to the country than taking."

From consultation, Sir, I now move to consensus. This is the most difficult task because of conflicting interest and lobby groups. It is not possible for the Government to seek the views of everybody on every issue. To do so would be to weaken the working of the government. But on major issues like housing, transportation and education, the Government should reach consensus, both within the political parties and the people. In this, I think the civic groups can play a pivotal role in articulating views. Similarly, the various societies and interested groups should study the issues and give their views to the Government.

Sir, the Government is interested in building consensus. It is therefore not surprising that the PAP Government agreed to incorporate public views in preparing its political manifesto - The Next Lap. This is the best form of consensus building for the PAP. Similarly, the Government has set up Select Committees on important issues like GRC, Elected President and Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act. These Committees benefited from public participation and in some of the cases public proposals were accepted. Take the case of the GRC Bill. The Bill was amended to include a minimum number of seats for the minorities, and the Indian community was mentioned by name.

Now, on conciliation, Sir. We can take heed from the industrial strife in the 1960s and the orderly manner in which our commerce and industry has prospered because of this process of conciliation with the labour and employers. We have to trade off some points. We have to accommodate because, as has been said previously, nobody or institution has a monopoly of knowledge. We sometimes make mistakes but we must learn from it.

It is gratifying that at the family level, the disputes are now settled through conciliation in our family courts in the Subordinate Courts. This is indeed a very progressive step. Can the same process be adopted at the national level? Whenever there is a difference on major issues, we should try to accommodate the other's wishes.

So whenever we are talking of consensus, conciliation and consultation, one thing must stand out - that it must be in the national interest to discuss it, to adopt it. We must not allow sectarian interest to do so. We should never have a hidden agenda.

Sir, I started my speech on the Shared Values and I want to end on the same note. I want hon. Members to reflect on the words of the Deputy Prime Minister BG Lee. Let me quote him:

"In every society there are disputes and differences of opinions, over private matters, over commercial affairs, over great issues of state. It is only natural and healthy. Without constructive debate, without a lively exchange of views, no society can hope to break new ground and make progress. But societies differ in the ways by which they seek to resolve differences of views. Some try to conciliate opposing views and smooth over the differences; others fight it out in adversarial proceedings in Court. They believe that out of sound and fury will come sweetness and light."

Question proposed.

Mr Sin Boon Ann (Tampines): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I had originally wanted to support the motion raised by our hon. Nominated Member. But having heard the speech of our hon. Member, I can only say that while I agree with the principle of the motion, I cannot support the conclusion which he wants this House to adopt.

Let me just keep this response rather brief in order that we can deal with the issues on hand.

Sir, the question that we have to ask ourselves is: can there be a less adversarial approach to politics? To answer this question, I think we need to ask an even more fundamental question about the role of this House in the legislative process. Do we see legislators in this House as performing primarily the role of a critic to scrutinise and embarrass Government? Or do we see the role of this House as one that seeks to improve the legislative process so that the interests of the people can be better served?

Sir, you will note that the collapse of communism in the 80s has brought about an increasing convergence of political ideologies. Communism and socialism, as we know it, are no longer fashionable. Few would deny that the market economy, founded on a model of democracy that seeks to equitably share wealth of a country, is a dominant political ideology in the world today. While there are differences as to how one may find expression to these values, it will be difficult for the masses to find favour with anyone who says that he believes in a command economy and in a dictatorial regime which does not account to the people. The left and the right it seems are moving towards the middle ground. In this climate, it would be very difficult for parties to take extreme positions. No party seeking the mandate of the people can move away from this middle ground and seek to win the right to rule.

Legislators must recognise this. The way to the middle ground and politics is not through adversarial approach because it is not a competition of ideologies but a consultative, consensus and conciliation approach or what we call consensus approach. Sir, to that extent, therefore, I support the call of the Nominated Member that we should move towards a position in our political arena that is more consensus seeking rather than adversarial in approach.

Sir, having said that, endorsing consensus politics does not in itself mean an end to competition. The choice of the people can be made on the basis of personalities, on the basis of how we want to approach the objects that are defined as the interests of the country. To that extent, therefore, we should ask ourselves how this approach to politics applies in Singapore.

In moving his motion, the Nominated Member actually called for the Government to consult the Opposition Members in the way we formulate policies. I find this rather strange and surprising because in the nature of our political process where we are required to go to the people to seek a mandate of the people. Democracy is necessarily a question of choice. At the end of five years or so, we go back to the people with our record, our platform, and our agenda to persuade the people that we offer the best slate of leaders and programmes for our people to choose. Asking us to consult the Opposition Members as regards policy formulation is like asking the opposing team in a football field how you play the game. In the nature of our politics, I think it will be quite unusual indeed. It is something which does not make sense for us at this moment. And I do not think we have arrived at a position where we need to consult the Opposition in respect of policies.

Sir, the Nominated Member has also asked us to consider to review the electoral arrangement to bring about a proportional representation by 10% in this House itself. This is not something which, I think, makes sense or is supported. If we talk about 10% proportional representation in the House, on what basis are you deciding as to who has the right to make the representation in this House? As we all know it, in the nature of our system, there are many avenues within this House that provide ample opportunities for people outside to make their representations and make their views known. The fact that we have NMPs and an NCMP in this House and the fact that we have avenues for people to participate in the policy process itself suggest that there are avenues within the House that allow people to participate in the policy process.

So, therefore, while I understand the call on the part of the Nominated Member to actually open up the process of consultation in policy making, I do not think that we should go that far in the way that he has suggested, and I would call upon the Member to essentially look at the position that he has advanced more carefully. I think in the nature of things, in the nature that we understand it, there are sufficient safeguards for us to consider the opposing views, if there are, in the way in which policies are made and considered in this country.

Sir, on that note, I basically do not support the motion to the extent that he has asked us to support the call for consultation of the Opposition and to expand the proportional representation in this House to include other interest groups as well.

Dr Tan Cheng Bock (Ayer Rajah): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I have been in this House for 18 years and I have engaged in many debates in this House and I do not think we were adversarial. We were hard-hitting, yes. We take the Ministers on. They give us a few punches back. But at the end of the day, we have a meaningful debate. We share views, constructive in nature, yes. But we were never adversarial. So I was quite surprised when this subject was brought up, asking for a less adversarial parliamentary system. He even said that during the Barisan Sosialis days, yes, those were hot days when the debates were very heated, but I do not think, if you go through the Hansard, there were instances where there were things being thrown around. But in asking this House to support for a less adversarial system gives the impression that we had an adversarial system in the past. It had been non-adversarial debates in this House for so long.

So I do not know whether he is directing this to any political party in this House that is adversarial. I can say that the PAP Members in this House are not adversarial. We are hard-hitting, as I said, sometimes. But at the end of the day, we are not adversarial. So the Member who proposes this motion should state clearly in this House which political party is adversarial.

Dr Lee Tsao Yuan: Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I wish to focus on the second part of the motion, that is, that the House recognises the need to evolve a parliamentary system which will further strengthen the process of consultation and consensus. I would like to make three broad points.

First, that there is a relative lack of effective mechanism for public policy discourse in Singapore.

Second, that Parliament which represents the elected voice of the people can be more effectively used as a major institution for public policy engagement; and

Third, I shall then propose several means by which Parliament can more effectively serve this purpose.

I would like to submit to this House a hypothesis regarding the current situation where consultation and consensus building is concerned. As an economist, I think in economic terms, so please allow me to use an economic analogy. I believe that there is at present a disequilibrium situation of excess demand for public policy discussion. There is now a greater demand for public consultation and feedback than in the past, and this demand is likely to increase even more in future. At the same time, particularly in the 1990s, the supply of channels for public policy discourse has also increased. There are now more channels, both formal and informal, for consultation and feedback. However, I would submit that the increase in demand has outpaced the increase in supply resulting in a disequilibrium.

In the marketplace, such an excess demand situation would be corrected during adjustment in prices. However, in the intellectual marketplace of ideas, there is no such automatic mechanism to adjust for a situation of excess demand. As a result, a disequilibrium situation of excess demand can persist for some time. As in the case of economics, I believe that such a disequilibrium situation is unhealthy and that steps should be taken to rectify the situation.

Why has demand for public policy discourse increased? I can offer three reasons. The first reason is that our very economic success has satisfied our basic human needs and has engendered the desire for higher order needs, such as that for participation and belonging in society. Over the last 30 years, Singapore's GDP per capita has increased by more than eight-fold. This increase in real per capita income has enabled our material quality of life to improve by leaps and bounds. Home ownership, ownership of consumer durables, life expectancy, all of these have shown marked improvement. In short, our basic material needs are by now more than taken care of. A generation ago, our parents' prime concerns were mainly over making a decent living, owning a home, giving their children a good education.

While these needs are still important today, economic success has added a new dimension to society's needs and aspirations. There are many in society who are no longer satisfied with the mere pursuit of material gains. They aspire towards something more and, that is, a sense of belonging in society. Part of that aspiration would include that of having a say in policy, particularly those policies which affect their lives as citizens of this country.

The second reason is that our population, particularly the young, are now more highly educated. We have made significant strides in education since the 1970s. The entry ratio of polytechnic students increased from 2% in 1965 to 37% in 1995. Similarly, the entry ratio of university students increased from 4% to 20% during the same period. Therefore, we find that of those aged 15 to 39, 72% of the workforce now have secondary level education and above and soon 60% of those in their 20s would have tertiary level education.

The third reason is that globalisation, including access to information via the Internet, has created greater awareness of the larger socio-political environment internationally, regionally and domestically. As a result of these three factors, there are more and more in Singapore society today who are interested in public policy, have an opinion on these issues and want to have a say. They may not necessarily be interested in joining a political party per se. But they hold the view that, as citizens of Singapore, they should be concerned and that this concern should be expressed by speaking up on public policy issues. Some of these views may be frivolous, some criticise for criticism's sake. But there are also some which are sincere and well-thought-through in their views. Although some in this group would insist that they are right and the Government is wrong, many would consider it sufficient that there be serious engagement. They wish that they be given the space to express their views, critical or complimentary, without fear of retribution that these views be heard, given due consideration and that the merits and demerits of these views be objectively and rationally debated in public, in the intellectual marketplace of ideas and may the best idea win.

What about the supply of mechanism for public policy discourse? The number of channels has increased in recent years and more effective use has been made of them as well. These include the grassroots organisations, such as the RCs and CCCs under the People's Association, the recently expanded Feedback Unit, the Ministries' specific committees and groups, formal and informal, established for the purpose of consultation and feedback. There are in addition other more general dialogue sessions, for example, the two recent occasions where the Prime Minister met young Singaporeans and professionals, respectively. In addition to the Government channels, there has also been more active use of the Forum page of The Straits Times as a channel for expression and feedback. And if I may say so, the Institute of Policy Studies, where I work, has, as its objectives, the twin role of furthering public policy discussion by means of research and conferences and being a bridge builder among the various sectors of Singapore society.

How then do I know if there are now more channels for consultation and feedback if there is still an excess demand? I will be the first to admit that I have no statistics, no hard and fast evidence. But when one hears the dissatisfaction regarding the existing situation repeated over and over again, different forums by different people, then surely it amounts to more than just a passing fancy or a temporary phase. And if anything else, this dissatisfaction seems to have intensified and not diminished over the years. It would appear that this demand is strongest among the professionals and the younger generation. It may not be a major concern of the HDB heartlanders. But with education, this demand will strengthen and not diminish. All over Asia, economic well-being has led to the emergence of a middle class that is better educated, more socially and politically aware and more demanding of a voice in what affects them. There is no reason why Singapore should be so different.

Parliament, mainly comprising the people's representatives, is the key institution for the conduct of public policy debate. In fact, this is already happening today. When the elected MPs speak, they often represent the views of their respective constituencies. However, there can be better use of Parliament as an institution for public debate on policy issues of current interest. In other words, in addition to passing legislation which is in itself a primary responsibility of Parliament, it would be desirable for Parliament to be used even more as a major channel for policy discussion.

Policy issues range from the strategic and national to the specific and municipal. I would like to see greater discussion of major policy changes in Parliament when they are announced. What is currently occurring is that Backbenchers use the Committee of Supply debates as the main occasion for bringing up issues under the specific Ministry cut. But why lump them all together at one sitting and not discuss these policies when they are hot off the press?

A case in point is there are many changes in educational policy which have occurred in recent years. Many of these are not merely refinements of the system but represent systemic changes, indeed, a major rethinking of the very philosophy of education. One such example is the recent announcement on The Desired Outcomes of Education. At all stages of the educational system - tertiary, junior college, secondary, primary - this set of Desired Outcomes will be used to assess the performance of our formal education system. I would have liked to see this major policy change brought to the House for debate, not because I do not agree with The Desired Outcomes, in fact, I was glad to see the list, but because such a major policy deserves public airing and discussion. Such public discussion allows for good suggestions to be taken on board for future policy refinement, and concern and misconceptions to be clarified. One way in which this could be done would be for a motion to be moved, for example, "That the House endorses The Desired Outcomes of Education."

My second and related proposal is that the Government Parliamentary Committees (GPCs) play a more active role in such public policy discussions. For example, the motion on The Desired Outcomes could be moved by a Member of the GPC for Education. In fact, the GPCs already are utilised to some extent in this manner. GPCs could be utilised to get the feedback on these major policy changes. These views could be aired in the House during the policy debate. This is already the case, for example, during the Budget debate when the Members of the GPC for Finance and Trade and Industry bring to the attention of the House the feedback which they obtained from the business community. The system of debating major policy changes in the House has been done on occasions in the past. I recall that motions were moved in the case of the benchmarking of Ministerial salaries with the private sector in 1994 and for the second Cost Review Committee Report in 1996. However, what I would like to propose is that every major policy change be debated in the House and that the GPCs play an active role in this discussion by gathering feedback and moving the motion. If necessary, if it calls for a serious policy change in debate, a White Paper could be prepared, for example, in the case of the Ministerial salaries.

Where specific and municipal policy issues are concerned, Question Time should suffice. However, the one hour allotted for Questions for Oral Answer is, in my opinion, too short for all such matters to be raised. The frustration that some Members experience is that there is insufficient time for all Questions to be answered as occurred today. There is of course the alternative of a Written Question. But an answer in written form does not permit the Member to seek further clarification on the spot and to wait for another month for further elaboration would really be too long a delay. My third proposal therefore is that Question Time be lengthened to 1� hours. One could argue that even this is insufficient. But a 50% increase is, in my view, a major improvement.

There are two additional aspects of the public consultation process that I would like to discuss. The first is that we need to establish ground rules for this public discourse. I fully understand that elected Members will make statements with political objectives in mind. That is the essence of politics. But we should make every effort to debate in an objective and rational manner. At times, the debate can and should be robust, even heated. But such engagements should not be personal and should not be taken personally.

The second aspect which I would like to discuss is public as opposed to private consultation and feedback. I believe that there is room for both. There are occasions when the Government would gather feedback on a private basis away from the public eye. This is particularly the case when providers of the feedback may not wish to be identified with the point made or that confidentiality of the policy is crucial, for example, in formulating the Budget. But public consultation and feedback is, I believe, becoming increasingly important. And it is in the latter case that Parliament can be more effectively used as a channel for such debate.

I would now like to discuss briefly my views on the first part of the motion, that of a less adversarial Parliament. I do not believe that our present system is adversarial. I agree with the Member who spoke just now on this matter. If anything, apart from a few isolated incidents, Parliament is conducted in a very civil manner. The expression of differences of opinion should not, in my mind, be considered adversarial. Parliamentary debates should be encouraged to emphasise the objective to give all, and especially the best ideas, the opportunity to be heard. While I agree that I would not like to see a situation where there are fist-fights and hair-pulling in Parliament, I also do not envisage that this situation is likely to arise in this House in the near future. Hence, while I am fully supportive that the motion should be debated in the House and for which reason I have supported the motion to be debated, and I am also fully supportive of the second clause of the motion, I am unable to give my full support to the first clause regarding the less adversarial system of Parliament.

In conclusion, allow me to reiterate my argument. The telescoping of the economic growth process in Singapore is unprecedented in world history. What took the developed countries 60 to 70 years to achieve, Singapore has achieved in 30 years, half that time. However, while the economic hardware and the material side have developed rapidly, the software, including social and political institutions, has been slower to evolve. As a result, I believe that there is this disequilibrium situation of excess demand where public policy discussion is concerned and, hence, in this context, I believe that Parliament can be more effectively used as a major channel for such consultation and feedback.

Mr Wong Kan Seng: Sir, let me commend Mr Rai for moving this motion and Dr Lee for supporting him. Both have indeed made very illuminating speeches in this pretty late hour. I am sure we agree with much of what they say. And I must say personally that there are parts which I do not agree. I will talk about the parts which I agree first and, later on, I will explain the parts which I do not agree. When I get to that part of my speech, I hope that he can understand my explanation and accept what I say and agree with me, then we can reach consensus. Even if he does not want to agree with me and there is no consensus, I hope he will not consider me as an adversary.

Mr Shriniwas Rai: Certainly not, Sir.

Mr Wong Kan Seng: Neither will I be adversarial.

Sir, we inherited the British Westminster system of government and made it work. Mr Rai rightly observed just now and he quoted examples of many other countries, particularly the ex-British colonies, which tried and failed. Indeed, many of these ex-colonies went through many constitutions since their independence, from a parliamentary system of government with a Prime Minister to a Presidential system, then military coup and perhaps a Presidential form of government, maybe another coup again, and so on and so forth. I think we can see quite a few of these examples in Africa, even today. And there is no end to the problem for them. But Singapore has succeeded so far because we are willing to adapt and evolve the system that we have inherited according to the changing social and political circumstances and according to the imperatives of our multi-racial, multi-lingual and multi-religious society.

If we did not modify our electoral system, say, in 1988, today, we would not have GRCs and perhaps we would have an under representation of minority races in this Parliament. And if, in 1984, we had listened to Mr Jeyaretnam and agreed with him not to have the NCMP system, then we would not see Mr Jeyaretnam here today, and we would not have the NCMP system.

Indeed, in 1984 and even before that, the Government envisaged that some of our people may want to see more heat and debate in Parliament. They wanted to see the Opposition heckling the Government, criticising it, commenting on its policies and so on. That is why in 1984, the Government amended the Constitution and also our Parliamentary Elections Act to provide for the NCMP scheme. So we have the NCMP here today because I do not think you can find anywhere else in the world that an opposition, having contested in an election and lost, can find a place in Parliament to criticise the very party that it was opposing.

Indeed, had the Opposition parties been really effective in the last 17 years Mr Jeyaretnam came to Parliament in 1981, Mr Chiam was elected in 1984 and Mr Jeyaretnam re-elected in 1984 today we would not have NMPs sitting in this House and giving us suggestions, constructive advice and the various contributions they have made in our debates.

Dr Lee's analogy of supply and demand in economics is very interesting. Indeed, I fully agree with her that there is some pressure in some quarters for more discourse on public policy and therefore more people may want to speak up. In my basic understanding of economics, I thought there is a way to clear the supply and demand, and that is the price mechanism. Perhaps in politics, some people may think that there is no price to be paid to be in Parliament. I think there is. If people are really keen on a public discourse in Parliament, then the price to be paid is to contest in the elections. Win the election, and then they can be in Parliament and, hopefully, contribute to the debates in this Parliament.

If they do not want to, we have the NMP scheme and it has found a way for people, to contribute to public policy discourse in Parliament. But that does not mean that if other people want to make their views heard and do not want to be in Parliament, there is no place at all to make their views heard. There are many channels which I will elaborate. In fact, the two Members have talked about how people who want to comment on public policy could do so earlier on.

So there is a price. In fact, there is even a price for the electorate for that matter. If the electorate really feels that there is a strong demand for some voices to be heard which will be a counter to what the Government would do or that Government policies were not to their liking, then the price they pay would be to vote in the opposition. Then they would have a new party, new government, and that is it. If they do not want to pay too much of a price, then they vote in some Opposition Members. But I think it is very difficult for the electorate to arrange for that. So, happily, the PAP has been elected time and again, because the people really want the PAP to be the government, although they do want some Opposition voices in Parliament. That is how Mr Jeyaretnam found his way into Parliament because of some unhappiness at that time in Anson, and we had Potong Pasir and subsequently at other places. And today, we are back to two elected Opposition Members. I think people knew what elected Opposition Members can really do in Parliament.

Sir, Mr Rai rightly also observed that we have built up a political system that is honest and free from corruption. But I think we should not forget that this was not the situation that prevailed in Singapore in the 1950s or even up to the early 1960s. I remember, as a young boy, I followed my mother to the Siong Lim market in Jalan Besar. My mother used to tell me that if a hawker inspector in the 1950s needed food provisions, then all that person needed to do was to drive his car to the back lane of the market, leave his car unlocked and come back to find his car filled with provisions and his marketing needs for the week. That was how it was. Corruption was rife from the top and all the way down to very junior officials.

So we have more or less, in fact, I would say almost, eradicated this problem. But if we look around us, I think it seems to be quite natural to have corruption. And here in Singapore, we are lucky that we have worked at it and made sure that this system does not prevail and we must continue to work hard to preserve this value.

Mr Rai is also right to say that it is not the Constitution or any law that determines the success of our parliamentary democracy. Indeed, it is not any law or constitution that determines the success of any institution. It is not just Parliament. We need people who are honest, people with integrity, people with the nation's interest at heart, in order to make sure that we have a good and clean system. So no number of independent commissions of inquiry or independent council or Ombudsman will make sure that we will have a good, clean and corrupt-free system. No, not at all. But if the Workers' Party were to be in charge today, I think we would have lots of that. Unfortunately, Mr Jeyaretnam is not here to hear this.

In our system, we recognise people with ability. In this meritocratic system, we reward them according to their performance and they get promoted and hence they move up. And that is the social ladder that we provide for all Singaporeans, ie, the equal opportunity that we provide in our system, and we have done that. We have seen many examples of people who have moved up from the lower rungs of society to high positions in Government or in the private sector. I think there are also many examples of these people in this House. So I think this system has worked and we must ensure that it continues to work.

Mr Rai said that the younger generation of Singaporeans may want to emulate the Western style of democracy. Well, I have just recounted some examples of how some restless electorate wants to see an Opposition in Parliament. But I think most Singaporeans are sensible. They are rational. They know what it is at stake and what is in their interest. And that is why even though they may want to have heated debates in this House, they know that they cannot just have people here who would criticise or make comments without really contributing to the formulation of good policies. But during an election rally, I am sure Members know that in the last election, for example, thousands of people turned up at election rallies to listen to the Opposition attack and criticise the Government, poked fun at the Government, our policies and so on. I think the people just lapped it up. They enjoyed it. They went there for an entertainment and at the end of the day, when they cast their vote, they know what is at stake when they give that vote to the person whom they voted for.

That reminds me of another part of my young childhood. I used to enjoy going to the street corner and watch at the koyok man, the Chinese medicine man, showing off his skills like swallowing steel ball-bearings. Or he may have an iron rod to poke his neck until it bends, and he also carried a drum. At the end of the day, he would say, "This is my koyok. This is my medicine that can really make you feel good. And if something happens to you, this can be a palliative to your problems." I think many people went there for a good show, enjoyed it and some may sympathise with the guy because he would pass his hat round and they would just drop some coins in there. And some people actually bought that story and bought the koyok.

So it is like election rallies. People turned up at election rallies, listened to the speeches, enjoyed and lapped them up. They went home, quite happy, but when they cast their vote, they did not buy that story. But still, about a quarter, maybe 30%, maybe more in some cases, of those people who turned up there bought that story. They did buy that koyok of Opposition speakers.

Mr Rai, Dr Lee and Mr Sin Boon Ann talked about the various channels that we have opened up in the last many years to allow people to speak up and to contribute to our nation building, to contribute to our policy formulation and so on. Indeed, there have been many such mechanisms and channels and we can, of course, open up more if people want it. And the latest one is the S21 Committee in which two Members here are actively participating and others too have been asked whether they have views and whether there are people who may have views and who may be interested in taking part in the dialogues. And all these channels are outside Parliament and certainly people are most welcome to give all their views. During the 1985 recession, we formed an Economic Committee in 1986 to look into the measures that we needed to take and to devise a new economic strategy for Singapore, and many Singaporeans took part in it. Now, we also have a similar committee and again a lot of Singaporeans are involved. Similarly, the various committees and councils we have had in 1988, 1989, 1991, for example, to write up the Agenda for Action or The Next Lap or the various Advisory Councils' Reports on the Aged, on Youth, on Culture, etc, have involved lots and lots of Singaporeans. And those were not just reports studied and filed away, and left to dry on the shelf. They were reports prepared by earnest and serious people who had spent time and the Government had also spent a lot of time going through each of the recommendations. Eventually, when these recommendations were adopted, we spent money implementing them. And, indeed, today, you see the results of many of these suggestions which have been implemented by the Government.

Indeed, as the Prime Minister said last year, he wanted more Singaporeans to participate and there are channels for them to do so. Mr Rai has quoted the Prime Minister and I shall not go into it.

Sir, all these measures that we have taken are really for the good governance of Singapore. I do not agree with Mr Rai when he said that we have been subjected to heavy criticisms from the Western press or media on our system of governance. I think not. Indeed, they have praised us, not that we need the praise or we want the praise in order to do a good job. But people looked at our system when they came here, and they went away and say, "Yes, this is a serious place. This is a place where people make decisions based on rational arguments and they implement what they say." So they went away and said the system of governance here is correct and I think we should continue to uphold the system.

Regardless of whether there is an opposition in Parliament or not, the PAP Government will continue to devise policies with the interest of the people at heart. It is not a question of staying in power. If it is so, we will not have devised the Elected President system, for example, to check our power. Where in the world can you find a ruling Government devising a system to check its own power? But we did it, because we believe that it is in the interest of Singaporeans that, who knows, some day a profligate government may be elected into power and it just squanders away all the hard earned reserves that we have accumulated over the years. So we should now start a process to ensure that the reserves that we have would not be squandered.

Mr Rai quoted the example of the judiciary system and asked us to take a leaf from it. He said that since the judiciary has evolved and been made less adversarial, it has been more consultative and it allows mediation and conciliation, and so on, Parliament should follow suit. I think there is a big difference between what the judiciary does and what Parliament does. What the judiciary does is that it settles disputes for parties. If there is no dispute between parties, then nobody needs to go to the courts. But because there is a dispute, whether it is a dispute between an individual and an individual, or an individual against a corporation, or a corporation against a corporation, or even a corporation against the Government, they need a third party to help settle the dispute. Before they eventually go to court, they get into a process of consultation, mediation or conciliation on the points that they agree, and the parts for which they cannot agree, the judge will listen to both sides of the story and eventually give his decision and verdict.

But the role of Parliament and the role of the Government are very different. It is a not a question of dispute between the opposition and the PAP. It is a question of the Government setting out policies and implementing them, or the Government presenting Bills to be passed in Parliament into law and having a full debate of these, and eventually the legislature decides, "Yes, that is the kind of law we should have". Parliament votes on the Bills, and we implement them, and the court will then interpret those laws. At the end of the term, it is the people who will decide whether this Government has done well or not. It is not for Mr Speaker or Mr Deputy Speaker to say, "Good policy. I approve or disapprove, or I reject it, or this is my decision." No. It is for the people. The people will give that verdict. So it is very different from the judiciary and we therefore cannot emulate the judiciary in following a consultative, mediatory, conciliatory approach to our disputes. Because that is actually not a dispute between the Government and the opposition. It is a question of different policies which I will touch on afterwards.

Indeed, in our Parliament, the way we have conducted our business has been well reported. Not that we need to seek accolades, but Members may have read of these reports by consultants and other international agencies. My colleague, the Minister of State quoted PERC, IMD, WEF Reports, etc. They speak very well of our Parliament. I would not want to take up too much of Members' time but let me just quote one short passage from what PERC said in their survey in July last year:

`The standard of debate [ie, in Parliament] is arguably much better than in many countries in Asia. In fact, by rating the Singapore legislature as the best in the region, the respondents [these are businessmen] in our survey appear to be saying that these factors [earlier on it talked about other factors such as the quality of the police and the quality of our judiciary] were more important to them than the lack of a strong opposition able to act as a check on the government.'

It went on to say:

`Sometimes, PAP backbenchers also play the role of a de facto political opposition, bringing up issues that in other countries would fall more naturally within the purview of the government's opponents.'

That is what is said of this House. So we conduct our business in a dignified and business-like manner and in seriousness, not one where, as the Member has observed in other countries, slippers, shoes, or even water guns are being thrown or fired at one another.

Mr Rai specifically talked about the contempt or public perception that some PAP Members have on the opposition. I do not agree with that. We cannot give respect to a person unless that person really earns it. So respect has to be earned. Has success got into our heads or not, just because we have been returned overwhelmingly by the people? I think not. After every general election, the Prime Minister will invariably send a letter to all the PAP MPs (he is responsible only for PAP MPs), and he will remind them of what their responsibilities are. Let me quote from a letter which he wrote to all the PAP MPs on 9th January 1997 after the last general elections. He said:

`Victory must not go into our heads. The responsibilities we have to shoulder require us to be humble, not arrogant. Reach out to all your constituents, work hard to win over those who did not support you this time. Seek to understand their aspirations and their difficulties. Address their concerns where you can and meet their needs for better local facilities. Consolidate your position by working harder and winning the confidence and trust. Start working now. For the next general election in 2002, use the next five years to show what we can do to make our people's lives better.'

So all our PAP MPs know their responsibilities. In fact, we have always told the people and even the opposition that we do not just prepare for the next election just before or during the nine days of the campaign. We prepare for the next election the very day we win our last general election.

Mr Rai suggested that one way to help us evolve into a less adversarial Parliament is to consult the opposition in Parliament whenever major policies are discussed. I do not agree with that. I will tell him why. Parliament is not a forum or a conference room where we host seminars and dialogues. There we can exchange views. We can have IPS, Roundtable discussions, Socrates' Circle, or we can have "Time Square Society", whatever it is for such purposes. But Parliament is not this kind of organisation. Parliament is a serious place. It is a place where MPs who are elected by the people come and contribute to policy making and for them to scrutinise the policies. These include the PAP MPs. They will scrutinise Government policies and make sure that these policies are good for the people and the nation and in our interest. After winning every election, the party in power, in this case the PAP, will put forth its policies and programmes to seek the support of the legislature so that eventually when they are implemented, it will win again at the next election.

What is the role of the opposition here? The role of the opposition in Parliament will be to poke holes, maybe even worse, to criticise and to tear down all these policies that we want to implement, or even to question the very need for these policies. That is their role. They will attack us. If they do not do their job, and if they support us, reach consensus with us, then they are not the opposition. So the very nature of party politics that we have inherited, even so in Britain now, will ensure that the proceedings in this House will always be adversarial. There is no running away from that. We can be civil. But civil does not mean that we will not be adversarial.

Indeed, if Members look back at the Hansard in the 50s and early 60s when we had an opposition, there were far more bickerings and noisy and nasty debates in this House. As Mr Rai said, the opposition, even till today, will oppose for the sake of opposition, not just because the policy is no good, but even if the policy is good, it will also oppose it. So there is no reason why the PAP Government should consult the opposition in this House whenever we discuss our policies. The only place and time to really debate policies is when the House debates the Bills, motions or statements. Then both sides can properly scrutinise these statements or policies and argue their case and try to convince each other, if not, at least definitely to convince the electorate that "my view is better than yours". That is the nature of party politics. There is no way that we can avoid being adversarial.

In any case, even if we want to consult them, I do not think there is much that we can get out of them because they are just bereft of ideas. We heard more than an hour of Mr Jeyaretnam raking up an old issue. He was so predictable. If you listened to Prof. Ho Peng Kee, you know that he has got a speech prepared and all the points that Mr Jeyaretnam brought up have been anticipated. He was so predictable that we know what he was going to say. So there were no surprises. What is new from the opposition? We know that there would not be anything new.

Indeed, should we only consult the three opposition Members here, or two elected ones? Should we? Are they the only opposition voices in Singapore? Certainly not. Because we have the PKMS, the SDP, the NSP and many others. Since they are also the opposition, should the Government also not consult these opposition parties in order to carry consensus seeking to the extreme? It seems logical to do so. But I do not think we should do so. Because, in the first place, these people have not earned their place here. Secondly, even when they are out there, I do not think they can even look after themselves. For example, where is the SDP now? They had three Members in this House before the last election. Two were not re-elected because their performance in the previous five years had shown up their performance in this House as well as in their constituencies. Mr Chiam left the SDP long before the election and today he is still here, of course, but he has another party, another platform, another organisation. But what about the rest? Some cannot even look after their own affairs, what about being consulted on national affairs. I think it is not fair to put that burden on them.

Indeed, if there are any contributions or improvements to be made to policies, the opposition should make them here in this House. Then we can debate and reach the best conclusions. If their views are constructive, useful and relevant, the Government will acknowledge, accept and implement them. But most of the time, I would say practically all the time, we will not find a shred of it that is useful. Some of them may be helpful in setting us thinking about how to overcome some of their problems or some of their objections. But we know that they have not got the slightest idea as to how to make this place better. I also do not think the opposition parties will help reach consensus in this House. Because, by doing so, they come to agreement with us, and they will diminish their role and the electorate will say, "No use having the opposition because they always agree with the PAP." What about the PAP? Supposing the PAP were to agree with the opposition all the time, then the people will say, "Why do we need the PAP? I might as well vote for the opposition." But let me assure Members that that would not be the case.

Indeed, if we have a debate on, say, a Bill that goes to a Select Committee, I think the proceedings of those debates will be less adversarial, which opposition MPs and even PAP MPs will concede, because they are outside for the scrutiny of the public and the media. But the moment we have the public sitting here in the gallery and the press reporting this event, I think both sides, the opposition and the Government, will give their contending views and eventually try to convince the public that their view is much better. This is what party politics is all about. It is inherent in our system because different parties have different ideas, different ideals, different policies and different programmes. Indeed, if they are not different, then there will be no party politics to speak of. The layout of these seats, for example, already shows that we are adversarial. Now, of course, I do not want to be adversarial with you but that is the origin of it. It is adversarial.

As regards other suggestions by Mr Rai to enlarge the NCMP scheme or have some percentage of this House be elected by proportional representation, I think they are not workable, especially if his intention is to have a less adversarial Parliament. Just one example of an NCMP, we know that it is already very adversarial. Imagine if we have more NCMPs in this House, I think the mood and atmosphere in this House will be much more adversarial. If we were to have a percentage of our MPs here represented on proportional representation, I think that will also not be good for us. Why? Because then different cause parties, different interest groups, different segments of the society will then form parties to appeal to a certain segment of the people in order to be elected in this House. This will then spawn all kinds of groups and groupings that would not be good for the interest of our nation. So we should not tinker with this electoral system that we now have. In fact, if I look at the contributions made by NMPs and the way they debate policies, even if they do not agree with the Government, I think they are very constructive and very useful. It is a lesson for the Opposition. With their presence, I see really very little need for NCMPs to be here to contribute to the debate in this House.

To sum up, Sir, while I note Mr Rai's honourable intention to make this House less adversarial, I do not agree with his proposals, particularly the ones that he suggested that we consult the Opposition or to enlarge the NCMP scheme or to have proportional representation, because these will do us no good.

So I do not support his motion in that respect. I cannot just vote partly for it and the other part against it. I say that just in case, and lest that people in future look at the Hansard think that we should evolve that way and be less adversarial. Let us not be misunderstood. We simply do not agree with his approach. It would not happen. The lesson from the British is that they have been talking about having a less adversarial system for years. I went to ask the Librarian to help me research some articles. There were piles of articles written on the British Parliament and how it is doing and how it serves people's interests and whether it should not be less adversarial, etc. Till today, after years of debate, they have not come to a consensus. I do not think they will.

Outside Parliament, indeed, the Government will continue with its consultation, consensus building process to get views, canvass views, feedback, suggestions, ideas from Singaporeans who want to contribute through various means, incorporate them wherever possible, feasible, practicable, and we will also continue to co-opt individuals to serve in the Government, in the statutory boards, in our committees, in our councils, and so on, so that these people can also take part in the decision-making process of the Government. One does not have to be part of Government but one can be, as a private individual, sit in our statutory boards, in our Economic Committees, etc., and one's views will still be valued. So the Government will continue to do that. But while the Prime Minister has talked about a consultative, participative process, let us not forget that when the time comes to make firm decisions because of the urgency of the matter, because of the peculiarity of the subject, the Government will not hesitate to make these firm decisions without consultation with the people. I think that is the duty of the Government, that is, to decide in the best interest of the people and when there is no time, we just have to do it, and we will do it. In fact, that is what the people expect of a strong, just and fair Government, which is what the PAP is all about during the last few decades.

The test of the effectiveness of this Government really, as Mr Rai suggested, is whether it has improved the living standards of the people, whether it has improved life for the people. Whether Government has done well or not depends on whether its policies are good for the people, and the people will decide. Indeed, the people decided, election after election, since 1959 that what the PAP Government did, and is doing, for them is good for them. And that is why we are here. Singaporeans indeed can be and are justifiably proud of the achievements of Singapore, despite our size, and Singapore does stand tall among the community of nations.

Mdm Claire Chiang See Ngoh: Sir, concepts such as consultation, consensus, conciliation - I heard a lot of it today - are good words essentially, so is the objective to evolve a less adversarial parliamentary system a desirable political end.

But is it a goal which everyone agrees on? For some, this motion may be irrelevant because they regard Parliament as a venue for vigorous debate, where adversarial relationships are, in fact, healthy. Others may believe that the evolution of a political system should create a broad middle-ground of Singaporeans sharing common political views than adversarial ones, leading naturally to the adoption of a less adversarial parliamentary system.

Whichever is the preferred approach, and I see both approaches here, when differences of opinions do intensify and conflict is impending on a particular policy, it is the government of the day which makes the final decision. So whether we have a more adversarial or more consensual parliamentary system, when it comes to the crunch, the ruling Party - manifested by the Government - will call the shots. This, to me, is obvious.

Therefore, I see the substance behind this motion is not about changes in the parliamentary system. It is a call for greater tolerance for different, and even opposing, views during parliamentary debate. Of course, there are areas of improvement which can make this House a more vibrant venue for policy discourse. I remember Dr Lily Neo in one interview said a lot of consultation and implementation, checks and feedback are carried outside of this House, not within this House. So I think this call for tolerance requires all political parties, big or small, mainstream or opposition, to create space for one another, and to express their views freely, and adopt a "gentlemanly" (maybe I should say here "lady-like") attitude to agree to disagree without one having to be right and the other to be wrong. We need to recognise the world is not just black or white, but mainly shades of grey.

How is this consultation achieved? While there are numerous dialogues between the Government and the electorate, increasingly educated Singaporeans wish to be included in the conceptualisation stage before a policy is decided. Too often, a policy is already decided and feedback sessions are perceived as just rubber-stamping sessions. Consultation is thus often limited to minor tinkering, with no consideration for views which may be more fundamentally different. But I agree that I have seen the MPs here work very hard in their constituencies. They gather hard facts and manage grassroots inputs in a very pragmatic fashion. I am sure, some of them even meander policy constraints and bureaucratic politics and manage grassroots issues in a very effective way.

But there is a joke that consensus is when you agree with me. If we are to achieve true consensus, we must recognise that it takes a lot of time as opposing positions have to be discussed and re-discussed until all parties slowly grope and gravitate towards a true consensus. The process is as significant as the goals.

Sir, I believe that the goals of consultation, consensus and conciliation are based on values which are already traditional to our societies. Consensus can only be achieved where the frame of reference is based on communitarian needs and the spirit of compromise. This basically means that the individual is important as part of a group or society rather than the notion that the individual is the centrepiece of all social actions. I believe that, in Singapore, these values have been entrenched and therefore we do have the fundamental prerequisites of a consensual society.

I would caution here though that we must not use consensual politics to discourage open debate and dissent. The Government and all MPs must constantly ask ourselves: are our dominant values and institutions truly representative of the society's views?

MPs are tasked to identify the issues of convergence and conflict of Singaporeans and to present their divergent views to this House. It is interesting to note that the Minister earlier on said that party politics is by function necessarily adversarial. But our MP, Dr Tan Cheng Bock, said MPs of this House are not. The process of arriving at these two different conclusions, I think, is worthy of reflection.

My point is that the attitude of agreeing to disagree without fear of being reprimanded or sanctioned has to be nurtured if we are to give our younger MPs the confidence to broaden the political agenda and the boundaries of expressions, thus enabling them to safely flex and test their own political muscles within Parliament and outside this House. Singapore in the next century needs PAP leaders who are good listeners, nimble thinkers, persuasive communicators and effective grassroots networkers. Such leadership is only honed by years of internship in consultation and conciliation skills to reach consensus among contending stakeholders in and outside the House.

I support the idea of increasing the role of Government Parliamentary Committees to reach out to a wider network of Singaporeans and truly nurture the channels of policy articulation and feedback inputs.

Sir, a less adversarial stance must begin, first, by Members in this House adopting specific norms of collaboration. In the workshop which I chaired on "voluntarism and professionalism" in IPS Civil Society seminar, we captured the norms of consultation in an acronym called IDEA. That was in response to BG Yeo's call for Singapore idea. The "I" stands for Information to actors involved; "D" for Dialogue between state and community; "E" for Enablement characterised by a culture of initiative which the state must facilitate and nurture; and lastly, "A" for Access to state agencies and resources. These norms are for me essential in our effort to harness State-society synergy in this House and outside of this Parliament to avoid confrontational politics and strengthen civic engagement towards goals of consultation, consensus and conciliation.

Mr Zulkifli Bin Baharudin: Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, it is late into the day, so let me make it short. First, I disagree with Mr Rai on the proposal to have a less adversarial parliamentary system because I believe it is in the nature of Parliament to be engaging, in fact, adversarial. It is through passionate debate, clashes of ideas, that out of it may merge a decision that I think is in the best interest of the majority of our population. However, I support and agree with Mr Rai that the system of government and stance must and can certainly embody the values of consultation, consensus and conciliation, and tolerance, as stated by Mdm Claire Chiang.

I would like to thank Mr Shriniwas Rai for his references to encouragement of Roundtable which is a citizen non-partisan policy discussion group. On behalf of the Roundtable, let me say in this House that we believe there exist in Singapore opportunities where ordinary citizens can participate in influencing and shaping national policies. But this mission to have unrestrained objective and impartial feedback is and will always be a continuous journey. It is in the nature of debate and discussion, even amongst members of the Roundtable, that there will be disagreements and arguments, both critical and passionate. Certainly, it takes bold initiative and courage to express one's views in public because it is only natural that if one's views are made public, rebuttals, even robust ones, and serious engagements are to be expected. It is a fact and quite natural at this stage that many Singaporeans have fears about expressing their views. The situation must be improved. But I must say that the environment for expressing one's views is improving. It would take time, confidence and certainly a clear conscience, both on the part of civil societies and Government, to nurture and develop a friendly and cordial environment to achieve consensus, consultation and conciliation in decision-making.

Mr Zainul Abidin Rasheed: Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, may I just add to the discussion by saying that there is an Islamic saying which says that differences of opinion can be a blessing, but not so much the type of differences of opinion that can tear the society apart. In fact, what matters is how we manage those differences. So in that context, Sir, I believe that, yes, there can be more consultation, more conciliation and even more debate. If adversarial means that we have less deliberate finding of fault or less putting up of motions that waste people's time, where hundreds of people have to listen to one hour of old record being played and replayed, then I say, "Let's be less adversarial." But if it means a contest of ideas, and if that is understood as being more adversarial, then I say, "Let's be more adversarial" in the sense that we have more contests of ideas, more exchanges of opinions and let us decide based on what is constructive and what is good for the community.

On that score, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I would like to say that this motion, of course, has different meanings for different people, just as the Minister's understanding of us being necessarily adversarial as against Dr Tan Cheng Bock's opinion that we are not adversarial. I think the answer lies in between.

Mr Tay Beng Chuan (Nominated Member): (In Mandarin): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, Singapore is basically a multi-racial, multi-cultural and multi-religious vulnerable small nation. In the early days of our nation building, we went through a lot of difficulties and appeared to face a very bleak prospect of survival, because we were not adequately conditioned to stand on our own to build up the nation. In spite of that, Singapore remains undaunted in the face of peril and has overcome many difficulties during the past 33 years of nation building. That we not only survive, but also grow and prosper, is definitely not a mere "economic miracle" as described by the academics, or to be taken for granted.

The success of Singapore is basically due to the fact that we have shared and cherished a very fundamental but essentially important value in the process of nation building, that is, the key to survival is racial harmony and national unity. Because of this common conviction, our people, regardless of race, have been steadfast in giving the present government their strong support through successive elections under the democratic parliamentary electoral system, notwithstanding the numerous debates and trials and tribulations. This has ensured that there is sustained political stability to our country, and that Government policies and measures can be implemented smoothly to achieve the desired results. This kind of parliamentary democracy coupled with the shared value of our people has been consistently upheld and realized to the benefit of our people, thereby strengthening the confidence of both our people and foreign investors. This is the key factor to our success.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, racial harmony and national unity can only be maintained through close rapport and seamless cooperation and not adversary or confrontation, between the Government and the people. The relationship between the Government and the people is like that of the lips and teeth. There is a Chinese saying, "When the lips are gone, the teeth will be in trouble." Through the democratic process of election, we give the Government a mandate and therefore we should have full confidence in the Government. At the same time, we must try to understand the rationale of the various Government policies, and give the Government our support for the proper implementation of such policies. On the other hand, the Government, acting under the mandate of the people, has the obligation to take the trouble to explain the various important policies to the people through Parliament and the various administrative channels, with an enlightened and consultative attitude. At the same time, they should listen open-mindedly to the views of the people, and make the adjustments to the policies where necessary taking into consideration the feedback of the people. In this way, the policies formulated will not only serve the interests of the people but also have their greater support.

Over the past 33 years, the Government has accumulated a wealth of experience in governing the country and, in terms of development strategy, it has always adopted its own unique approach and is full of ideas in tackling major problems and it should value this important asset. Over the years, we can see that the Government is always full of confidence and has remained undaunted in the face of a crisis, whenever an unpopular but necessary policy is implemented or some measures have to be taken in response to changes in current situation. As a result, many people begin to adopt the attitude of "you do things, I am rest assured", thereby leaving everything to the Government and refraining from actively participating in discussions with the Government on national policies. To the democratic system of our country, this is not very encouraging.

There is a saying: "even the wise are not always free from errors". If, after winning the mandate from the people, the Government is to become arrogant and supercilious, refusing to listen to the views of the people and bent on having its own way in the implementation of national policies, or wilfully takes suppressive action or rejects diverging views, then this will not only cause impediment to the implementation of the policy, but also result in the loss of the people's confidence in the Government. In this way, our spirit of cooperation between the political leaders and the people and our strength of unity will be undermined, resulting in crisis and disaster to the country. I believe that this is what the Government and the people would always want to avoid.

As Mr Shriniwas Rai has mentioned, we have inherited the parliamentary democracy from the British. We are also building up or have built up on this basis the necessary changes and adjustments in keeping with our prevailing local conditions, including the introduction of the Elected Presidency, the creation of NCMP and NMP. Outside Parliament, under the leadership of our Prime Minister, the Government has, among others, set up the Feedback Unit and strengthened the communication channels with the grassroots organisations and the CDCs to enhance the cooperative relationships between the people and the Government. The Government has also opened up more communication channels and conducted several dialogue sessions to gather feedback from the people on our major policies and development strategies.

Since we have already developed this healthy and sound parliamentary democracy system and the communication channels to strengthen rapport and cooperation better between the Government and the people, why should we discuss this motion at all in this Parliament? Are we "moaning and groaning without being ill" or entertaining imaginary or groundless fears unnecessarily?

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, Mr Shriniwas Rai moves this motion at a time when we are being affected by the current financial crisis. I think it is well intentioned. It has far-reaching significance. Whether a system is good or bad may depend on certain objective circumstances. A good system cannot be taken for granted or treated as eternally reliable. In this turbulent and competitive age, the results we have achieved through our past efforts can easily be wiped out overnight because of changes in circumstances and the prevailing factors. If we adopt an indifferent attitude, we may unwittingly drift into either of two extremes: one where the people are indifferent and apathetic to Government policies, leaving everything to the Government, and completely oblivious of whether the Government is bent on doing things its own way when formulating and implementing new policies; or the other, where the people are consistently confrontational against the Government. Whatever policy the Government formulates or implements, they will query and use every possible means to find fault with the Government, and attack it in order to embarrass and tear the Government apart. If we allow this trend to set in and to grow, it will become a very corruptive social influence and may mark the beginning of our decline. Therefore, we must remain very alert. In a moment of crisis, we must treasure and protect our parliamentary democracy system.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, to prevent our people, particularly the younger generation, from moving into either one of these two extremes, we should start from Parliament itself to openly and frankly discuss national issues constructively and extensively without being personal and without discrimination. It is only in this way that we will be able to give full play to the function of Parliament. I hope that my parliamentary colleagues will do their homework to reflect the views of the people and give their constructive criticisms so as to ensure that Government policies can be better formulated and implemented.

On the other hand, I also hope that the Ministers themselves will have more patience in listening to the views of MPs. When answering questions, although the Ministers cannot be expected to concede to all our requests, they should at least be receptive and tolerant to the more critical views or constructive suggestions which they might find it difficult to accept at the outset. I hope the Ministers can become more magnanimous and give due consideration to such suggestions put forward by the MPs or ask the officials in their ministries concerned to look into the suggestions and adopt those which are later considered necessary and appropriate. There is a saying that good advice is jarring the ears. The Ministers must always bear this in mind in listening to the people for their views and adopting their suggestions, when appropriate, so as to ensure smooth implementation of Government policies.

Outside Parliament, the Government has spared no effort in promoting its rapport and cooperation with the grassroots organisations. As regards other civic bodies such as the industrial and commercial organisations, I hope that the Government should also treat them with equal importance. The Government should try to open up more communication channels to provide more opportunities for greater interaction and cooperation between the Government and the business community. In terms of economic development, I would appeal to the Government to give the business community more substantive participatory opportunities so as to adopt a more united and cooperative approach to the issues at hand. This will encourage the business community to make greater contributions to our economic development. With this in mind, it will be a positive step on the part of the Government to hold dialogue sessions with the business community before the Budget is formulated every year, to listen to their problems and views to ensure that when the Budget is formulated, it will take into consideration the inputs of the business community, thereby earning their unreserved support. I hope the Government can seriously consider this suggestion.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I support the motion in principle.

Mr Shriniwas Rai: Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I assure you that I will be very brief. I know that it is past dinner time.

Sir, I am grateful to Members who have spoken. Whether they agree or disagree, it is another matter. The fact that they have expressed their opinions, I think, is the most important issue. In keeping with the tradition of the contents of the motion, I have decided, in consultation with my other colleagues, to amend the motion. I would like to delete the words, "less adversarial". Sir, the motion would now read:

`That this House recognises the need to evolve a parliamentary system which will further strengthen the process of consultation, consensus and conciliation.'

Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Rai, could you please put it down on paper?

Mr Shriniwas Rai: I have written it down, Sir. May I pass it to you?

Mr Deputy Speaker: It would mean another debate.

Mr Shriniwas Rai: Sir, I have the liberty to amend my motion at this stage.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Which means that the House has to debate it again.

Mr Shriniwas Rai: Sir, I hope Members would not want to debate the motion again. Perhaps we should listen to the Leader of the House first.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Yes. Mr Wong.

Mr Wong Kan Seng: Sir, in the spirit of consensus seeking, Mr Rai has shown me a note of his intention to amend his motion. Again, do not consider me as an adversary if I disagree with him this time round. Because his motion reads, "That this House recognises the need to evolve a parliamentary system [even without those words that he wanted to take out] which will further strengthen the process of consultation, consensus and conciliation."

Firstly, I do not see Parliament having a need to evolve such a system. As I have explained, this Parliament is for the Opposition and the ruling party to debate policies and programmes openly so that each side can present their ideas, programmes and policies so that they can win the next election. The contention between political parties is unavoidable. That is why Parliament is adversarial. There may be different degrees of being adversaries. Whether Dr Tan Cheng Bock is right or I am right, it does not really matter. What matters is that in this system that we have, it is necessarily adversarial because different political parties will have different policies and we must disagree. Even if we agree to disagree, we can do it civilly no doubt. But since political parties are there to win elections and to form the government, they would take their respective position.

In so far as other views are concerned, the way we should conduct our business, I agree, yes, we can be civil, we can be consultative, we can be consensus seeking and indeed, as I have noticed that many of the MPs who spoke up were actually NMPs. And the Opposition is conspicuously absent. Not a single one is here! I do not know whether it indicates that they do not support Mr Rai's motion or they simply voted with their feet. I will leave it to you to draw the conclusion.

So whatever it is, whatever amendment that Mr Rai would like to make, particularly the one that he talked about, and his whole motion starts off with recognising the need to be less adversarial, that I cannot support.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Rai, you have the floor.

Mr Shriniwas Rai: Sir, I think I have achieved my objective. I have listened to the Leader. I think there is only one course of action for me to take. I have consulted my colleagues. I will not take any further time of the House and I beg leave to withdraw the motion. [Applause].

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.