VACANCY IN PARLIAMENT (Motion)

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

Mr Low Thia Khiang: I support, Sir.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move,

That this House resolves that in all the circumstances it is only right and proper a Writ should be issued now to fill the vacancy in Parliament created by the resignation of Mr Choo Wee Khiang.

By this motion, Mr Speaker, Sir, I am asking for answers to questions which my Party has asked and which have not been answered. I hope to demonstrate in the time allotted to me the importance of the Government, the party, that is, in Singapore responsible for elections, unlike other countries where they have a National Elections Commission, giving proper and satisfactory reasons for not holding elections. We boast all the time of being accountable, transparent in all our actions. But we see very little of it in practice coming from the Government. As I said, we have asked questions which remain unanswered. We have asked for further clarification. All we get is silence. Sir, I am asking in this House today and hoping that we will get the answers here.

Why is there no by-election for the constituency in Jalan Besar? This is a question that not only my Party has asked, but several Singaporeans have asked. I have been asked by many a person, "Jeyaretnam, do you think there will be a by-election for Jalan Besar?" And even before I could answer them, they say, "There never will, lah. The PAP will not hold a by-election. You know." So, I hope that we will have satisfactory answers if the decision is still not to hold a by-election.

[Mr Deputy Speaker in the Chair]

4.28 pm

Mr Jeyaretnam: The answer to the question on whether there should be or should not be a by-election depends, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, on what we understand to be a Parliamentary system of government, and whether we believe in what we say. That when we proclaim ourselves to be practising a Parliamentary system of government, do we really mean it and do we believe in it or is it merely lip service? May I say that a parliamentary system of government does not consist of having a fine building for Parliament. I do not know how much will be spent on the erection of the new Parliament House. But fine buildings do not equate with a parliamentary system of government.

A parliamentary system of government can only be found in countries where Parliament is encouraged and allowed to play its full role in the parliamentary system of government, and that, as I shall say later, is only possible if every opportunity is given for Parliament to play its role. And the central gem of Parliament is that it is an institution where every voter has a representative in the institution. The parliamentary system requires that in every Parliament there should be a representative, representing every single voter in the land, and if he is denied that right, then it is a mockery of the parliamentary system of government. So, it is essential that every voter be represented in the institution that we call Parliament. And this right, of course, was inherent when, in the 1950s, we chose, as a people, the parliamentary system through the All-Party Delegation to the United Kingdom. That we would prefer to have a parliamentary system of government in preference to any other system of government. We wanted Parliament with representatives elected by the people, every single voter represented in Parliament to be the supreme body. This right was recognised and enacted in the Constitution that was handed to us in 1954, and after that. It recognised that no single voter should remain without a representation in Parliament for any length of time. This right was secured by Articles in the Constitution which required the holding of by-elections to fill any vacancy. You will find that in Article 54 of the Constitution of Malaysia which became our Constitution when we broke away from British rule and went into Malaysia as part of an independent country.

If I may read Article 54 of the Constitution which we, as I said, accepted for ourselves as part of Malaysia:

'Whenever there is a casual vacancy among the Members of either House of Parliament, it shall be filled within 60 days [I repeat, it shall be filled within 60 days] from the date on which it is established that there is a vacancy and an election shall be held.'

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, may I repeat from that Article, "it shall be filled within 60 days . and an election shall be held." That was the Article in the Constitution when we were part of Malaysia. When we came out of Malaysia, that Article was amended, and that was possible because there were not enough Opposition Members in Parliament, probably not a single Opposition Member in Parliament, and substituted by Article 49 of our present Constitution. If I may read the first part of the Article:

'Whenever the seat of a Member, not being a non-constituency Member, has become vacant for any reason other than a dissolution of Parliament, the vacancy shall be filled by election in the manner provided by or under any law relating to Parliamentary elections for the time being in force.' That is all I wish to read from that Article.

May I again point out that whilst this Article removes the requirement of 60 days within which the vacancy had to be filled, it still requires the vacancy to be filled, because the words are "the vacancy shall be filled by election". It is not "may be filled at the discretion of the government or of the ruling party", but "shall be filled". That was ignored by the ruling party after a by-election, which they have never forgotten, which took place in 1981. Previous to that, there were regular by-elections to fill vacancies. But after the by-election on 31st October 1981, suddenly the ruling party woke up to the fact that it would not be in the interest of the party to hold a by-election if it might mean an Opposition Member getting into Parliament. The voters in Anson were denied any representation in Parliament after the Member was forced out and they were told, "Oh, don't worry, we'll have caretaker MPs. We'll have caretakers for you." But you cannot fend off voters with nannies/caretakers. Their constitutional right is a representative in Parliament, chosen by them, not appointed by anyone, but chosen by them. So the Anson voters were denied any representation in Parliament for quite a while from 1986 until the 1988 elections, and that was for 2-2 1/2 years. It was a blatant denial of their rights and a total breach of the parliamentary democracy requirement that every voter should have a representative in Parliament.

Now, it will, of course, be said, "but you have other MPs in Jalan Besar, have you not?" And so they are being represented in Parliament. But are they? And I am referring to the voters in Whampoa where Mr Choo Wee Khiang represented the voters. I know the Workers' Party has never had a GRC, but if I may explain, as I understand the anatomy of the GRC, it is that you merge three or four constituencies into a single group representation constituency. What happens is that the MPs in the previous single constituencies come together and continue to look after their particular constituencies. And so it was the case in Jalan Besar GRC. In 1988, when Jalan Besar GRC was formed, Dr Lee Boon Yang, who was already the MP for Jalan Besar, continued as one of the group MPs for Jalan Besar, and I have no doubt that he was looking after the constituency that he had been representing in Parliament in previous years. Similarly, Mr Sidek Saniff came over from Kampong Glam, when Kampong Glam became part of the group representation constituency. I see Dr Lee is shaking his head. Maybe I have not got it right. But the point is that you continue with the particular constituencies.

In 1991, when Whampoa was added to Jalan Besar GRC, Mr Choo Wee Khiang took the place of Dr Augustine Tan who was the MP for Whampoa. Clearly, there was a delineation. I do not know whether it happens. Members are all shaking their heads, and I do not know how they do it. But, obviously, that must have been the practice.

It has been confirmed by the fact that someone has been appointed to look after the voters in Whampoa. He is to go and advise them and take care of their affairs. They are to have a caretaker. They are to have a man appointed by the ruling party. So they are not to worry. The appointment confirms what I say. But it is not just the Whampoa voters that I am concerned with.

Under the Constitution as introduced by the ruling party itself, Jalan Besar GRC voters are entitled to four MPs in Parliament. That is their constitutional right. But now they have not got four MPs in Parliament. They have only three MPs in Parliament, if you take the voters collectively in Jalan Besar GRC. Is that not a diminution of their constitutional right? I know that Singapore motorists going over the causeway have to have a three-quarter tank. Why should the voters of Jalan Besar be told: "Be content with the three-quarter tank in Parliament. You cannot have a full tank. We will give you a three-quarter tank." Why should they? Is that not a discrimination from the other GRCs which have a full complement of their representatives in Parliament? In failing to provide for a by-election, may I say that the ruling party and the remaining MPs are failing in their primary duty to the voters in Jalan Besar GRC.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, Mr Edmund Burke, the great parliamentarian, in his essay wrote about the primary duty of a Member of Parliament to constituents, and he said that must remain above all the primary concern. Should it not be the primary concern of the MPs in Jalan Besar that their constituents, their voters, have their full rights in Parliament, and not just be content with having a three-quarter representation in Parliament? I say that the remaining MPs have a duty to ensure this if they are to serve the voters in Jalan Besar GRC, let alone the voters in Whampoa. I say to them that if they want to discharge their duty, the only thing they can do is to allow another MP to be elected. If it needs for them to resign and to offer themselves for re-election, that should be done. Their own convenience and the administrative problems that they think may arise should not stand in the way of the rights of the voters.

This refusal to hold a by-election is seen and perceived, not just by the Workers' Party, but by many a Singaporean, as a blatant refusal to give the opposition parties an opportunity to get into Parliament. That is again a total breach of the parliamentary system.

Sir, one Mr Andre Mathiot, writing about the British political system in 1958, had this to say: "If asked to give a single criterion of the democratic Government, I should say that it depended on the status of opposition." An opposition in Parliament and an opposition of sufficient numbers, is essential to a proper working of parliamentary democracy. That is what he is emphasizing: "If I am asked to choose a single criterion, I would say it depended on the status of opposition." So the question that will be asked by visitors to Singapore is: what is the state of the opposition in Singapore today, if you are claiming to be a democratic Government? I am not saying that you should therefore lay out the red carpet for the opposition and just invite them in. What I am saying is that the ruling party should not go out of its way to deny the opposition party an opportunity to get its representatives into Parliament on behalf of citizens who want to see an opposition in Parliament.

Sir, with no disrespect to Members, may I say that no amount of Government Backbenchers asking questions of Ministers or no amount of NMPs are a substitute for opposition. So this denial of the opportunity to opposition parties to further the cause of democracy in Singapore by giving them an opportunity to have further representation in Parliament is a blatant denial of the Government's often claim that we are a parliamentary democracy. It is the same as the denial to the opposition parties outside Parliament, the refusal to let them have their meetings, the refusal for them to publicly address the people, the refusal for them to undertake any political activity without getting a licence first. They are all deliberate hindrances to the advancement of the parliamentary democracy system in Singapore. But the worst of it, of course, is to deny through extra-parliamentary means the opposition parties obtaining representation in Parliament. I say that is "extra-parliamentary" because the Constitution speaks quite clearly that they should be allowed. You have to have a by-election to fill any vacancy and that means an opportunity for the opposition parties to take part in it.

So it is for two reasons. One, for the rights of the voters in Jalan Besar GRC in their interest, and second in the national interest of the country that the Government should consider very seriously whether it is right to continue denying the voters and the people in Singapore the right to have representation in Parliament. I will deal briefly with the answers given by the Prime Minister. I am sorry that he is not here to answer these questions. After all, it is his Ministry which is responsible for holding elections. That is another thing. It breaches the system of parliamentary democracy if the holding of elections is left entirely in the hands of the Ministry, and that is the Prime Minister's Ministry.

One reason given by the Prime Minister appears to be that a by-election would distract the nation from the task of economic recovery. We could not understand what he was saying. That it would distract the nation from its task of economic recovery seems to us a no answer to our question. So we asked: would you please explain what you are saying? Are you saying that if you held a by-election, all economic activity would come to an end? That people will no longer do any business? People would not go to work? The Stock Exchange would be closed? And Singapore would be at a standstill? It has only got to be stated to be dismissed. So that cannot be a valid reason. It does not stand up. So we asked: could you explain? We have never heard from him. I hope we will hear today, from whoever is replying, the true reason for this refusal to hold a by-election for Jalan Besar GRC. Is it because - and I am asking this seriously, could we have an answer to it - the ruling Party fears defeat? If that is so, then may I say it does not do the ruling Party any credit. It will be dismissed by the electorate as being a totally irresponsible party, putting its party's interest above the country's interest.

In 1992, Mr Deputy Speaker, the Prime Minister, partly in answer to the questions that were asked as to why the general election held in 1991 was brought forward, and whether it was to keep me out, because I was still disqualified, only waiting for another two months for the period to run out, decided that he would hold a by-election in 1992. Unfortunately, we were unable to go into it for reasons which had been explained. And we were taunted by remarks that we chickened out. May I ask: is the PAP chickening out this time? If the PAP is not chickening out, then why are we not having a by-election?

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, just as in the case of Anson, the general elections, if this Government decides to go its full term under the Constitution, elections will not take place for another two-and-a-half years. So for two-and-a-half years the voters in Whampoa will not have their man chosen by them. May I return to that? I have no doubt that when they canvassed in Jalan Besar GRC, it must have been Mr Choo Wee Khiang who went round the homes in Whampoa district asking the voters to vote for him, albeit as a member of a team, unless, I am told, "No, we all four went round." But I would have thought that the arrangement would have been for Mr Choo Wee Khiang to go around in Whampoa. I see Dr Lee shake his head. He is going to tell us that all four went round each house in Jalan Besar. Let us know. But Mr Choo has been popularly referred to all the time as the Member from Whampoa.

Perhaps may I also say that we suggested to the Prime Minister that if he is worried about economic activity coming to a standstill and the by-election a waste of time, he could combine the by-election with the Presidential Election which is due under the Constitution by the end of August this year. Or are we going to be told, "No, we're not going to have the Presidential Election, because that will also distract the nation from its economic activity."? Is that going to be given as a reason and the Presidential Election put off? I suppose that will be more difficult because the ruling Party will have to bring an amendment to the Constitution.

I am, of course, aware - I do not want to be told that I did not mention this - that section 24(2A) of the Parliamentary Elections Act which spells out what should happen in the case of a vacancy - that a writ shall be issued, but goes on in a subsection to say that no writ shall be issued in a GRC unless all members of that GRC have vacated their seats. May I say this. It seems to me, in the first place, to conflict with Article 49 of the Constitution which says "shall be filled", and there is a vacancy. The Speaker announced at the beginning of this sitting today that there is a vacancy in Parliament. You cannot pretend that there is no vacancy. And the Article says that the "vacancy shall be filled". So the question is, does section 24(2A) of the Parliamentary Elections Act conflict with Article 49 of the Constitution? Of course, the Constitution is supreme. It takes precedence over all other laws.

But, quite apart from that, section 24 (2A) is purely a procedural section. The substantive section is still Article 49. And if the only way to satisfy Article 49 is for the other members to resign, it should be done. They should resign their seats so that the by-election may be held to comply with Article 49. If that is not thought desirable, because the ruling Party fears that it may lose a Minister in Parliament, and that would be terrible, then the other alternative is to take Whampoa out of the Jalan Besar GRC and arrange for a by-election for that particular constituency. It is not good enough to say, "Well, that's going to create problems. You got to have a committee to re-draw the boundary again." In Singapore, that is no problem, as we say, because the committee is appointed by the Prime Minister. Election is all controlled by the Prime Minister. It may be a problem when you have a national elections commission. They might say, "Well, we don't think we are going to do this for you." But in Singapore it should present no problem.

May I say that there is a precedent for it. Before the last general elections, MacPherson was taken out of Marine Parade GRC and made into a single constituency. So you have a precedent there.

So I ask in this House: what are your reasons then for not holding any by-election in Jalan Besar GRC? And I do appeal in this House to the Prime Minister, to the Government, and the remaining Members in Jalan Besar GRC, that they should rise above party interest, and not decide the question whether there should be a by-election purely on whether it suits the party or not, whether it may result in losing a Minister, but whether in the national interest, the Constitution requires that there should be a by-election. So I do appeal to the Government and to the Members because they can do something about this by resigning their seats in Parliament and contesting the seats all over again. If that is done, then may I say the world will see, and Singaporeans will see and understand, that this is a party, that is the ruling Party, which believes in parliamentary democracy, which believes in giving voters their rights under the Constitution, which believes that there should be an effective Opposition in Parliament and not just a party that pays lip service every time but does not believe in what it says.

I hope the Prime Minister, if he is the only one who has got to decide this question, will reconsider and if there are good reasons, let us have them, but not facile reasons about economic activity coming to a standstill.

Question proposed.

Mr Low Thia Khiang: (In Mandarin): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, although we are now debating this motion that Parliament resolves that there should be a by-election in Jalan Besar GRC, we can envisage that the motion will not be passed because Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong has already made his stand before this sitting that there will not be a by-election in Jalan Besar GRC.

Prime Minister Goh said that there would not be a by-election because he did not want to divert the people's focus on our economic recovery. I feel that this is just an excuse. As we all know, in Singapore, even in general elections, the whole process can be finished within 10 days. Now, only one GRC is involved. How would this affect our economic recovery? In fact, there is no need for Prime Minister Goh to seek an excuse. He could simply say that according to the Parliamentary Elections Act, there is no need to hold a by-election. The PAP Government had in 1988 amended the Parliamentary Elections Act to the effect that only when all the seats in a GRC are vacant, will it be mandatory for a by-election to be held. Under the circumstances, in a six-seat GRC, even if there is only one Member left in the GRC, there is no need to hold a by-election. The PAP can just ask some others to help out in the constituency work.

As far as this motion is concerned, whether or not we must hold a by-election, it is a foregone conclusion. Nevertheless, it still makes sense for us to discuss this issue of whether a by-election should be held under the present circumstances, because the law in Singapore is often amended again and again. Let us go to the crux of the matter. The crux of the matter lies with the Parliamentary Elections Act. Although the Act provides that a by-election is necessary only when all the seats in the GRC are vacant, there is no express provision to say when a by-election must be held. This is a loophole. Under such circumstances, it is for the ruling Party to decide when to hold a by-election. They could just drag on until the next general election, as they had done in the past.

In 1986, when the Anson constituency was vacant, they made use of this loophole in the Parliamentary Elections Act to refrain from holding a by-election. The seat was left vacant all the time until the general election in 1988 when they split Anson into three parts and have them absorbed into a GRC. If the PAP Government is a responsible government, they should amend the Parliamentary Elections Act to provide that whenever there is any vacancy in any constituency, a by-election should be held within a specific period even if there is only one seat in the GRC which is vacant. In the present situation in the Jalan Besar GRC, even if all the Members have vacated their seats necessitating a by-election, there is no provision to say by when the election must be held. So if the PAP is a responsible government, they should urge all GRC Members to resign their seats so that there will be a by-election. In the event that the PAP is saying that it is not fair to ask the other Members to resign, then they should consider the suggestion by my Secretary-General that Whampoa be taken out from the GRC to form a single constituency, and hold a by-election there.

Mr Chiam See Tong: Sir, the opposition is the voice of the people. Presently, the people want a by-election at Jalan Besar GRC. The opposition must voice their desire in Parliament. But the Government has a contrary view. It says that there is no need to have a by-election in Jalan Besar GRC. If a by-election is held in Jalan Besar GRC, it shall distract the people from the Government's effort in turning the economy around. The Government's excuse is of course unacceptable. It is a lame excuse. How can a by-election in one GRC suddenly stop all economic activities in Singapore, stop foreign investors from wanting to invest in Singapore or stop their investments from coming into Singapore?

At one time, I remember in the late 1970s, the Government said that should one Opposition Member be elected into Parliament, it would drive the foreign investors away from Singapore. Since then, more than one Member of the Opposition has been elected to Parliament, and yet Singapore has prospered. The economy has done so well that the Government is able to reap unprecedented surpluses each year. In similar vein, the excuse that one by-election in Jalan Besar GRC will distract the Government from its efforts to turn the economy around is one that cannot be accepted by the people. The real reason is of course the memory of Anson. It was at Anson, in 1981, that the PAP suffered its first defeat after 15 years of one-party rule. Mr Jeyaretnam of the Workers' Party broke the one-party rule by winning the by-election in that constituency. The defeat jolted the PAP. The PAP machinery quickly started to work and find ways and means to stop another Anson from happening. The best solution of course is to do away with by-elections altogether. This solution is 100% foolproof. If there are no by-elections, there shall be no defeat for the PAP. It is as simple as that.

There were vacant seats after 1981. One was at Havelock when the then Minister for Finance Hon Sui Sen died in office and later Anson itself became vacant due to the ouster of its incumbent MP from Parliament. For those two vacant constituencies, their terms were not ended and, yet, by-elections were not called for. The Government gave the lame excuse that the Constitution did not state a time frame within which by-elections have to be called. Normally, if no time limit is given for doing an act in the statute, then the court would normally interpret it as an act to be done within a reasonable time. The common law therefore states that a by-election at Havelock and Anson should have been held within a reasonable time of becoming vacant. I would say that within three months would be a reasonable time. Yet, by-elections were not held in those two constituencies.

The PAP knew that if they maintained only single seat constituencies, inevitably in mid-term, there shall be by-elections. For example, there were four vacant wards in 1979 and, before the 1984 elections, there were two vacant wards but no by-elections were held. After Anson, I would say that the Opposition had a good chance of winning the by-elections. The people know for sure that the Government is already firmly in place and it cannot be toppled by a by-election. For this reason, Singaporeans are more amenable to vote the Opposition at a by-election and the PAP knows that. That is why the PAP invented the concept of GRCs and keep the number of single seat constituencies to a minimum. Currently, there are only nine single seats, down from 22 out of 83 elected seats in Parliament. Under the GRC system, legally, there is no need to hold a by-election when one of the component MPs in the GRC drops out, either by resignation or whatever reason. There shall only be a by-election in the GRC when all its MPs are no longer Members of Parliament. It is almost impossible for this kind of situation to happen after the election laws were amended at the beginning of 1988.

After the amendments, the GRCs currrently are made up of four, five or six MPs in a GRC. It is difficult therefore to envisage a situation when all four, five or six MPs in one GRC completely leave Parliament. In these days, the new MPs are in their 30s. They are well-fed, strong and healthy. I cannot see any one of them falling ill and opting out of Parliament. Besides, I cannot see young MPs, with so much to look ahead, voluntarily resigning unless they are forced to do so like Choo Wee Khiang's case at Jalan Besar GRC this year.

The purpose of the GRC scheme is aimed at wiping out by-elections. It is noted that the Prime Minister did not use the legal reason for not wanting to hold a by-election at Jalan Besar GRC, but instead use an economic reason. If the Prime Minister has said that he need not hold a by-election at Jalan Besar GRC because the law does not require him to do so, the people will be quick to point out that he held one at his own constituency in Marine Parade GRC in December 1992. A precedent has been set at Marine Parade GRC that if he wanted to, he could call a by-election despite the fact that the law did not require him to do so. In Marine Parade's case, it was obvious to the PAP that they would win that by-election because it was the Prime Minister's ward and he was an incumbent MP for many years. As regards Jalan Besar, it is no sure winner. That is why the PAP is not willing to announce a by-election there.

The Jalan Besar GRC comprises a large part of the former Rochor constituency. The PAP still remembers that they nearly lost in Rochor in 1963. The PAP's Chairman then, Dr Toh Chin Chye, narrowly beat the Barisan Sosialis candidate, Dr Lee Siew-Choh, by less than 100 votes. The PAP old guard shuddered when they talked of the election at Rochor constituency in 1963. They won that election only by the skin of their teeth. After that experience, I do not think that the PAP is going to chance a by-election at Jalan Besar. A mid-term by-election is normally a good time for the people to assess the Government's policies. The last general election was held on 2nd January 1997. At this point of time, it is exactly half way through the term before the next general election is held. So it is a good time for the people to audit what the Government has done up to now, ie, whether the people are happy with the Government's policies such as cost cutting measures and other policies to revive the economy or the Government's handling of Singapore's relations with Malaysia and its other policies.

The Government should allow itself to be judged purely on its performance without massive incentives offered to the people like in the last election such as the upgrading of flats. If the PAP really believes in democracy, then it should hold a by-election at Jalan Besar GRC. The essence of democracy is representation and choice. The residents at Jalan Besar GRC elected the original four persons to represent them in Parliament. But now the slate of four is left only with three. The PAP has sent a former failed candidate at Hougang, Mr Heng Chee How, to fill in that place of the resigned MP. He may or may not be good. We do not know. But what we do know is that he is not the choice of the voters at Jalan Besar GRC. He is the choice of the PAP. The voters at Jalan Besar GRC must be given their democractic right to choose their own representative in Parliament, not to force one upon them. The PAP should uphold democracy and call a by-election at Jalan Besar. The next general election, if it goes its full-term, is to be held in early 2002. This Parliamentary term has still 2 1/2 years more to go. A by-election should be held at Jalan Besar GRC.

I support the motion.

Mr Zulkifli bin Baharudin: Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I would first like to refer to the comments made by the hon. NCMP saying that the number of opposition is an indicator of the state of Parliamentary democracy in Singapore and that the number of backbenchers or NCMPs does not matter.

I would like to say that what is more important is to have a free and fair election. We have seen that in the region. You cannot predetermine the outcome of elections if you have a free, fair and transparent election like what we have here. Speaking for the NMPs, I would like to perhaps remind the hon. NCMP that the NMPs, representing a non-partisan section of the population, has played a useful role not only in Parliament but in the whole range of social and community institutions and developing and supporting a very strong people sector which certainly must be a very important and strong indicator of the state of democracy in this country.

Coming back to the motion, Sir, I would like to say that one of the objectives of GRCs is the ability of the other elected members in the GRC to carry out its function and duties of another member in the absence which may be caused by either death, disability or other unforeseen circumstances. What is more difficult in this case is that the constituents in Whampoa have lost their elected Member, not by an act of God, but by an act of crime. I suppose in most cases a reasonable voter is a lot more understanding and can be persuaded to see the practical arguments against by-election because of the current economic crisis and the ability of the other elected Members to carry on with the additional responsibilities brought about by the loss of an elected Member. However, there are others who place a much greater moral obligation to replace the MP with other elected representatives. Here, in my own sense is that the PAP suffers from a very high moral position it occupies of not being corrupt and taking a firm and strong position even against its own members. For this reason, some may then want the PAP to take that high moral position by calling for a by-election in Jalan Besar. There are some questions that come to mind in trying to balance this.

First, even if there is a general perception, which I tend to agree, and the feeling that the constituents do not want a by-election, and they see that the other Members are able to carry out their duties quite effectively because of their good track record, the question then is: should not we then leave it to the voters through the election process to decide whether they really want to have their Members of Parliament re-elected?

Second, I would like to ask if we need clearer guidelines in fact to determine the circumstances where a by-election may be required, if, say, two Members of Parliament in a GRC are unable to continue office for whatever circumstances. Because then it can be argued that the remaining MPs would be physically incapable of carrying out the functions and duties in the GRC. I must say that I, like most Singaporeans, can see the practical argument for not calling for a by-election in Jalan Besar.

But having said that, Sir, some Singaporeans are a little bit confused because recently we heard that the PAP has announced that Mr Heng Chee How will be sent to the GRC to look after some of the duties left behind by the former MP. Why is there a need to have Mr Heng carry out this duty if the other three Members can effectively perform those roles? I think there is some confusion there. Perhaps, we may need some clarification. And the clarification is really the role that Mr Heng will play there. I do understand that in all constituencies, we have advisors and helpers, but I think what people would like to see is Mr Heng playing the role, and not necessarily the same role as has been played by the elected Member.

To me, not having a by-election is actually a loss to the PAP, more than to the Opposition. In my view, it can perhaps demonstrate that Singapore is different from the rest of the region. Because in an economic crisis, contrary to the experiences in the region, where the economic crisis has brought about a more vocal, prominent Opposition in local politics, I would think even if a by-election were to be held, it could demonstrate that Singapore is quite different that despite the crisis, the Government is able to win elections, because it has, I think, in most cases, demonstrated that the Government is a very strong catalyst of change and reform in Singapore. I personally do not see the Opposition playing that role. So, that is quite a big difference.

Having heard Mr J B Jeyaretnam, I feel that he has not made a very strong case for calling for a by-election. The vacancy, as I said, was brought about by a crime. But Mr J B Jeyaretnam has not made a case of that crime basically perhaps because of the Government's own firm and open attitude in dealing with it very openly and fairly. And it is for this reason, Sir, that I cannot give my support to Mr J B Jeyaretnam and his motion.

Mr Sin Boon Ann (Tampines): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I want to thank you for giving me this opportunity to rise to speak against the motion standing in the name of the Non-Constituency Member of Parliament.

The NCMP, Mr Jeyaretnam, has once again called for a by-election to be held in Jalan Besar GRC on account of the resignation of our erstwhile colleague, Mr Choo Wee Khiang. Mr Jeyaretnam seems confident that if a by-election were to be called at this time, he will be able to give the PAP a beating, something which he has tried to do in the last election but failed dismally. Even in this House, Mr Jeyaretnam's tirade against the Government and the Party sounds like an old gramophone record, which he plays over and over again. He begins by suggesting that there is a lack of a tradition of Parliamentary democracy, the lack of freedom of expression for the Opposition and an inability to allow the Opposition to express themselves in a forum such as this.

Let me ask the NCMP to account for his presence here in Parliament today. He is a loser in the last election, as I have said previously. But for the grace of this present Government, he is able to sit in this Parliament together with the rest of the duly elected Members and make his points known in an august body such as this. How can Mr Jeyaretnam then say that we are short in the standards of representation expected in a democracy, as he has described?

Mr Jeyaretnam: You missed the point.

Mr Sin Boon Ann: He thinks the PAP is out of sync with the aspirations of our people. Perhaps, at this moment, one wonders whether the issues he raises in this House clearly reflect the aspirations of the common man he claims to represent.

Sir, as a lawyer, Mr Jeyaretnam would have realised that under the Constitution and relevant laws, there is no legal obligation on the part of the Government to call for an election after an MP resigns his seat in Parliament. The essence of such a legal requirement in the Constitution applies both to single-seat constituencies and to Group Representation Constituencies as well. Mr Jeyaretnam cites Article 49 of the Constitution in which he used to support his case. If I may just read Article 49 of the Constitution, it simply states:

"Whenever the seat of a Member, not being a non-constituency Member, has become vacant for any reason other than a dissolution of Parliament, the vacancy shall be filled by election in the manner provided by or under any law relating to Parliamentary elections."

This Article in the Constitution is therefore largely qualified as opposed to what Mr Jeyaretnam appears to have suggested, that there is a legal obligation on the part of our Government to call an election as long as there is a vacancy in this House.

Of course, the NCMP has created a mischief by alluding to a duty, that there is a legal obligation which is obviously not true. If it is an election to be called in the manner prescribed by law, the law is the statute that we have before us, and that is the Parliamentary Elections Act. As a lawyer, I am sure Mr Jeyaretnam knows the Parliamentary Elections Act does not prescribe any particular time limit within which to call for an election. That, Sir, is clearly the prerogative of the ruling Government.

The issue was specifically dealt with after we became independent in 1965. During that time, our Government has specifically amended the provisions of our law to require an election to be held within a period of time after the seat was vacated. Mr Jeyaretnam so much as conceded that that has since been amended after the election. Obviously, I could be wrong and Mr Jeyaretnam could be right. But the point is, if Mr Jeyaretnam still thinks that there is a legal obligation to hold an election at the moment in Jalan Besar GRC, then he should apply for a writ of mandamus to compel the Government to do so. He is capable of doing it and nobody is ever going to deny him the right to petition to Court to issue such a writ. However, Mr Jeyaretnam obviously knows that there is no legal obligation to hold an election at this moment for Jalan Besar GRC.

Although there is no legal obligation to hold an election at this moment, Mr Jeyaretnam is perhaps saying that, as opposed to a legal obligation, there is a moral obligation to hold an election instead, and that obviously is the other thrust of his argument. If so, we should perhaps examine closely whether or not such an obligation exists. By moral obligation, Sir, what one supposes it to mean the expectation based on the values and beliefs of the people comprising the society at large. By this, one would ask whether or not it is the expectation placed on Parliament and indeed the Government by the people of Whampoa at this moment to hold a fresh election and to seek a new mandate from the people of Whampoa to act as their representatives in Parliament.

Sir, one would imagine that when the MPs from Jalan Besar GRC went to the people at the last election for an endorsement of their candidacy , the people of Whampoa voted categorically that they wanted the present team to represent them. When the Whampoa residents voted for their Members of Parliament in the GRC, they did not, in the way in which the election was conducted, specifically vote for any particular MP to represent their ward. The endorsement was placed on all four Members of Parliament to be their representatives and it is on that basis that the candidates were returned. Mr Jeyaretnam obviously has not got his laws right. He seems to think that in a GRC, it is a just convenient arrangement where you tie all these individual constituencies together and therefore each Member of Parliament is specifically voted by the constituents in his particular ward. But bear in mind, in the Parliamentary Elections Act, when the people vote within a GRC, they voted for an entire team and not for any specific individual.

It would therefore be ludicrous for anyone to suggest that since the mandate was given to four MPs to act as representatives in Parliament, the absence of one would necessarily mean that the rest have lost their electoral mandate. Such an argument, if carried to its extreme conclusion, would also mean that at any time if Mr Jeyaretnam steps down as Secretary-General of the Workers' Party, Mr Low Thia Khiang would have to resign his seat as Member of Parliament for Hougang since it can be argued that some Hougang residents may have voted him because of the leadership provided by Mr Jeyaretnam. Just because a member of the team resigns his seat, it does not necessarily follow that the people would have withdrawn their support for the remaining Members of Parliament in the GRC. Mr Jeyaretnam must understand that the existing team for Jalan Besar stood for election and won the election for what the PAP stands for and not because Mr Choo Wee Khiang was popular so that without his representation, the mandate of the people would be withdrawn in the process.

Sir, such an argument against the call for a by-election is not extreme and there are parallel examples found elsewhere. For instance, taking a leaf from corporations, if a member of the Board of Directors, having been elected to the Board by the shareholders and who, before the expiry of the term, resigns his Board seat, there is no obligation on the part of the Board to go back to the shareholders for a fresh election. The management of the company goes on so long as the Board feels that they are not hindered or incapacitated in any way by the absence of the member of the Board.

In the case of Jalan Besar GRC, what is most critical in the minds of the residents at this moment is whether or not their interest, will just be as well-served by the remaining representatives within the GRC. If the level of service and commitment to the residents continues to remain as it was before the MP resigned his seat, there is therefore really no reason for calling for a fresh election. The point is how much better served will the people be by calling for a fresh election. What it means, however, is that the three existing MPs for Jalan Besar GRC would have to work much harder in order to meet the demands of the constituents or otherwise they would have a poor showing at the next general election. If the people are indeed very, very unhappy because they feel they have been shortchanged by the resignation of their MP, then obviously, there is an avenue for them to register their unhappiness at the next election.

We are half-way through the present term of this office and it is only approximately another 21/2 years before we are required by law to go into another general election. Rather than calling for a fresh election, we should focus our mind on how we can serve the residents better during this period. I have spoken to many Whampoa residents and they feel that a fresh election is not what they want at this moment. I think it will be rather presumptuous on the part of the Opposition Members to assume that this is really what the residents of Whampoa want. What matters to them is whether the present MPs can really attend to their needs. I have no doubt that my colleagues, including the appointed second advisor, would be up to the task at this moment in serving the residents.

It makes us wonder, therefore, whether the NCMP's call for a by-election is really to serve his purpose and his political party's purpose or to serve the residents' purpose. Bear in mind the huge expenses involved in calling for a by-election when there is no legal obligation to do so, let me repeat, when there is no legal obligation to do so. It would be just another occasion to show that Mr Jeyaretnam is absolutely callous about the way public monies are spent, since it is quite obvious to us that his call for a by-election is to serve the interest of his party, and not of the residents of Jalan Besar GRC.

For that reason, Sir, I beg that the motion not be approved.

Mr Simon Tay: Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I am obliged to join in the debate.

I do not support the motion. Having heard the NCMP and the seconder, Mr Low Thia Khiang, I regret that I cannot agree with their reasons. It is clear to me that there is no legal requirement for a by-election under existing laws. In this sense, I think the hon. Member for Hougang, Mr Low Thia Khiang, and Mr Chiam See Tong, Member for Potong Pasir, have got it right, and the NCMP has got it wrong.

But I think there is another debate about the principles of democracy and of morality, and these are, basically, around two possible principles. The first is on the nature of the offence and the second on the question of fair representation for constituents in a parliamentary democracy like Singapore.

First, the nature of the offence. In the past case of the late Dr Tay Eng Soon in the Eunos GRC, it is clear to us that it was his untimely death that caused the vacancy. There was therefore no question of approbation. Here, given the nature of the disqualification faced by the former Member of Parliament, Mr Choo Wee Khiang, it could be argued that this might have affected how voters have felt if they had known at the time of voting. That is to say, we could argue that the nature of the offence vitiates the vote at the last general election. However, I believe the Singaporean public as a whole trust the PAP, on a general basis, is not corrupt and, in fact, the events in this case evidence that wrong-doing will be investigated thoroughly and punished, no matter who is the perpetrator. Therefore, I think on this ground, the nature of the offence, there is no need for a by-election.

Let me move on to my second point on representation. The NCMP has stressed at great length that the nature of democracy means that every voter must have a representative in Parliament. That is true. But it is a jump from there to suggest that every constituency must have a Member, and he misunderstands the fundamental change that has been made in Singapore under the concept of a Group Representation Constituency (GRC). These are fundamentally different from single-seat constituencies. The concept here is for a team representation. And this fundamental change in Singapore's system has not been understood by many people who draw analogies from Britain which does not have this system, as the NCMP has done.

In this sense, my answer to him is quite simple. When he points to the Constitution and suggests that when a vacancy arises, it must be filled in certain ways. But there is no vacancy. Nobody elected Mr Choo Wee Khiang as an independent, separate constituency. It is a team concept. We do not even know whether the constituents of Whampoa did, as a majority, elect Mr Choo Wee Khiang. All we know is the official result. For the Jalan Besar GRC as a whole, the PAP team led by Minister Dr Lee Boon Yang won. So, to me, there is no vacancy and it is a political question.

We have analogies to this in other systems. In a system of proportional representation, once a party is elected, it is up to the party to say who should fill up the slots it has won in Parliament. And I think this shows that our constitutional system has changed fundamentally from certain English roots, and must be understood on its own terms. So long as a majority of a team exists and believes it can meet the needs of the constituents, I would think that Singaporeans are pragmatic enough to focus on the level of the service.

The NCMP has a very nice argument that the right of voters for a team then is to have four representatives, rather than three which the Jalan Besar GRC now has. I think that Singaporeans do not care about the formal numbers. It is a question of function and efficiency, rather than numbers. And so long as the team tries and believes it can do well, then it should be able to continue. If the team does not do well and does not meet the constituency's needs, then there will be a price to pay at the next general election. They can choose another team. In that sense, I think it is very much a question of political judgment by the party in power, rather than a legal question.

Let me turn in this sense to two other points made by, first, the NCMP and then by the Member for Potong Pasir, Mr Chiam. The first was that several people - I think Mr Chiam as well - suggested that the PAP was afraid. There was a question of fear. I must, in fairness to the PAP, bring up the Marine Parade GRC election. I think there is clear evidence that where it is felt there is a moral obligation, Prime Minister Goh, of all people, had not been afraid to put his own neck on the line.

Secondly, Mr Chiam, the Member for Potong Pasir, made a great deal about the fact that it is a by-election. I would remind Mr Chiam to remind himself that he has twice claimed credit for the so-called by-election effect at the last two general elections, and none of these was the question of government at stake. And yet in both, the PAP achieved quite substantial victories. I am not pro-PAP. But I think these are facts that must be stated, to be fair to the debate in this House.

We then turn to the question of why the Prime Minister has decided not to meet the request of the Opposition to hold a by-election. I frankly do not know. I am not a mind reader. But if I were to guess, I would look at some of the elections that are coming up in the countries around us in this time of crisis. When we look at Malaysia, we realise that in the run-up to a possible early snap elections, their foreign relations seem to be taking a very aggressive and unreasonable stance at some of our issues. If we look at Thailand's elections that are coming up and those in South Korea, we will see this as well. Basically, by-elections or general elections force both parties to make their voices more shrill and more nationalistic. My bet would be that in the Thai general elections, you will see a lot of statements made about nationalism, about foreigners buying up Thai companies. That could be a problem for us too. We had a debate in this House about foreign talent, especially in times of crisis. Do we need, in a time of crisis, therefore, to open up potential fissures?

Another stray point made by the NCMP is related to the nature of Backbenchers and NMPs. He says that the nature of democracy must be judged by the number of Opposition Members in the House. Well, I would say this much. The job of the Opposition is to be the next government. That is their claim in democratic theory. It is not to ask questions here in Parliament. My job, as an NMP, is certainly not to be the next government. It is to try, as best as I can, to increase accountability and add what little I can to the debate in this House. In this sense, we cannot compare the two. One is an apple. The other is an orange. I do not see what he stands to gain by this, except for a stray bullet here and there. [Laughter].

Let me deal with the stray bullet. I would say that while that, in theory, taking over government is the goal of the Opposition, the Opposition has failed to do that so far. And I do not see, more to the points of this motion, what a by-election would do to further the cause of the Opposition of trying to be the next government.

Having talked about the nature of representation and emphasised the team GRC concept, I think I have another point to make. And this is the degree to which a person who is not an MP can be allowed to take on additional duties caused by the vacancy. It has been widely reported that Mr Heng Chee How is now serving as the Second Adviser to Whampoa. Citizens can, of course, help at the grassroots, as can party members who are not MPs. I think almost all MPs have somebody from their party helping them, as a very close associate. But I think there must be a line between what an MP can do and what these normal citizens and party members can do.

A legal principle says it quite nicely. The nature of parliamentary representation is that it is delegated to you as elected MPs. What is delegated cannot then be further delegated. There are, in that sense, some things an MP can do that a non-MP cannot. Of course, parliamentary debate and duties is one of them. But, also, I would argue, things outside this House, eg, signing letters to Ministries on behalf of constituents, officiating as guest-of-honour.

Let me give Members an analogy. When a football team has a player sent off, the team as a whole is not disqualified, but it cannot substitute the sent off player. The position of the PAP Government is that the team in Jalan Besar can cope and carry on and, therefore, there is no need for a by-election. It is consistent with that stand. The PAP team in Jalan Besar should observe the differences and, even if Mr Heng serves as Second Adviser, he should not act as an MP without being elected. I am confident that the PAP team in Jalan Besar GRC will observe the constitutional and legal principles of representation and fair play.

Sir, it is for these reasons that I do not support the motion.

The Leader of the House (Mr Wong Kan Seng): Sir, Mr Jeyaretnam argues and I quote him in his motion that "in all the circumstances it is only right and proper" that a by-election be held in Jalan Besar GRC in view of Mr Choo Wee Khiang's resignation. I completely disagree with that.

He quotes us the Singapore Constitution and the Malaysian Constitution, Article 54, saying that the Malaysian Constitution provides a limit within which a by-election should be held. But Article 54 of the Malaysian Constitution is really the Malaysia's Constitution. Singapore adopted it only when Singapore joined Malaysia in 1963. Before 1963, we had in our Constitution which was then called the Singapore (Constitution) Order in Council 1958, Article 44. And that Article 44 is exactly what we have in today's Constitution Article 49(1) which says:

'Whenever the seat of a Member has become vacant for any reason other than a dissolution, the vacancy shall be filled by election in the manner provided by or under any law for the time being in force in Singapore.'

This was in the 1958 Constitution.

In the 1965 Constitution, we changed it after we left Malaysia. We adopted the same words in the 1958 (Constitution) Order by expunging the words "within three months from the date on which it is established that there is a vacancy" in the Malaysian Constitution because we did not take the position that the Malaysians had taken. And it is for good reason that we went back to the 1958 Constitution, because that was our position before we went into Malaysia.

As the Constitution says, we will hold a by-election "in the manner provided by and under any law for the time being in force". The law being in force is our Parliamentary Elections Act. Section 24(2A) says:

'In respect of any Group Representation Constituency, no writ shall be issued under subsection (1) for an election to fill a vacancy unless all the Members for that constituency have vacated their seats in Parliament.'

Members may recall that we debated the GRC issue during the debates on the amendments to the Constitution and the Parliamentary Elections Act, and why we specifically made this provision. We specifically and expressly prohibit the issue of a writ for an election in a GRC, unless all the MPs resign their seats. The legislative intent then was not to allow any particular MP so elected as part of a group of MPs for the GRC to hold the rest to ransom through resignation or otherwise. The thinking then was that all the other MPs should not be forced to vacate their seats on account of one MP vacating his seat for whatever reason - death, resignation or whatever. So it is quite clear that under our law, it expressly provides for the exclusion of the issue of a writ for a by-election in a GRC. That is the legal position which Mr Jeyaretnam may well know, and some of our colleagues here have also mentioned this.

So there is no conflict between Article 49 of our Constitution and section 24 of the Parliamentary Elections Act.

There is also no breach of parliamentary democracy, as Mr Jeyaretnam has suggested. As Mr Sin Boon Ann and Mr Simon Tay have said, the MPs in a GRC are elected together as a team, and not singly. This is our GRC system. I choose the words "Whampoa area". There is no such thing as "Whampoa Constituency". The GRC is Jalan Besar GRC. The number of MPs there is four. By an internal arrangement, Mr Choo Wee Khiang went to work in Whampoa and Kallang and also by arrangement, the MPs in the area also take turns to visit one another's area when they have block parties, block visits, meet-the-people sessions, and so on. For example, at the end of every third Tuesday of the month, I am in another Branch meeting the residents who may be living in the Sin Ming area or in the Toa Payoh East area. Similarly, the MP in that area will come to my area. We are MPs of that GRC. We do not just belong to Bishan East, like myself, for example. Neither does Mr Choo Wee Khiang belong to Whampoa only.

So in 1997 the voters elected the four of them, Dr Lee Boon Yang, Dr Yaacob Ibrahim, Mr Peh Chin Hua and Mr Choo Wee Khiang, as one team. Dr Lee Boon Yang also canvassed in the Whampoa area together with Choo Wee Khiang. Similarly, he did the same thing in Geylang West with Peh Chin Hua or in Kolam Ayer together with Dr Yaacob Ibrahim. So there is no reason whatsoever for the remaining MPs to resign just because one MP has resigned. In fact, I would say that the remaining MPs have a moral obligation to carry on and implement the programmes which they promised and pledged to the voters in 1997. Of course, this means that they have to work a bit harder.

Mr Sin Boon Ann talks about the example of a board. It does not need to resign if one board member resigns and they need to call an AGM. There is no such requirement. Mr Simon Tay gave the analogy of football. I can also use the analogy of football. If the striker beats up the referee for a wrong ruling and the referee gives him the red card, he is out. But that does not mean that the other 10 members have to quit. They will carry on and they will play hard, and they will win if they play very hard. It is the same thing for the three MPs now in Jalan Besar GRC. They work hard and they will work very hard so that through their efforts they will be returned again. I have no doubt that they will be returned again.

Indeed, the three of them lost no time in making arrangements to cover the Whampoa area since Mr Choo Wee Khiang went on leave of absence in December last year. They took turns to attend meet-the-people sessions. They took turns to attend the RC functions, block parties, house visits and so on. So they are still active. They remain active, and they will have to be active.

Why is Mr Heng Chee How sent there? Is it to replace Mr Choo Wee Khiang? Certainly not. Mr Choo Wee Khiang was elected together with the others. Mr Heng cannot be appointed by the Government to represent the people. He is not there to represent the people. He is there - the PAP always plans ahead - for training. We sent him there for training so that he gets ground experience on how to work with people, how to understand the issues and concerns, how to deal with their problems and help them with their problems. But in the signing of letters during the meet-the-people session, the three current MPs will still be there by rotation to take care of such cases, as they do for block party attendance and so on.

So there is no question that the constitutional rights of the voters in Whampoa have been diminished. They have their rights. They voted for the four MPs and the MPs carry on. The voters, in fact, voted with the knowledge that should a vacancy arise, such a vacancy need not be filled, as provided for in our law. There is no question that the mandate has been thwarted or withdrawn. So regardless of the reasons or the circumstances under which an MP has to resign, there is no need for a by-election because the existing MPs will carry on with the task which they have been entrusted.

Mr Jeyaretnam must be fooling himself when he said that the PAP is afraid to lose the by-election in Jalan Besar because according to him that is the only reason why we do not want to have a by-election. He said that the PAP accused him of chickening out in the Marine Parade by-election. I do not know why he chickened out. Maybe he did not chicken out but he was played out! There were four of them. One of them who was supposed to be there with him happened to be somewhere else in Jurong and lost his way. He was supposed to be in the Marine Parade nomination centre but he could not find his way to Marine Parade. So he should find out why that team-mate of his decided not to turn up. Maybe he chickened out. So there was good reason why the PAP said the Workers' Party chickened out because they did not find the right person to contest.

There is no reason why the PAP should fear a loss in a by-election either. We won convincingly in 1997 - 67.7% of the votes. There is no question that we will win again should there be a contest. I read Mr Jeyaretnam saying that he would quit politics if he were to contest and lose. We do not want him to lose. We want him to remain here. It would be a pity if he were to contest and lose. In fact, his presence here is a good lesson for all Singaporeans that that is the kind of opposition leaders we have in Singapore. I think it is a salutary lesson. If the opposition does not wake up, then they may lose again in the next election. So it is a lesson not just for Singaporeans but also a lesson for the opposition parties themselves to find the right kind of people to lead them.

Mr Chiam, in fact, said that we should have a by-election to put the Government's handling of the economy to the test. We do not need a by-election to put the Government's handling of the economy to the test. If he had been following events, and reading reports from financial analysts, from people who know, they have said that Singapore indeed has come out with flying colours in the way we have handled the economy. But the real test is, at the end of the term, how would the people vote for the PAP? That is the real test, not in a by-election. So what does he want? To get an opportunity to contest? But his party cannot even get organised. So he would not be contesting. Maybe he would leave it to Mr Jeyaretnam. I do not know whether the Workers' Party could also be organised to contest.

The Government's record for good governance is widely acknowledged. So we do not need to have a by-election to test the Government. Mr Jeyaretnam also suggests that maybe at a time like this, we should save money and have the Presidential election together with the by-election. That is a facetious argument. A Presidential election is vastly different in purpose, scope and format compared to a by-election. The candidates are different, the issues are different, the objectives are different. So we should not hold the two together and confuse our electorate with two different elections going on at the same time.

The prerogative to call a by-election, "considering all the circumstances", really rests with the Prime Minister. His decision will be based on the best interest of Singapore. He has explained why he has decided not to call a by-election. He wants Singaporeans to focus on our incipient economic recovery. Do not take for granted that our economic growth is assured. Look around us. Many things can still happen and it is still in the early stages. So despite the changes and the rising stock market, do not take for granted that things will be good. This was the same message that we put out even before the 1997 crisis. We said: "Don't take things for granted." The people said, "It cannot happen. The PAP will handle it." Indeed, we have an economic crisis due to external reasons. So for very good reason, do not take things for granted. The Prime Minister has indeed cautioned Singaporeans against assuming that the current upturn would be quick or permanent. He feels that a by-election held at this time will be a distraction from the main task in seeing through this economic recovery.

I think Singaporeans on the whole appreciate that the Government's far-sighted policies have stood the test of time, particularly in this time of regional economic crisis. They also know that the Government has acted decisively to review and improve many of its policies, some in very fundamental ways, like the way we handle our financial institutions and banks. Ensuring that these revised policies are implemented effectively and successfully will therefore require the undivided attention of all Singaporeans. I think that should be our primary objective. It is not the time for fractiousness and partisan politics which a by-election will foment. This is the pragmatic, hard-headed approach that we have taken which has worked for Singapore all these years.

The opposition parties, on the other hand, like what Mr Simon Tay has alluded to, want excitement and political agitation. They have had their day during the last general elections and they made no impact. Two Members were returned. There is no reason why the Government should satisfy the vanity of certain opposition figures by holding a by-election.

Predictably, the opposition makes loud calls for a by-election to be held. But Mr Jeyaretnam fools himself if he thinks that having a by-election is the topmost priority of Singaporeans now. Not holding a by-election is not a breach of parliamentary democracy. In accordance with the law, the electorate has a choice at every general election. The law does not require a by-election to be held when an MP in a GRC vacates his seat for whatever reason. The law provides leeway to the Prime Minister to decide. If he considers it necessary, by-elections will be held. The PAP has not shied away from by-elections in the past. As for the vacancy that has arisen at Jalan Besar GRC, the Prime Minister has decided that, on balance, it is not necessary nor is it in our interest to hold one.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I have sat through all the speeches and, apart from the speakers from the Opposition Members in Parliament, the sum total of the answer from NMPs and PAP MPs seems to be "Section 24(2A) does not require us, so we would not hold any by-election." May I suggest that that is a lame excuse of people who fear defeats. They hide behind a legal excuse for them and not face up to the realities. I am aware of section 24(2A). I pointed out what Article 49 of the Constitution says. It does not say "leave out GRCs". It says "leave out only NCMP post", but in every other case the vacancy "shall be filled." There are no two ways of reading it. The vacancy shall be filled. As Mr Chiam pointed out, "shall be filled" cannot be interpreted as saying you do not have to hold it till the next elections. But is that how the Article is to be interpreted, that you do not have to hold any by-election?

Section 24(2A), as I said, in the first place, would appear to conflict with Article 49. I am challenged to take it to court. But better than the court it would be for this House to resolve that notwithstanding section 24(2A), there should be a by-election in Jalan Besar GRC. It is within the competence of this House. Parliament can pass a resolution. So I do not have to take it to court. I come to Parliament which, as I have said, is the supreme body in a parliamentary democracy.

If I may deal very briefly. As I said, the main theme seems to be that we do not have to hold it, we have got section 24(2A) behind us. The other reasons are simply just by the way. But if I may just reply to one or two of these criticisms.

Mr Zulkifli Baharudin said that I had not made out a strong case. I do not know what he meant by not making out a strong case. I did not follow what he said about PAP having shown itself to come down on criminal activities. What has that got to do with representation in Parliament? Just because the PAP has prosecuted - is that what he is saying - Mr Choo Wee Khiang in court and had him punished, that there is no need to hold any by-election? Is that the argument? I do not quite follow that.

I think almost every speaker mentioned about the practical arrangements that have been made by the PAP, how wonderful it is, that they can send Mr Heng Chee How to look after voters in Whampoa. But that again misses the point. Heng Chee How, as Mr Chiam mentioned, is not the choice of the voters yet. And he cannot by any stretch of the imagination be asked to do the work of an MP there. They need an MP to do the work in Whampoa, not Mr Heng Chee How.

I think the third speaker also talked about free and fair elections. This was taken up by Mr Sin Boon Ann and Mr Simon Tay, says, "Oh, the Opposition got a sound beating in the last elections." So there is no question about Singaporeans not wanting an Opposition in Parliament, that they do not want any Opposition in Parliament. That again, with respect, ignores the realities. I have to, at the risk of repetition, go back to our own particular experience in Cheng San. Why did we lose? Because of the threats and intimidation, extra-parliamentary, extra-legal methods used by the PAP, by the Prime Minister and his two Deputy Prime Ministers invading our own pitches in Cheng San, and watching over the voters. And to say that we got a sound beating is to miss entirely the point and to see the elections through the PAP glasses.

Both Mr Sin Boon Ann and Mr Simon Tay also brought up examples. Mr Sin Boon Ann talks about a board of companies losing a director. I am afraid I cannot see the analogy. They are quite different things. And the football team which Mr Simon Tay talks about, I am afraid I cannot really see what the analogy is between a football team and having your own representatives in Parliament. But what really astounded me was Mr Simon Tay's announcement that there is no vacancy in Parliament. As I have pointed out when I spoke, the Speaker only this afternoon announced that there was a vacancy in Parliament from 2nd June this year. So what is Mr Simon Tay saying that there is no vacancy? Was the Speaker speaking out of turn when he announced that there was a vacancy?

Mr Simon Tay: May I ask whether the NCMP will give the floor to me? Will you allow clarification?

Mr Jeyaretnam: If you want, speak afterwards, Mr Simon Tay. But did you not say that there was no vacancy? If you want to clarify, you should have clarified it then. And he harps on Opposition Members failing so far. This was again taken up by the Minister. The proof of the pudding is in the eating, they say. And here is an opportunity to have just that - to see whether the Opposition Members have failed or not. Will you take up the challenge? Or will you just say, "Ah, but section 24(2A) says we don't have to." Will you take up the challenge? The proof of the pudding is in the eating. Let the electorate in Jalan Besar decide whether the Opposition Members are failing or not, or whether they would like to see Opposition Members in Parliament.

It is no good indulging in words without being prepared to put your words to the test. He says that the PAP has no fear. And I thought the Minister would be giving us sound reasons for not holding a by-election. But he says PM has given his reason. We should have expected greater clarification of what the PM was trying to say. But we did not get that. What was the Prime Minister saying when he said "to distract the nation from its economic activities"? What was he trying to say? Just mere words without any meaning? If there is a meaning, what is it? Let us have it. And we do not get any of these. So I do not know if there is anything else for me to answer.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Jeyaretnam, have you got any more new points?

Mr Jeyaretnam: Yes. I do not think there is anything more for me to answer. I am just coming to that, Mr Deputy Speaker, if you will bear with me. I was just saying that it would appear there is nothing more to answer. Because all we have heard is just one reason. It is a pity. But I think the people of Singapore will see. They will read, I hope, something of what was said today and they will judge for themselves. In the final analysis, it is the people. And it is the people's judgement that we must accept. The conclusion I get from this evening's debate is that the PAP is not prepared to face the people and accept their verdict.

Question put, and negatived.

Motion accordingly negatived.