MOVING TO NEW CHAMBER (Motion)

2.15 pm

The Prime Minister (Mr Goh Chok Tong): Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move,

That this House, at its last meeting before it moves to its new Chamber across the yard, (1) notes the progress in establishing the system of parliamentary democracy since its early beginnings in this Chamber on 22nd April 1955; (2) records its appreciation for the contributions made by past Members in establishing the confidence the electorate has in its integrity and the openness of its proceedings; and (3) urges present and future Members to build on the accomplishments of their predecessors.

Today's move to the new Parliament building not only reflects Singapore's success and progress as an independent country, it also symbolises the entrenchment of our system of parliamentary democracy as a key institution of Singapore.

The relocation of Parliament to the new Chamber at the adjoining site is born out of necessity. This old Chamber has been the seat of Singapore's Legislature since 1955. The 1955 Legislative Assembly consisted of only 25 elected Members, 4 Nominated Members, 3 ex-officio Members and the Speaker, making a total of 33. By 1997, Parliament has increased in size to 93 Members, including 9 Nominated and 1 Non-Constituency Members.

The present building, over a period of time, had undergone several renovations to accommodate the increase in the number of Members and the accompanying support services, such as library and administration, as well as increased space for TV and the press. It was not possible to expand this elegant but old building to meet the needs of our future growth, including the use of information technology in the Chamber. Hence, the Government decided to build a bigger Parliament House in 1992.

The new Parliament House has a Chamber for 100 Members, with room for another 20, if needed. It will also be a place of interest for students and the general public. It has amenities to bring Parliament closer to the people.

By the standards of modern buildings in Singapore today, the new Parliament building is modest with functional furnishing. It is certainly not a monument to feed our ego. Nevertheless, it has captured the dignity of the institution that it symbolizes. It is a worthy successor to the old Parliament House.

I want to take this opportunity to record the Government's appreciation to everyone involved in this major national project, especially the architects, engineers, contractors, clerks of work, technicians, workers and the Parliament Secretariat.

Members will no doubt miss this old Chamber. I am happy that we will not be leaving everything in this Chamber behind when we leave this place. One small but symbolic piece of heritage we will bring along to the new building is the Mace of Parliament. We have inherited it from the First Legislative Assembly. It will continue to be the symbol of the inviolable authority of Parliament and the Speaker, and remind us of our Parliamentary roots.

Speaking for myself, I must say that I am leaving this place with fond memories. When I first entered this Chamber 23 years ago, I sat in the far corner where Chuang Shaw Peng now sits. Next to me were Rahmat Kenap from Geylang Serai and N Govindasamy from Radin Mas. Both good men have since passed away.

There were 11 of us in the 1976 class of new MPs. Now, only four of us are left - the Speaker, Dr Ow Chin Hock, Sidek Saniff and myself. We are quickly acquiring the status of senior citizens, politically speaking that is. Among the 93 Members in Parliament today, only Senior Minister has been in this House for a longer period than the four of us.

My maiden speech on the Motion of Thanks to the President for his Address at the Opening of Parliament in February 1977 was heavy on economics. Coming from a "technocrat" turned politician, this was to be expected. I spoke on the need to increase our domestic exports, the problem of job-hopping and shipping. I argued that Singapore should aim to be a world transhipment centre instead of just a "regional warehousing and transhipment centre" which was what the Ministry of Communications wanted. This basic theme, that we need to look beyond the region, and go global, has become even more important now that the global economy is one single, seamless marketplace. This was indeed my focus in this year's National Day Rally.

In the same session, I was enthralled by Prime Minister Lee's 3 1/2-hour marathon speech on a range of political issues. At the end of his speech, he posed a riddle on psephology. He compared the election result of Marine Parade with Buona Vista's and asked why the PAP's performance in Marine Parade, a new town with the "mostest" number of 5- and 4-room flats and no 1-room flats, was not as good as that in Buona Vista, another new estate with more than a thousand 1-room flats. Both the late Ang Kok Peng and I had weak opposition candidates. Marine Parade received 76% of the total votes cast while Buona Vista received 80%. That was my first lesson in understanding the factors, including race, of why Singaporeans voted the way they did.

Indeed, forging a strong nation out of our multi-ethnicity and diversity is an even greater challenge for us than Singapore's economic competitiveness. We have learned valuable lessons from the racial riots of the 1960s. Parliament has incorporated various safeguards into our laws to preserve religious and racial harmony. But social cohesion and managing differences between different racial, religious and income groups in society are something we have to work assiduously for. Our fundamental challenge is to build ties among the people and emotional bonds to this country. So, when I spoke on the Motion of Thanks to the President, 20 years later, at the 1997 Opening of Parliament, my focus was on the need for Singapore to develop "heartware", not just economic competitiveness. I am glad that this has led to the adoption of the Singapore 21 vision for making Singapore our best home.

Mr Speaker, in 1953, the Rendel Commission recommended a Legislative Assembly with an elected majority and a ministerial form of government to pave the way for self-government in Singapore. This led to the first multi-party elections for the Legislative Assembly in 1955. It was the birth of Singapore's system of parliamentary democracy.

Since then, this Chamber has hosted 3 Legislative Assemblies and 9 Parliaments. Among us today, Senior Minister is the only Member who has been in this Chamber since 1955. The many speeches that he has made in this House, spanning a period of 44 years, are a record of the political history of modern Singapore.

Except for the first Legislative Assembly from 1955 to 1959, the PAP has been the ruling party in the Legislature for an uninterrupted period of 40 years. In fact, for 16 long years between 1965 and 1981, there was not even a single Opposition Member in Parliament. After 13 Members from the Barisan Sosialis boycotted Parliament in 1965, the PAP won four successive general elections between 1968 and 1980 in clean sweeps.

This extraordinary situation came about because the PAP governed in the best interests of Singapore and Singaporeans. The people trusted the PAP and the PAP, in turn, returned their trust by delivering results for the country and the people. We must never betray the trust the people have reposed in us.

The strong support of the people for the PAP Government provided the political stability so crucial for economic growth and nation building, especially in our early days of independence. We were able to consolidate our young nation and build a strong foundation for the future. It has also enabled the ruling party to take a long-term view in planning and implementing public policies and programmes. This is an advantage which most Governments in other democracies do not enjoy.

On this historic occasion, when we move from the old building to the new, permit me to make some observations from our experience of parliamentary democracy, which the British established by three Orders of the Queen in Council, in 1955, 1959 and 1963. After we separated from Malaysia, our Constitution has been based on the provisions of the State Constitution prescribed by the 1963 Order by the Queen in Council and many of the fundamental articles of the Malaysian Constitution that we had adopted.

My first observation: clean general elections are critical to the political governance of Singapore. The electorate has confidence that all our elections were fairly and openly conducted. There was no money politics. They trusted the system. As a result, every MP is seen by the electorate to be not only his legal but also his legitimate representative in Parliament. He is respected.

To keep our politics clean for so long is no mean achievement. The ruling party has not gone corrupt despite the absence of a strong opposition. In some countries which professed to be parliamentary democracies, elections are frequently marred by violence, money politics, and all sorts of political chicanery. The result is what the Indonesians called KKN - corruption, cronyism and nepotism.

Second, the ruling party's policy to self-renew its MPs at every general election has made Parliament relevant to changing circumstances and the expectations of each new generation of Singaporeans. Self-renewal has become an accepted fact in Singapore, not just in Parliament but also in the Civil Service, SAF and the Singapore Police Force. We consciously and systematically head-hunt for younger people with promise to nurture, develop and take over from us.

We owe a big debt here to the Old Guard PAP Ministers and MPs. They risked their lives in the struggles against the communists and communalists, planted the metaphorical tree, looked after it, but did not stay on to enjoy the fruits. Their dedication, sacrifice and commitment to the long-term interests of Singapore are values which present and future Members of this House must emulate.

Third, a key strength of democracy can also turn out to be a major weakness. Almost anyone above 21 can stand for election. But it never ceases to amaze me that people are prepared to entrust their and their country's destiny to some unknowns, regardless of their competence, commitment and character. To be a SAF officer, a lawyer, an accountant, an engineer, or an economist, you have to pass stringent tests. But there are no qualifying tests, no legal requirements for quality control, for anyone who aspires to be a people's representative. That this Parliament has a high reputation for efficiency, effectiveness and integrity, is not the natural order of things. It is the result of the PAP's high standards and its stringent screening of its candidates. Even then, from time to time, a mistake is made.

In politics, either the good keeps out the bad or the bad, like a bad currency, will drive out the good. Mr Chiam See Tong is living proof of this adage. He has been driven out of his former party by a bad currency. Woe betide the day when bad currencies get into Parliament. Never think it will never happen. Hence, in anticipation of this doomsday scenario, we have put in place the institution of the elected Presidency with custodial powers over our past reserves and key appointments made by the Government to safeguard Singapore's long-term interests. But the best safeguard is within the political parties themselves. They must set high standards so that only competent, honest and deserving candidates are put before the voters. Finally, let me stress that our parliamentary democracy has worked because, over the years, we have carefully made adaptations and modifications to the system which we had inherited. Let me recap some of these changes:

1969: We introduced the institution of the Presidential Council for Minority Rights to ensure that there will be no discriminatory legislation.

1984: We introduced the concept of Non-Constituency MP to ensure that whatever the outcome of Parliamentary Elections, there will be some opposition MPs in Parliament.

1987: We introduced the Government Parliamentary Committees (GPCs), and the GPCs, backed by resource panels, have brought a sharper focus to debates in this House.

1988: We established the concept of Group Representation Constituency to ensure that Parliament will always have elected representatives from minority groups.

1990: We established the concept of Nominated MPs. NMPs bring to Parliament debates viewpoints different from Government MPs and Opposition MPs. In the same year, we established the institution of Elected President with custodial powers.

In this way, Mr Speaker, while the British gave us a good political system, we have not hesitated to shape and mould our parliamentary democracy, our procedures and our institutions to take into account our political, cultural, social and democratic conditions.

These innovations are complemented by similar steps outside Parliament which enable Singaporeans to be part of the civic society and the body politic. Grassroots organisations like CDCs, CCCs, RCs, Neighbourhood Committees, Town Councils and the Feedback Unit give thousands of Singaporeans a role to make Singapore a better place.

Mr Speaker, Sir, on behalf of the Government, I want to express our appreciation to past and present Members, PAP and non-PAP, for their contributions to our system of parliamentary democracy. I also urge present and future Members to build on the accomplishments of their predecessors. Parliamentary democracy has worked well in Singapore. It has won the confidence of the electorate because of the integrity, openness and effectiveness of its proceedings and the honesty and competence of MPs.

As Members of this House, we must continue to strengthen it as a key political institution in Singapore. We have the responsibility to ensure that the system not only functions effectively but also serves the needs of our people. Public respect for Parliament will be preserved only if we, their representatives, are worthy of their trust.

Sir, I beg to move. [Applause]

Question proposed.

Mr Bernard Chen (West Coast): Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to support the motion moved by the Prime Minister.

Thank you also for giving me this opportunity to speak because I am only five months after the PM in joining this Parliament 22 years ago, and I guess this says a lot about that.

In the years since our independence in 1965, this House has witnessed debates of all major policies introduced by the Government and legislation that gave effect to these policies. They include national service, health, education and housing. From time to time, we had to grapple with economic problems. On each occasion, there was full debate not only on the general principles but also on details, much of which were dealt with by the Select Committees set up for this purpose. One outstanding feature of all these debates is that PAP backbenchers took the initiatives to query Government Ministers on all major aspects of these policies. The lack of opposition in Parliament, which is no fault of the PAP, did not make the debates less lively or substantial. Who can forget Mr Ho See Beng and the late Mr Fong Sip Chee who engaged virtually every Minister and made them work extra hard to answer their questions. Members may know that Mr Ng Kah Ting was the champion for filing questions across all Ministries during Budget time. Dr Augustine Tan regaled the House with his discourse on economics. There was also Mr Lawrence Sia who took on Dr Goh Keng Swee on matters of education. Lucky for him, he was always mistaken for Mr Sia Kah Hui. That is why he stayed on long after Mr Sia Kah Hui retired. Even our Speaker, Sir, yourself, when you were a backbencher, was also noted for your contributions until you were asked not to speak when you took on this appointment.

In the 1990s, we are not short of outspoken MPs either. Dr Tan Cheng Bock is a shining example. Mr Peh Chin Hua and Mr Heng Chiang Meng made their marks and took the Ministers' "dressing down" in their stride. On the lighter side, who can forget Members who were trying not to fall asleep in the House, and for those who did, were caught by the very efficient microphones in the sound system. I hope the sound system in the new Parliament would not be as good. The introduction of television, thankfully, put paid to this practice. Although a few Members, I am told, still could not resist the urge and were caught on the camera.

Seriously, though, the debates in the House demonstrate without a doubt that democracy is practised and is seen to be practised. PAP MPs have not been afraid to speak out. More than that, they have contributed fully to the deliberations, regardless of the presence of Opposition MPs, NMPs or NCMPs. As the Prime Minister has said, I am very confident that all of us would take with us fond memories of this House and we will reinforce our commitment to carry on this fine tradition to the new Chamber.

Mr Leong Horn Kee (Bishan-Toa Payoh): Mr Speaker, Sir, thank you for allowing me to speak on this motion moved by the Prime Minister which I fully support.

In its exalted 44 years of existence, this Chamber has witnessed numerous tumultuous periods in Singapore's history.

It is recognised that great and significant personalities, such as past and present Speakers, Prime Ministers such as Mr Lee Kuan Yew and Mr Goh Chok Tong, Ministers and MPs have honoured this House with their memorable and historic speeches. Every single word uttered in this House was faithfully recorded in the Hansard. This occasion of the "Moving to New Chamber" is indeed an appropriate occasion to honour all of them.

Sir, I thought it would also be quite meaningful for me, as a backbencher, to take this occasion to speak briefly on two issues. The first is the excellent parliamentary democracy evolved and established in the past 44 years, and the second is to speak in honour of the many backbenchers, past and present, who have done their fair share towards the creation of our unique Singapore parliamentary process.

As PAP MPs, in the typical tradition of Westminster Parliamentary system, it should be our primary task to help PAP Ministers to take on the Opposition MPs. But because of the lack in number of Opposition MPs in this House in the past 25 years, PAP backbenchers had the unusual task on many occasions to join the Opposition side, and play a major role to scrutinise, and sometimes even critically comment on Government policies and Bills presented by Government Ministers. In fact, due to the lack of seating places, the PAP MPs of Singapore have this very un-Westminster format of sitting opposite and face-off our own Government Ministers. Moreover, to allow for more focus on debates of the Ministerial portfolios, as the Prime Minister has said, the Government created the Government Parliamentary Committees (GPC) so that PAP MPs can form into small groups to shadow various different Ministries. In addition, we also created non-elected MPs such as NCMPs and NMPs to provide more avenues for debates.

Sir, our parliamentary structure has indeed become a unique Singapore-style parliamentary democracy. These changes have contributed to the confidence of the electorate to the openness and integrity of proceedings, as stated in the Prime Minister's motion. It is a proud Singapore tradition that should be carried through to the new Chamber.

While the Frontbench Prime Minister, Ministers and Parliamentary Secretaries are the initiators of the Government's programmes and improvements, therefore they rightly deserve the recognition, I feel that it is also very meaningful for this motion to record our appreciation for the contributions of all past Backbenchers, both from the PAP and Opposition. The Backbenchers are the unsung heroes who have equally contributed to the exemplary and honourable image of this House.

Sir, from my past 15 years of membership of this august Chamber, I can recall many notable and memorable speeches made by Backbenchers and Ministers. In fact, my first year as Member of this House in March 1985 (some 14 years ago), the Presidential Debate was led by our colleague, Dr Tan Cheng Bock. He made a remark that is still etched very deeply in my mind. Dr Tan advised us, novice Backbenchers then, "to speak our minds and let conscience be our guide", and never mind if you incur "parliamentary wounds". True to his words, Dr Tan has, to this day, spoken his mind. He has raised many significant issues for debate in this House. He has suffered many parliamentary wounds.

Like Dr Tan, many Backbenchers have also spoken honestly and boldly in this Chamber. Mr Speaker, Sir, you yourself have been noted as a vocal Backbencher while you were sitting here on this side of the floor with us. For PAP Backbenchers, in fact, it has not been an easy task speaking in this House as we have to do a fine balancing act in crafting our speech, so as not to score "own goals". Sir, I feel that this aspect, which is for our Backbenchers to speak our mind, boldly ask questions and let conscience be our guide, has become an integral part of this unique and honourable parliamentary democracy created and institutionalised by all the past and present MPs in this House.

With the impending move to the new and modern Chamber next door, I am sure that the excellent traditions will continue and prevail.

Mr Seng Han Thong (Ang Mo Kio): (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, the Prime Minister said that he has been in this House for 23 years. I belong to the 1997 batch of MPs who are here for less than three years. In about three hours' time, all of us will move from this Chamber to the one next door.

To many Singaporeans, moving house is not new. Singaporeans are used to moving house - they can make money in the process. But to Parliament, this is the first time in 40 years. We are moving, and we will bring our parliamentary democracy to the new Chamber and continue our debate there. Over the last few decades, every Bill, every motion, every debate that took place in this House has deeply influenced Singapore. The thought of this makes us realise how heavy our responsibilities are. I support the Prime Minister's move to record our sincere appreciation to the many MPs before us who had contributed to our parliamentary democracy.

As we march into the next millennium, let us review our history. Take a look at the world around us and we will discover that whether it was in the 50s, 60s, 70s, 80s or even the 90s, at all times there has always been the alternate emergence of crisis and opportunity, turmoil and stability, construction and destruction contrasting, yet co-existing with each other. Some events took place in remote corners of the world while many other events took place right in front of us.

In 1959, 40 years ago, in the self-governing State of Singapore, when Mr Lee Kuan Yew led the new batch of Assemblymen from City Hall to this House, the thing which was uppermost in the minds of Singaporeans then was to obtain our independence, to create employment and to overcome social turmoil. The reason why we could turn crisis to opportunity, that we could avoid turmoil and achieve stability, that we could choose construction and avoid destruction, is because for the last 40 years, we have debated thoroughly all policies in this House. We have looked at all aspects of the policies and built up a healthy system of parliamentary democracy. As MPs, we are glad that under this healthy system, we have confidently and conscientiously expressed our views. In the last three years, we debated what we should be in the future - the Singapore 21 programme. With the sudden emergence of the economic crisis, our attention was diverted to how to protect the rice bowl of our workers and how to reduce costs. In the face of unfriendly political development, we have not shied away from speaking our minds.

In the new House, we will face new challenges in the new century. We will debate on foreign talents, on our aging population, on how to deal with the unfriendly regional environment and how to tackle the ever changing international circumstances. We will debate to protect our self-respect and in the interest of Singaporeans. We should practise what we preach. We should execute what we plan. And we should not say something that we cannot carry out. In this way, we will have greater confidence in the process of parliamentary democracy.

Mr Speaker, Sir, as we sit in the new House, we must not forget the great contributions by the past Members of this House.

Many people do not know where Parliament House is. They do not realise that this very important Chamber is situated in such an inconspicuous building tucked away at a corner of High Street. In fact, many people thought that this Chamber was inside City Hall, a much more prominent building. When we pointed out this building to them, they would remark, "Wah, so small!"

Yes, indeed we started from small. It was from this Chamber in this inconspicuous Parliament House that our parliamentary democracy started. Over the years, we have evolved a system of parliamentary democracy that is well respected by all. For this, we must not forget the contributions made by all those Members of this House who came before us.

Sir, I support the Prime Minister's motion.

Mr Chiam See Tong (Potong Pasir): Thank you, Sir, for allowing me to join in this debate.

Sir, democracy denotes openness, transparency and accountability. An authoritarian system does not have any of these features. I believe that a country must opt for one or the other system, then we know what direction that country is heading. In the case of Singapore, we are uncertain whether we are taking the path towards democracy or towards a more closed authoritarian system. On the one hand, we say that we are working towards a more democratic system as our children are taught in the Pledge which they have to take every day at school. On the other hand, we see that in actuality, we are building a system that is more closed. If we want to have more openness, more transparency, and more accountability, we must have more Opposition in Parliament. If the Opposition is weak, less than 5% representation in Parliament, the Government simply ignores them. The Government's attitude is "what can they do", as there are so few in number. The Government can ride roughshod over a weak Opposition and can get away with it. However, if the Opposition is strong, say, 40% or 45% representation in Parliament, the Government will really have to be on its toes. It shall account for every detail of Government policy when asked to do so by the Opposition, because the Opposition has every chance of winning the next election if the Government does not perform as it is asked to do.

For this reason, in all developed countries, the electorate make sure that there is a sizeable Opposition in their parliaments to check on the government and to keep it on its toes and to make sure that it performs well and efficiently and not to waste the country's resources.

In Singapore, we pay lip-service to the desire to build a democratic society. But in reality, we do not see it. An important aspect of a democratic society is to have effective Opposition in Parliament. Without this important element in Parliament, a country cannot be said to be democratic. Effective Opposition implies that there must be a core number of Opposition Members in the House. In Singapore, at the moment, there are three Opposition Members - two elected and one NCMP. In our Singapore's context, three Opposition Members in Parliament are not enough, since politicians in Singapore, other than office-bearers, are part-timers. And as such, they cannot devote as much time as they would like to their parliamentary work or to probe or investigate thoroughly into the affairs of a government. In our context, after 34 years of independence, it is sad to see that there are only three Opposition Members in Parliament. I would say that to have an effective Opposition in Parliament today, we must have at least another 12 more Opposition Members. The question is why there is an absence or even a core number of Opposition Members in Parliament. The answer is obvious. The Government's policy is never to encourage more Opposition in Parliament. In fact, the Government is trying hard to keep the Opposition out of Parliament.

Look at what happened after Anson in 1981. By-elections were never called again, because normally at by-elections the Opposition has a better chance of winning. Not only by-elections were never called but they are permanently banned in GRCs. The law has been changed to make it unnecessary to hold by-elections in GRCs in case any of their Members leave Parliament for whatever reason. Then, again, there is a change of election laws to bring in GRCs which is a great obstacle for the Opposition to overcome. The Opposition so far has not been able to win any GRC seats because they are unable to gather a group of candidates to match that of the PAP's. I believe that this obstacle put up by the PAP shall not last long. The Opposition needs only to capture one GRC and the myth of the invincibility of the GRC shall be demolished after that and more GRCs shall fall to the Opposition. Then the PAP shall have to change the electoral laws again to keep the Opposition at bay.

Another device of the PAP to keep the Opposition out of Parliament is to change the electoral boundaries. We have seen that done in many constituencies when the Opposition gets high votes in those constituencies. The constituency of Braddell Heights is a good example. Sin Kek Tong of the Singapore People's Party stood in that constituency in 1988 and 1991. His votes went as high as 48% in 1991. He hoped to win the next GE in 1997. But suddenly that constituency disappeared. Its boundaries were redrawn for it to be included in Marine Parade GRC. The Opposition is thus unable really to prepare the ground for the next election, because the boundaries can suddenly change without prior warning. The Opposition has to hit a moving target. The PAP does not make it easy for the Opposition to win seats in Parliament. If that is really the policy of the PAP Government, how can we say that we have made progress in building a system of parliamentary democracy? We must have greater number of Opposition Members in Parliament to establish more effective checks and balances on the Government. When this is done, then we can really say that we have established true parliamentary democracy. The Government must take steps not to impede the growth of Opposition in Singapore. Let the Opposition grow. Let it take root. Let the Opposition be institutionalised in Singapore. So far, I cannot see such steps being taken. And, therefore, I cannot support the motion.

Dr Lee Tsao Yuan: Mr Speaker, Sir, since this is my last speech in the House, I would like to begin by thanking the House and the Special Select Committee Members involved in my appointment for these slightly more than four years that I have been here. It has been a privilege to be appointed as a Nominated Member and to be given the opportunity to contribute to the debate on a wide range of issues. It has indeed been a rich and rewarding experience.

I would like to congratulate my five colleagues who have been re-appointed as well as the four new appointees and I wish them all the best in the carrying out of their duties.

I am also particularly happy that I can participate in this historic move from the old to the new Chamber. In my view, the new Chamber is simply great. It has a dignified elegance that is befitting Parliament. I would also like to congratulate all those, including the Speaker, who had a hand in the development of the building.

What I would like to focus on is how the overwhelming majority of the PAP has affected the functioning of Parliament and parliamentary democracy in Singapore. Unlike some in this House, I only have a limited personal experience of the last four years and I would like to speak from this personal experience.

The first function of the Legislature is to pass Bills and enact laws. In my view, this has been efficiently performed. Laws and budget are expeditiously passed and the majority that the Government has in the House ensures that it will carry the vote on all Bills and budgets. That is the very nature of parliamentary democracy itself.

The second function is to act as an integrated focus for society. Again, I feel that this has also been well performed. Successive PAP Governments have taken great pains to ensure minority racial representation in Parliament by means of the GRC system. Members also come from all walks of life - Chinese-educated, English-educated, rich and poor family backgrounds, professionals, entrepreneurs, corporate executives, academics, young and old - the oldest Member is more than twice the age of the youngest in the House. What is only lacking is greater female representation.

However, it is in the performance of the third function of Parliament as a forum for general debate and expression of views, that while there has been significant improvement over these last years, much more can still be done. Increasingly, people in Singapore want a more consultative government. This is a natural consequence of the very economic success that the PAP has helped to achieve a more educated population and globalisation. People today want to see a contestation of ideas, of alternatives, of different views expressed. They are no longer content with top-down decision-making made by a small elite and implemented with the most perfunctory of explanations. If a certain course of policy is decided on, they would want to know why or why not. For example, why the need for the Electronic Road Pricing system? Why not compulsory education for children? Why market the salaries for Ministers and top civil servants? In addition, they would like to be consulted and given inputs before and not after a policy decision. Just as the Government has responded to people's material needs in the past, and has fulfilled them in proactive fashion, I would urge the Government to meet this intangible but, nonetheless, very real political need for greater consultation.

There are a number of ways to do so. Allow me just to focus on Parliament during this specific occasion. Parliament, comprising the people's elected representatives, is indeed the central forum for open debate and expression of diverse views. As a result of the rich diversity of representation in the House, views expressed by Members represent a microcosm of the broad spectrum of views in Singapore.

Does one need to have more Opposition Members for Parliament to better fulfil this role? The answer surely depends on the quality of the Opposition, of existing backbenchers and of the NMPs. The Government backbenchers have, in the past, played the role of the loyal opposition. Indeed, many have asked good questions or offered useful suggestions.

As for the Opposition, there is only so much that three Opposition Members can do. And in fact, the number of NMPs is triple that of the Opposition Members. The NMPs, as a group, have also been active. For example, from the beginning of the current NMP term to this sitting, NMPs accounted for a disproportionate 38% of the 712 Questions filed, PAP MPs filed 44% of the Questions and Opposition MPs, 18%. My view is that so long as the Opposition MPs, as a group, do not offer the range and quality of constructive dissent and alternative policy proposals that are desired, NMPs can, and have, served a useful role by filling this void.

But there is another aspect: that of the effectiveness of parliamentary proceedings in facilitating such debate. I would like to offer three proposals as to how to improve Parliamentary proceedings so that Parliament can be an even more effective channel for the voicing of alternative views in the future. The first proposal I have is to increase the length of the time allotted for Oral Answers to Questions. Questions for Oral Answer serve an important purpose. They enable Members to seek clarification on issues of the day. The one hour is almost invariably not enough to cover all the questions asked. In fact, I think that today is an exception, rather than the rule. Members can file Questions for Written Answer. But, however, this does not allow opportunity for debate, to pursue the issue further by asking supplementary questions, and so on. Another alternative is to file a motion. But, for example, how does one file a motion on the SilkAir crash? Members can also seek clarification during the Committee of Supply debate but that occurs only once a year. I would therefore like to propose that the time allotted for Oral Answer be increased from one hour to one and a half hours in the first instance. While this might still not enable all Questions filed to be answered, that would at least allow, on average, 50% more Questions to be covered.

My second proposal is that Parliament allows for speeches to be supplemented by audio-visual aids. This has become the norm in the business world as well as in educational institutions. I am glad that the new Chamber is fitted with electric sockets for computer notebooks to be plugged in as well as screens. And surely, the House would agree with me that a speech accompanied by a PowerPoint presentation is more interesting, easier to absorb and more effective than just the speech alone.

My third proposal is that the GPCs play a more active role in the consultation and feedback process. These views can then be aired in the House during the relevant policy debate, as indeed has been done in the case of the Budget.

My last point and, perhaps, the most important, is that the fundamental tenet of democracy is that it must bring the greatest good to the greatest number of people. The PAP Government has, without doubt, progressively raised the standard of living of ordinary people, of the man-in-the-street, and has created opportunities for self-advancement because of education and economic growth. Having observed proceedings in the House at first hand, I can say that I have full trust in the integrity of its proceedings. This is certainly an important legacy to bring to the new Chamber. What I would like to see is that fuller expression be given to people's desire for greater consultation and feedback and the airing of alternative views in the House. My wish is that in the first decade of the new millennium there is an even more significant shift towards more consultative government in Singapore.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Mr Speaker, Sir, I have, as you know, an amendment to the motion. But as I did at the last sitting, I would like to say a few words before I move my amendment.

Mr Speaker, Sir, did I misread the motion on the Order Paper? I thought we were going to debate parliamentary democracy. But we heard this afternoon, Mr Speaker, Sir, hardly anything about parliamentary democracy. We have been treated to speeches after speeches of how good the previous Parliaments have been, how effective, how they have had men of integrity, and so on, but not a word about parliamentary democracy except, I must hasten to say, for the speech from Mr Chiam See Tong from the Opposition bench.

Mr Speaker, Sir, this motion is wrong for two reasons. Firstly, it displays and, I am sorry that I have to ascribe this to the Prime Minister who has moved the motion, a complete ignorance or inability to understand what parliamentary democracy is all about. As I listened to him, I began to think what the Prime Minister was saying is that we have our own parliamentary democracy, parliamentary democracy ala Singapore and we are not interested in what others mean when they talk of parliamentary democracy. So I say this motion is wrong because, if he intended it to be the Singapore style of parliamentary democracy, then it should have said so.

The second reason is that a House consisting almost entirely of PAP Members is the wrong place to debate a motion praising the previous Governments and Members of Parliament. You will get your pat on the back, there is no doubt about it. No one will imagine for a minute that this motion will be defeated. You will get your pat. But this is not the place to come for an appraisal. If you want an appraisal, I say, let us have an open debate outside where Singaporeans will be able to attend and pass their judgement. If you are seriously concerned and interested in this question, may I say that the Open Singapore Centre will only be too pleased to arrange a public debate on the question of parliamentary democracy in Singapore. Would you accept it and would you come and speak there so that Singaporeans can then make their judgement? I have not got very much time, Mr Speaker, Sir, so I better move my amendment and speak on the amendment.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move that the motion before the House be amended by deleting all words following the words "across the yard", and in place of those words, to insert -

"regrets the persistent attempts and measures of the governments since 1965 to impede the growth of genuine parliamentary democracy and urges the present government to take such measures as may be necessary to facilitate the growth of genuine parliamentary democracy in Singapore."

Mr Speaker, Sir, I said that this speech of the Prime Minister and the motion itself display stark ignorance of what parliamentary democracy is. Parliamentary democracy is a concept that we have borrowed from other countries, particularly from the United Kingdom whose style of government we chose to adopt in 1955. And so we have to look to them as to what they understood as parliamentary democracy. If we are going to redefine that term, then we should make it quite clear to the world at large that parliamentary democracy, as they understand it, is not what we understand it. Singapore's understanding of parliamentary democracy is this, this and this. Then, we will be at least making ourselves plain.

Mr Speaker, Sir, parliamentary democracy implies and presupposes that Parliament is the centre of power. It is the supreme authority in the country representing the people. Let us not forget, and we will be reminding our people again and again in the years to come, that they are the masters and this House is a gathering of their representatives. The sine qua non of parliamentary democracy is that the executive, the Government, is answerable and accountable to Parliament. May I quote from the International Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences:

"Parliamentary government is the form of constitutional democracy in which executive authority emerges from and is responsible to legislative authority."

I quoted a writer, a Frenchman, who wrote in the Journal British Political System in London in 1958 but it is worth quoting it again. I quoted it the last sitting and this is what he has to say:

"If asked to give a single criterion of the democratic government, I should say that it depended on the status of opposition."

A book on Opposition by a professor of government in Manchester University, Ghita Ionescu and a reader at London University, Isabel de Madariaga have this to say:

"Political opposition thus becomes the crowning institution of a fully institutionalised political society and the hallmark of those political societies which are variously called democratic, liberal, parliamentary, constitutional, pluralistic constitutional or even open or free. Thus the presence or absence of institutionalised political opposition can become the criterion for the classification of any political society in one of two categories - liberal or dictatorial, democratic or authoritarian, pluralistic constitutional or monolithic?"

Where do we place Singapore in that classification? Can we truly say that Singapore is liberal, democratic, pluralistic constitutional, if you accept the criterion for a democratic society? Or is Singapore, on the other hand, dictatorial, authoritarian, monolithic? The authors of that book, in reference to the change in societies mention another quotation, that the transition from an archaic society into a modern society began sometime in the 18th century. Is Singapore an archaic society or a modern society? An archaic society is where it still retains the feudal system of government with authority being the key plank in the government. Can we, in Singapore, say that we are a parliamentary democracy? If it is, as we say about justice, government must be and must manifestly be seen to be answerable and accountable to Parliament. How is this possible - manifestly seen to be answerable to Parliament when Parliament consists of almost 95% of the ruling party? It is just nonsense.

How can we say that in Singapore, all these years, the Government has accounted itself to Parliament? We only had, some months ago, the Prime Minister saying that he did not have to report a loan to Indonesia to Parliament, promising to give away some millions of Singapore dollars as Parliament did not have to be told about it.

What are the factors that have prevented the growth of parliamentary democracy in Singapore? I will list them and, if time permits, say a few words on each of them. First of all, it is the climate of fear in Singapore of which I have been speaking more than once, the fear generated through the Internal Security Act (ISA) and victimisation of those who would dare to stand up and take the Government to task. It is also generated through the numbering of the ballot papers and entering the serial numbers on the counterfoils. Secondly, the denial of the freedoms vital to the growth of parliamentary democracy, the denial of the freedom of expression and assembly, making it difficult for democratic institutions to grow and function. Thirdly, denying a level playing field in the conduct of elections.

Mr Speaker, Sir, in all countries, and particularly in the Commonwealth countries, which have inherited the system, they have an elections commission. We in the Opposition called for an elections commission way back in the 70s, and to this day, we still do not have an elections commission. The conduct of elections has remained and is still the monopoly of the Government. And so we have had gerrymandering at its worst. The altering and redrawing of electoral boundaries, creation of GRCs at just the will of the Prime Minister or the leaders of the PAP without any consultation with the people or the Opposition parties. Making it difficult for the ordinary person to stand as a Member of Parliament if he can meet the qualifications, by raising the deposits for candidates so that only the wealthy and the rich can stand for election to Parliament. The persecution of opposition leaders and parties denying them a place in the sun in Singapore. Prosecuting Opposition leaders if they wish to address the public, the audience, denying them licences to hold any public meetings.

Then curtailing the freedom of Members of Parliament. After my presence in this House from 1981 to 1986, or following it, Bills were introduced to curtail the freedom of the Members in this House, introducing even the power to commit Members to prison if they dare to step out of line and abuse their privileges in the view of the majority of the Members, something which the UK Parliament has now abolished. It has never resorted to this but we have it.

Let us not flatter ourselves that we as a society have consciously sought to encourage the growth of parliamentary democracy in this country. There are steps necessary that have to be taken for the growth of parliamentary democracy. Time does not permit me to go into them at length, but clearly it calls for the abolition of the power to detain persons without trial for political activities and equally, a need to look at the Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Act to see whether that is necessary. Secondly, we need to consider whether there should be a restriction on public meetings especially called by political parties, whether that is still necessary. Thirdly, we have got to consider whether we should continue with the numbering of the ballot papers and the requirement for serial numbers on counterfoils.

I say all this is necessary because they will then, Mr Speaker, Sir, remove the fear that is acting as a paralysis on our people preventing the growth of parliamentary democracy. These are measures that cannot be taken immediately. They would have to be taken over a period of time and it would be quite some time before our people are disabused of fear, assured that it is their bounden duty and right to take an interest and to take part in the affairs of the country. But may I tell the Prime Minister, if I may, before I sit down, that there is something he can do immediately so that we, the citizens of Singapore, can go into 21st century saying we are or we are beginning to be a parliamentary democracy. We can hold our heads high. This can be done if the Prime Minister decides after all that there should be a by-election now before we run into the next century. There is a vacancy and if this Government believes that it has the trust and confidence of the people which has led to it being elected election after election, then why hold back now? Now is the time for this Government to show Singaporeans and the world that this Government is serious. This Government means business when it says that we want to be a parliamentary democracy. If you, Mr Prime Minister, will take that step now and call for a by-election, I tell you that the world will salute you, as a believer in parliamentary democracy. If you do not, you will go down in history as one who is frightened to introduce parliamentary democracy, and still holding on to your power to see that the PAP is not eventually replaced. Because, in a parliamentary democracy, it goes without saying that the people have the right and it should be seen that they do have the right to replace a government, through the ballot box.

Sir, Members have talked of fair elections. I could go on at length about the kind of elections we have had in Singapore since 1971, when I entered into politics. We have never had a level playing field. And it is a pretence to talk that we are a parliamentary democracy when you go all out to deny the opposition a place in Parliament. As these authors have said, it is only when you have a sufficient number of Opposition Members in Parliament, then you become a parliamentary democracy. Without Opposition Members in sufficient number, you are nothing but an authoritarian government, passing measures and policies, not with consultation of the people, but because you think it is right for the people. This denies the people their place. It is the people who have to make the judgements, and that is only possible if you have Opposition Members in Parliament.

There have been suggestions from the Nominated MP that the Opposition has to be effective. Of course, it has to be. No one denies that. But if you, the ruling party, go all out using extra parliamentary measures to keep Opposition Members out, how can you claim praise for your party? It is only by a fair battle won by you by fair and lawful means that you can claim to be a democratic government. Until that happens, I am afraid, Singapore will be classified, as they have said, as an archaic society. We have made great progress in other fields - information, technology - but as a political society, we are still in the 18th century. Is it not time we moved forward and began the journey to becoming a full parliamentary democracy? 3.35 pm

Mr Speaker: The Question before the House is the amendment moved by Mr J B Jeyaretnam. The Question is, "That the words proposed to be left out be left out."

Mr Low Thia Khiang: Mr Speaker, Sir, I wish to speak on the amended Motion.

Mr Speaker: All right.

Mr Low Thia Khiang: (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the amended motion standing in the name of the Secretary-General of the Workers' Party, and I take this opportunity to congratulate Parliament for its moving to a new Complex.

I am also happy to see that as Singapore steps into the 21st century, Parliament, as an important pillar in the political system of Singapore, has a brand-new, modern and well-equipped building.

However, in terms of the progress of parliamentary democracy over the past 30-odd years since independence, I must say I am disappointed.

Operation of the system of parliamentary democracy is focused on the separation of power of the Judiciary, the Legislature and the Executive, with mutual checks and balances among themselves, so that it will not be possible for the Government in power to possess absolute powers and do as it wishes to invade into the rights of the people or do anything detrimental to the country and the people. In any parliamentary democracy, the fundamental principle is that the main power must be with the people. The people must have the ultimate right to choose their parliamentary representatives and the people to form the government, through the process of election.

The representatives elected by the people shall form Parliament which is the legislative body of the State. The political party that wins the most seats in a General Election will form the Government to rule the country. The ruling party can only implement policies or carry out resolutions which have been passed by Parliament. Parliament is the main pillar to carry out checks and balances on the Government under the framework of division of the three powers under the system of parliamentary democracy.

For the system of parliamentary democracy to be effectively implemented, three important pre-conditions must be present:

First, the people must be able to elect the people according to their own wishes, without being subjected to any threat of losing any of their benefits. They must be allowed to exercise their own free choices without any psychological or mental pressure.

Secondly, at the elections, the people should have different candidates from whom they can exercise their right of selection. Most importantly, the media, particularly the television, should accord fair coverage of the candidates from the various parties, so that the voters will have the opportunity to have a clear understanding of the various candidates through introduction by the media and other means, and hence make informed decisions when they cast their votes.

Thirdly, there must be enough number of Members from the various parties in Parliament, with full power to vote for or against the motions introduced by the Government, particularly when the Government is seeking to amend the Constitution. At the same time, there should be enough non-ruling party Members in Parliament with enough influence to challenge the ruling parties during voting, to ensure that the ruling party will not sacrifice the interest of the people.

In any country that professes to practise parliamentary democracy, if it does not possess all these three above-mentioned pre-conditions, then the so-called parliamentary democracy exists in name only. Unfortunately, since independence, Singapore's parliamentary democracy is actually in a "partly-nominal, partly-solid" state.

Although we do have the parliamentary democracy system, and the three key institutions: the Judiciary, the Legislature and the Executive, and the people do have the right to elect Members to form Parliament, the actual situation is that during the election, we do not have enough opposition candidates to contest the election, and the PAP can actually form the Government even before the polling date.

The Workers' Party firmly believes in the importance of Parliament exercising its power of checks and balances on the Government under the system of parliamentary democracy. We also understand that under the system of parliamentary democracy, the voters must have a choice of candidates to give full play to the elections. For this reason, the Workers' Party has been fielding candidates in every General Election since independence. Although we lost again and again, we have carried on contesting, and we never gave up.

In the contested constituencies, almost 40% of the voters supported the opposition, but the vast majority of opposition candidates were not returned. As a result, the PAP has been dominating Parliament and, at the same time, controls the main pillars of Legislative and Executive in the system of parliamentary democracy.

As of today, the system of parliamentary democracy has been practised in Singapore for more than 30 years. Why is it that we are still in such a situation? Why is it that Parliament has not been able to perform the role of checks and balances on the Government to see to it that the Government would not have its own way all the time, and thereby protect the overall interest of the nation and the people? There is even the need for the Government to introduce this nondescript system of Elected Presidency, which is not guaranteed to be effective, to safeguard the national reserves. I feel that this is something which anyone who is concerned with the future of Singapore should ponder over seriously.

The system of parliamentary democracy has been in force in Singapore for more than 30 years, and we are still having a one-party rule in Singapore. The Secretary-General of the Workers' Party has already made some analysis on the matter just now. I do not want to repeat his points. But here, I would like to make the point that a legitimate government which is generated under a system of parliamentary democracy has the obligation to ensure the existence of the three pre-conditions for parliamentary democracy, to give full play to the system of parliamentary democracy. At the same time, this will ensure the legitimacy of the Government as generated under this system.

Many a time, people have asked me whether the PAP had cheated in the general elections. I said that as far as the votes are concerned, the PAP had not cheated. If they had, I would not have participated in politics through the General Elections. However, the PAP has earned for itself a bad reputation by unfairly changing the election rules, and threatening the people during the elections.

Another important characteristic of the system of parliamentary democracy is that we must have representatives of the people from the various quarters to voice their views in Parliament, so that the Government, in ruling the nation, will look after the interest of the entire society. In this system of parliamentary democracy, it is a presumption that there will be a ruling party and an opposition in Parliament. But if the ruling party can make good use of the feedback and alternative views from the various opposition parties, I think it will make a more effective government. On top of that, if it is subjected to the pressure of the opposition, it will be more prudent when it implements its policies to show that it is a good government. As such, the effect of parliamentary democracy is not just a confrontation between political parties. In fact, this system has substantial effects in promoting a good government which takes good care of its people.

Sir, I have dwelt at length on our parliamentary democracy, and it may appear as though I am "displaying my little skill before the grand-masters". However, at this historical moment of the moving of our Parliament, there is no harm in reviewing our past, with the hope that we may draw some inspiration from there to improve ourselves, so that the system of parliamentary democracy in Singapore may develop in a more healthy manner in the new Parliament House, to protect the future happiness of our people. At the same time, let the academics in the western society know that even after the autocratic Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew has left us, Singapore can still continue to survive and develop.

Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out, be left out."

Mr Jeyaretnam: Mr Speaker, Sir, I call for a division.

Mr Speaker: The Member has called for a division. Are there any other Members who wish to support the call for a division?

Mr Low Thia Khiang: I support the call.

Mr Speaker: There being less than five Members, a division is not allowed.

Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out, be left out."

Amendment accordingly negatived.

Original Question again proposed.

Mdm Claire Chiang See Ngoh (Nominated Member): Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the motion in the name of the Prime Minister.

At the end of today, we will say good-bye to a 172-year old building; to the familiar Members' Room where MPs gather to exchange information and seek clarification before a debate in the House; and for some of us, to a comfortable ladies' lounge and restroom which is not frequented enough as we have yet too few female Members of Parliament; and to the many corners and artifacts in and around this building and its hallways which each of us is uniquely drawn to. We shall miss all these.

But what lives on are the many memories of the debates left by batches of MPs in the last 30 over years who had cumulatively struggled to define and hone Singapore's parliamentary framework. Some of us had the good fortune of hearing some of these debates orally shared, but most of us had to read the Hansard to access the rich historical records of who said what, when, how and why.

What endured out of the copious textual testimonies was a spirit, call it the Singapore Spirit, which vigorously questioned the Western view of democracy and called for a re-reading of democratic principles based on our own understanding of what fitted better the development of our multi-cultural society.

As separate individuals we may debate the claims of democracy, but we must all recognise that under the stewardship of this Government, and as a people, we have achieved many things that we are all proud of - public housing, universal education, equal opportunity, and meritocracy.

Policies of good governance did not happen overnight; they were carefully deliberated inside and outside of this House as well as arduously tested outside of this Parliament by each MP serving as a champion, an articulator, a feedback channel, a facilitator and a custodian of the interests of his or her constituents. It is this democratizing process of political persuasion, of having to win the consent of Singaporeans at all levels, that makes our system of parliamentary democracy tick.

I am not sure having more political parties or NMPs will create more accountability and necessarily enrich political life. In abstraction, opposition is a good check and balance. In practice, it is not self-evident. We have many countries around us that show that dissonance. Having said that, I think it is important that future leaders listen to dissenting views and give time to process, explain, persuade and sometimes instead be persuaded. For me, this respect and tolerance for differences and providing channels for negotiations form a fundamental democractic ethos. Future Members have to continue this grave responsibility of governance by deepening this democratic ethos. They need new solutions to meet the rising demands among the emerging voters who have grown accustomed to democratic expectations. They need fresh strategies to reach out to the Y generation, the Internet "click" generation born after l977 who are both cosmopolitan and heartlander in outlook. Their horizons span the world for material gains but their emotions are deeply rooted in Singapore and its cultural and culinary diversity, including "singlish", "mee pok", "laksa", and "roti prata". They are restless and seek new definitions of what matters and what counts in "a good life". Promises of material gains are no longer sufficient for community building, our future MPs have to nurture heartware components in relationship building.

Beyond the mix of paternalistic and consultative leadership style, I hope to see a greater co-partnering form of democracy characterised by various stakeholders actively learning to decide and act together as equal partners. This would mean minimising power play and enhancing constructive exchanges that are unfettered by officious postures and bureaucratic practices. Citizens do not just want to be consulted. They want to work together with state agencies. Maybe, even take charge. Are our future leaders ready to let up without letting go?

The millennium leadership of MPs calls for a blend of reason and intuition, where rationality and creativity can merge to produce positive synergies. Our pioneers have given us many pointers and a legacy to follow - the challenge to future leaders is: what can we do more to enhance Singaporeans' sense of relevance and citizenship?

The people sector may not have definitive proposals just yet, but a dynamic mindset on the part of the leaders who are responsive to diversity and change is a good start.

Sir, I will always treasure this moment of being part of the history of this House. I hope more women will step forward in the new millennium to serve in the new Chamber across the yard. I urge future Members to continue to address issues affecting the family and women just as seriously as they debate economic issues, and identify appropriate policies for promoting a balance in maximising the potential of men and women for nation-building.

I am confident that as a people we will pull our minds, hearts and spirit together to make the Singapore pulse tick in unison. This confidence is built on credible achievements of past Members. I once again register my gratitude to them and I hereby also pledge my commitment to serve our people with honour and integrity.

The Senior Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Information and the Arts (Encik Yatiman Yusof): Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to support the motion made in the name of the Prime Minister.

But before I speak on the motion, I would like to say that I am rather puzzled by Mr J. B. Jeyaretnam's approach to our parliamentary debate. He and Mr Low Thia Khiang have chosen the occasion of this debate to introduce an amendment to the Prime Minister's motion to trot out all his old grievances and allegations against the Government and PAP, for example, the ISA, numbered ballot votes, and so on.

Sir, I believe the amendment is totally unnecessary and appropriately defeated a moment ago. I say it is unnecessary because he could have made his points and comments by speaking on the main motion. Mr Chiam did just that and had achieved his objective without having to introduce any amendment. All his comments would have been made in the context of the debate on the main motion. It appears to me that his amendment is another of his attempts to play to the gallery. So I think it is appropriate that this Chamber dismisses his theatrics.

Sir, parliamentary democracy was introduced to Singapore about 44 years ago. Compared to many other Commonwealth countries which had adopted the Westminster parliamentary system as their model, Singapore's experience in parliamentary democracy is quite recent, yet we have turned it into something unique. Within this short period, we have succeeded in evolving a parliamentary democracy system into an institution that is able to meet our needs and bring Singapore into the path of rapid progress.

Sir, the underlying reason that made our parliamentary system workable is quite straightforward. The system enables our political leaders to apply their creative mind, anticipate challenges and introduce changes. In other words, we have turned the system to something that is responsive to the changing circumstances.

To me, an institution is a neutral vehicle for man to achieve progress. The same applies to the institution of parliamentary democracy. However, institution per se, left in the hands of non-creative, unimaginative minds, would not be of much use or much benefit. Experience in many countries practising parliamentary democracy had shown that social, historical and other man-made constraints had inhibited the constructive growth of the system, thus leaving the countries concerned struggling. Some are even 'condemned' to live in poverty while others are making very slow progress towards development. The political benefits that are expected to be delivered by the system of parliamentary democracy for countries mentioned above came in drips. In this respect, whether the institution of parliamentary democracy is able to raise the status of the country very much depends on whether there are right men and women to manage the institution.

I totally disagree with the views expressed by the Opposition that you need to have more opposition in Parliament to make it democratically operational. An institution can be very powerful, constructive and effective because there are individuals who have chosen to use the institution creatively, honourably and wisely. For us in Singapore, the parliamentary democracy institution has been used by our leaders as a means to implement their ideas and to promote values that will enhance progress.

Mr Speaker, other countries have similar institution but due to their poor understanding of its potential or shackled by their historical, social or cultural conditions, the institution itself is turned into a platform for ideological conflicts with adversaries using it as a platform for contention rather than as a means to achieve consensus and pave the way towards progress and development.

As far as Singapore is concerned, we have chosen the parliamentary democratic system as a means to provide higher standard of living to Singaporeans. Critics may say that our parliamentary system appears to them as very much dominated by the government of the day, ie, the PAP. This is quite true. They have also claimed further that such dominance may result with a declining scrutiny.

Sir, let me answer this question. Those of us who have been involved with this Parliament can bear witness that there is no lacking of legislative scrutiny as far as the budget, introduction of policies and measures or programmes that affect our people are concerned.

Apart from the three Readings of the Bills in Parliament and the debates that accompanied them, our Select Committee provides the mechanism for interested members of the public or the affected parties to make representation. The Select Committee has been instrumental in clarifying matters, collecting feedback, hearing views and inclusion of relevant suggestions from members of the public, thus further improving some of our Bills. Over and above that, a number of committees such as the Public Accounts Committee, which is given power to probe and examine every Government department and office budget to ensure that money is properly spent, is there. Every item in the budget is examined thoroughly by this Committee. We have also introduced the Elected President.

Some critics had lamented the absence of an Upper House mechanism for the checks and balances in our parliamentary system. Indeed, there was a question on this matter today. In my view, the creation of a second chamber or a bicameral parliament is not the only way in which the legislative checks can be achieved. We have successfully implemented a number of changes to our parliamentary system. We had strengthened the multi-racial representation in our Parliament through the Group Representation Constituency (GRC). We had introduced the Nominated Members of Parliament scheme in which people, representative of certain bodies of opinions or groups, are invited to sit in Parliament so that they can give their non-partisan views on issues, Bills, policies or programmes introduced by the Government. We even have the Non-Constituency Member of Parliament (NCMP) scheme to ensure the voice of the opposition parties is heard in this Chamber.

These indeed are our innovative ways in which we improve the working ability of our parliamentary system. Changes are introduced; existing mechanisms are fine-tuned to achieve the maximum result.

Sir, today is a milestone in our experience in parliamentary system. As we move to a new and bigger Chamber - and this debate is symbolic of our desire for continuity and change - we must also do so with a new resolution: to make our parliamentary system a beacon of hope and progress.

So far, we have succeeded in achieving our objective but we must never rest on our laurels. We must forever be seeking ways and means of sustaining and deepening the roots of our democratic parliamentary system. This necessitates the present generation and the future generation of Singaporeans to be fully cognizant of the strength and the potential found in our parliamentary system. They should endeavour to further develop our representative democratic values that everyone of us holds dear.

To achieve this desirous end, we need to encourage our young people to participate in the nation's decision-making process, strengthen our system of parliamentary democracy and turn our Parliament as a platform that represents the conscience of our citizens.

In this respect, I am heartened to learn that the new Parliament House has the facilities to bring in our young to involve in "mini" parliament debates. This would certainly enhance their knowledge of our parliamentary system and develop interest among our students.

I look forward to the day when our parliamentary system is seen by our people, both young and old, as their great and highly cherished institution.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the motion.

Mr Tay Beng Chuan (Nominated Member): (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, Parliament will be moving to its new premises today and I am privileged to be a witness to this important event, and I am somewhat overcome by a multitude of emotions. Although I have been a Nominated MP for just two years, deep in my heart I fully realise that Singapore's political stability and prosperity depend entirely on the sound operation and development of our system of parliamentary democracy.

Having heard the incisive speech by the Prime Minister, my conviction is further enhanced. With regard to the contributions by the past Members, we have not only to record our appreciation to them, but also to take them as our model, so that we can all put in concerted efforts to carry on perfecting the existing system.

Mr Speaker, Sir, our parliamentary democracy is derived from the British system. Yet we are able to adapt it to suit our multi-racial society and to perform even better. This is indeed remarkable. In our various amendments to the Constitution, the Government introduced quite a number of highly controversial systems such as the GRC, NCMP, Nominated MP and Elected Presidency. These have not only added life to our political arena but also attracted the interest and esteem from the international communities. However, with the persistently pragmatic approach, the Government has been able to explain all these issues to the people through this House and other channels, and eventually won the support of this House and the people so that the various systems or policies could be implemented smoothly and effectively.

In the process, sometimes the people may feel that the Government is too hasty in pushing through some of its policies and find it difficult to accept these policies, or have some complaints over them. I hope that the Government will also keep in mind this saying that "even the wise are not always free from error". In introducing policies affecting the daily lives of the people, the Government should listen more to the feedback of the people, pool the collective wisdom of the masses to ensure that the new policies or measures may be perfected. As such, I suggest that after the Second Reading of a Bill in Parliament, the Minister in charge should take more time to consider the views presented by MPs before taking the Bill through its Third Reading. If this can be done, I am sure the people will have more confidence in the legislative process of Parliament and in the Government's sincerity in wanting to listen to the people.

Mr Speaker, Sir, having gone through the practice and developments all these years, the Parliament of Singapore has evolved into a unique model. This model is no longer just a representation of arguments or confrontation between the ruling Party and the Opposition. With the establishment of NCMP and NMP, no matter what the outcome of a General Election may be, there will always be Members from the ruling Party and the Opposition party or parties in this House. In addition, there will also be non-partisan representatives of the business community, professionals, trade union movement and grassroots organisations. This multi-channel system of parliamentary democracy has instilled in this House a vital new force and a new flavour of life. At the same time, it has increased participation from the people sector of society, so that the relevant non-governmental organisations will be more active and more systematic in collecting feedback from the people, thereby making even greater contributions to our system of parliamentary democracy.

Mr Speaker, Sir, generally, the people of Singapore are more willing to divulge their personal feelings on national issues, under the non-partisan circumstances. These personal or "inner" feelings are a reflection of the real feelings of the people. As an NMP, I feel that my most important mission is to reflect these real feelings of the people in an objective and an unbiased manner to Parliament, to enable the Ministers to give detailed explanation or clarification on the relevant issues or policies.

Mr Speaker, Sir, with more Members in this House, the one-hour allocated for Questions for Oral Answers is clearly inadequate to deal with the great number of questions raised by the Members. I concur with what Dr Lee Tsao Yuan has said just now. I suggest that the time for Oral Answers be increased by another hour. Mr Speaker, Sir, the new Parliament House is not only dignified and stately, but it is also equipped with state-of-the-art communications facilities. I firmly believe that with the continued efforts and cooperation among all Members of this House and the secretariat, our system of parliamentary democracy will be further developed as we step into the new millennium, to make greater contributions to the people of Singapore.

I support the motion standing in the name of the Prime Minister.

Mr Shriniwas Rai (Nominated Member): Mr Speaker, Sir, I thank you for giving me this opportunity to speak.

Sir, I rise to support the motion by the Prime Minister. Last year I had moved a motion on our founding fathers. Today's motion is timely and historic. The Prime Minister has done the House proud by moving this motion himself.

Sir, the Second World War changed the history of colonies. India and other colonies became independent. In Singapore, the Colonial Government introduced elected members to the Legislative Council. But the power remained in the hands of the Governor and his officials.

In 1955 the Rendel Commission came into force. For the first time, local Ministers were appointed with the British Governor still in charge. Mr David Marshall became the first Chief Minister. Later on, we had the constitutional talk in London which led to self-government in 1959.

Mr Speaker, Sir, in 1959 when the PAP won the election under self-government, there was talk that there would be riot and chaos, as PAP was considered extremely left-wing. It had among its members some communist sympathisers.

PAP won 43 seats. Opposition had 8 seats in the 1959 election. The Government had to tackle massive unemployment. HDB was formed to tackle housing. Most of the people lived in attap houses. And the Government made rapid progress in all areas. Then came, in 1961, the struggle within the PAP. Thirteen Members of the Legislative Assembly belonging to the PAP walked out and formed Barisan Sosiaslis led by Dr Lee Siew Choh and Lim Chin Siong.

The House used to be packed both in the Chamber as well as in the public gallery. Ghost writers worked hard at their typewriters. The battle for Merger took centre stage. Mr Lee Kuan Yew went on air to give a series of talks. He exposed the communists and their sympathisers. Then came referendum and merger which was short-lived.

The 1963 General Election was a watershed. Many felt that the PAP days were numbered as the Barisan had drawn huge crowds at its rallies. But the PAP leadership convinced and won the hearts and minds of the people. The Barisan Sosiaslis, instead of reviewing its electoral loss, decided to boycott Parliament. This was indeed sad. Had Barisan Sosialis played the role of a constructive opposition in Parliament, parliamentary democracy would have taken a different path. As a result of this boycott, the PAP Members had to play the de facto role of an opposition. And it is to their credit that they had done well. They used to question Ministers and they do still question. Therefore, I am a little surprised at some of the allegations made by some of the Opposition Members.

From independence in 1965 till today, we have achieved economic progress, social and political stability because the people and Government have worked together in unison.

Sir, when President Ong paid tribute to the Government, he was not just being polite. He was stating facts and reaffirming the political culture of Singapore.

Mr Speaker, Sir, in many countries in Afro-Asia, they started building national symbols. They built huge parliament houses, many with two Houses (Upper and Lower). But only in a few countries, the Westminster system has survived. Democracy has survived in Singapore because of the maturity of the electorate and the clean and honest Government we have. Whether the democratic system will survive in Singapore will depend on our people and the political leadership. We must teach the values of the democratic system from very young to our children both in schools and universities.

Sir, I am happy that the Prime Minister has moved this motion and acknowledged the former MPs for their contribution. Many of these MPs have sacrificed a great deal of time to serve the country. They were not adequately paid but they had one mission, ie, to serve. And I hope there will be the same passion in our youths to serve the country.

Sir, I congratulate you for your foresight for having a moot Parliament. I hope the Members will spare some time to teach the young the practices and procedures of this House, if they have the time.

Mr Speaker, Sir, now I move to the area which my colleagues, Dr Lee Tsao Yuan and Mr Tay Beng Chuan, have touched. I agree with them that parliamentary time should be increased for Questions for Oral Answer. Allow me, Sir, to offer some suggestions to improve our parliamentary system. Our parliamentary system and procedure should be changed to suit our needs. Members should be encouraged to put in Questions for Written Answer and these Questions and Answers could be released at intervals so that the press and the public could gain an opportunity to note the reply.

Many of the questions asked by the Members do not reach the Members till the House is in session. Similarly, as most Ministers have their replies in writing which are read in the House, it would be helpful if the Ministers could give the Members the replies at least one hour before the session starts. In this way, Members would be in a position to scrutinise the answers and they can frame their supplementary questions. Sir, Questions for Oral Answer session forms an important part of parliamentary proceedings all over the world.

Another area is that the public should have direct participation in our parliamentary democracy. Like the Select Committee, Sir, we should encourage the public to put their proposals in writing to the Clerk of Parliament who could then send them to the Minister concerned for his consideration.

Sir, I am aware that the GPC does play a very important and consultative role. But it does not come under the purview of this Parliament. It is the PAP's own setup. The public must feel that they too can contribute and I am sure the consultative process which the Prime Minister has started can be further improved.

Sir, our founding fathers have built sound democratic principles. I have every confidence that the coming generation will do their best to enhance parliamentary democracy.

Finally, Sir, on a personal note, I would like to thank Parliament and the Special Select Committee for giving me this opportunity to be a Member of this House. It has been a rich experience. To you, Mr Speaker, Sir, I am thankful for all your guidance and consideration. The Clerk and his secretariat staff have been very helpful. I join my colleague, Dr Lee Tsao Yuan, in wishing the nine MPs "Good Luck".

Mr Speaker: Order. I suspend the Sitting and will take the Chair again at 4.30 pm.

Sitting suspended accordingly

at 4.19 pm until 4.30 pm.

Sitting resumed at 4.30 pm

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

Debate resumed.

Mr Sin Boon Ann (Tampines): Mr Speaker, Sir, I want to thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak in support of the Prime Minister's motion.

Sir, two years ago, when the then President of the Republic of South Africa, Mr Nelson Mandela, visited Singapore, he was asked a question whether he thought Singapore was a democratic country. Mr Mandela, without hesitation said, and I paraphrase him, that there is no universal definition of democracy. The people of each country must decide their own destiny and how they want to shape their own political institutions.

Mr Mandela's words are apposite for today's motion. Singapore has evolved its own form of parliamentary democracy and we stand today at the threshold of a new beginning in the new Chamber to recognise the contribution of this House to this unique development.

No doubt when this House first sat in 1965, the Members were imbued with much enthusiasm and anxiety to make Singapore a bastion of democracy. Singaporeans then, as they do now, embraced the democratic ideals of the popular vote, free and fair elections and, above all, the constitutionality of government. While we know that democracy must express itself through the popular vote and fair elections, we too know that beyond these basic principles, we must determine how our democracy must necessarily evolve.

Sir, I beg to differ from the Member for Potong Pasir and the NCMP in what they said earlier in this House. The two Members said that we are not a parliamentary democracy because there are not enough Opposition Members in this House. The simple question is: is it our fault that the Opposition Members are not elected? Is it then the responsibility of the ruling party to nurture the Opposition party? If the Member truly thinks he can represent the interests of the people, then let him take it to the people to decide. If he thinks that the popularity of the Opposition is rising, then why is it that his percentage of votes at his constituency is declining with the passing years? The changing of electoral boundaries is a prerogative of the Government of the day. In fact, it came from western democracy. If the PAP Government was not performing or if the PAP Government was dishonest and was out to cheat the people, then no amount of electoral boundary changing is going to prevent the people from voting the PAP out of Parliament. So, Mr Chiam, do not blame the PAP for the dismal and lamentable performance of the Opposition parties.

Over the years, this House has never failed in its duty to develop our political system. In the manner described by Mr Mandela, we have evolved our own parliamentary democracy which is unique and which reflects truly what the people of Singapore want.

This House has, indeed through the years, seen the milestones of constitutional change which strengthened democracy in Singapore. We have ensured minority representation in this Chamber through the GRC system. We have established the Presidential Council for Minority Rights to ensure that we are not faced with the greater evil of the majority trampling on the rights of the minority. We have guarded against the potential weakness of a dominant one party parliament by providing for the NCMPs and the NMPs. We have ensured that a profligate government will not squander the people's resources, by subterfuge or otherwise, by putting in place the institution of the Elected President. Sir, these developments make Singapore unique in the democratic world.

Each time, this House has risen to the occasion to decide how our political system should develop in this country. We have never failed in our duty. That we are able to achieve the democratic milestones is largely attributable to the brave men and women of this House who have never failed to debate fearlessly, whatever their conscience dictated. We must not forget that the challenge was even greater in the early years. Singapore as a young nation then was lifted from the womb of turbulent and troubled times which saw the communists and communalists creating mayhem and riots on the streets. The core of politics then was indeed a call to do battle with these elements. All too often, these brave men and women had to endure verbal abuse and at times, the threat of physical abuse to do what they thought was right. For every brave and dedicated Member, Singapore owes them an immense debt of gratitude.

In my past two years here in this House, I have never had the occasion to doubt that any of my backbench colleagues here would be afraid to ask questions or to seek answers to anything which they thought was not right. And to the credit of our Government, they have never failed to provide answers no matter how unpleasant the subject matter is, if only because they know they owe a duty and a responsibility to account to the people. Ours is truly a system of accountability which all Singaporeans must jealously guard.

We owe a duty not only to the people of Singapore but also to all those brave men and women before us in this House to continue with the fine tradition which began earlier. As we walk through the portals of the new Chamber, let us continue to carry the torch of honest devotion and dedication to the protection and promotion of the interests of the people of Singapore.

For the above reasons, Sir, I support the motion.

Mr Jeyaretnam: May I ask the Member by way of clarification of his speech. The Member says he does not agree with the Opposition's definition of parliamentary democracy but he has not given us what his definition of parliamentary democracy is. Secondly, would he agree that the question asked of Nelson Mandela, because I asked the question, was not about democracy in Singapore but about the democracy that his country was practising? Does he agree there is democracy there and do we have that here in Singapore?

Mr Sin Boon Ann: I would take the second question first. I think the substance of Mr Mandela's answer is essentially that democracy is to be defined by each country based on its own national circumstance and it is not for him to provide a universal definition. In response to the first question on the definition of parliamentary democracy, I do not think this is the appropriate occasion for us to engage in an extensive debate on what parliamentary democracy is beyond reaffirming what I have stated earlier, that the process of parliamentary democracy is important and that in this country, we must recognise that we have a free and fair election and that the people are given the right to choose, and that is important.

Mr Chuang Shaw Peng (Nominated Member): (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the motion standing in the name of the Prime Minister.

The British parliamentary system has been recognised as the model for all democratic countries in the world. As a former British colony, Singapore first adopted the system of Legislative Assembly under the British Westminister model in 1955, but democracy was apparently lacking then. In 1959, the PAP won an overwhelming victory at the General Election, winning 43 out of 51 seats, and became the ruling party in the self-governing State of Singapore. It was then that we began to see some form of parliamentary democracy. In 1965, when we were separated from Malaysia and became an independent republic, our parliamentary system was fully established. Today in Singapore, we enjoy racial harmony and the various ethnic cultures are allowed to flourish and prosper.

With the completion of the new Parliament House, we would be able to accommodate most of the modern-day requirements. It is much bigger than the present House. Apart from the spacious Chamber, we have also many committee rooms with the latest communications facilities. It is a dignified, stately, yet practical building. Today we will be using the new Chamber for the first time. It is a symbol of our progress in the development of our parliamentary democracy. It is a moment which all of us in Singapore should be proud of. As a Nominated MP, I would like to thank the present parliamentary system which has enabled me to come into Parliament without having to contest a General Election.

Just now, Dr Lee Tsao Yuan and Mr Tay Beng Chuan have already pointed out the contributions made by the Nominated MPs in this House. It is my hope that in this House where Opposition Members are clearly lacking, we will continue to have Nominated MPs to serve their useful purposes.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the motion.

Dr Wang Kai Yuen: Mr Speaker, Sir, this is an important day in the history of Parliament as we move into the new Chamber after the House suspends its sitting this afternoon. It is not just that we are occupying a more spacious and modern building, but the significance is that the transformation of a rundown hawker centre into a new Parliament building mirrors the transformation of Singapore from a sleepy colonial outpost to a bustling modern city.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I first became a Member of this House in December 1984. I remember several major Bills and debates in this House that had changed the landscape of parliamentary democracy in Singapore. These include the Town Councils Act, the Nominated MP Amendment, the GRC Amendment, the Elected President Amendment, and the debate on Ministers' salaries. In my view, these are all improvements on the democracy in Singapore and we are all better off as a result of their implementation. I am glad to have contributed to these debates.

The old Parliament building is a simple building but a building with character, a building rich in history. Through its portals had passed all the movers and shakers of Singapore politics. It was pointed out to me, when I was a young MP, that a certain room was used when the then Prime Minister Lee met the Plen. We even have a piece of Westminister parliament set in one of the walls in this building. It is the Tudor Rose from the debris of Westminister building that fell to the ground after the bombing raid in World War II. It was presented to this Chamber upon the establishment of parliamentary democracy, patterned after the Westminister model here. It is a symbol of the linkage between the Singapore Parliament and the UK Parliament. Hopefully, besides the mace it would also find a rightful place in the new building as well. I also appreciate several of the art pieces displayed along the building. I particularly like the various bronze cast human heads by Dora Gordine. I hope they too would find their rightful place.

As we move into the new Chamber and enjoy all the new facilities, I would like to remind Members that you, Mr Speaker, Sir, have played a pivotal role in the planning, design and the construction of the new Parliament building. I was a member of the original team formed in 1990 to carry out the design of the new Parliament building. The study team went on several study tours of Parliament buildings in several countries. I participated in the 1990 visit to the Australian Federal Parliament in Canberra and several state parliaments. It was a working tour. The team visited three cities in five days. I think we spent more time travelling than anything else. The other members of the team, also led by yourself, visited several European Parliaments to acquaint themselves with the designs and features.

I recall that the first item of business then was to deliberate on the seating arrangement. There are several models in the world - the circular arrangement, the horseshoe arrangement, the rectangular arrangement or the existing Westminister arrangement. As Members are aware, seating arrangements go beyond physical arrangements. It implies a fundamental belief in the nature of parliamentary proceedings and, that is to say, whether politics in Parliament is confrontational or by consensus. For instance, in the European Parliament, the seating is a circular one which tends to foster consensus building in parliamentary debates. As the majority of MPs in Parliament since Singapore's independence had been from the PAP party and the trend looks likely to continue in the foreseeable future, it is arguable that one of the other seating arrangements I mentioned might be more appropriate for our new Chamber. This is so because the Westminster model tends to foster confrontational debates in Parliament. It is therefore of paramount importance that the Cabinet has decided to retain the existing seating arrangement. It reflects the wisdom of the decision makers and the desire of most MPs to retain the fine parliamentary tradition we have established to date. It also does not preclude the emergence of stronger opposition representation in Parliament. Whether they will be here or not would depend on how they perform in the elections. Wise men have also decided not to accept some of the more restrictive features recommended on security considerations, such as bullet proof windows for the public galleries. Hence, the close and intimate atmosphere of the old Chamber will be retained in the new Chamber.

The new Parliament is a building with a lot of new features and amenities. However, it is also simple and functional, without the excesses and opulence found in other Parliament buildings. For instance, there is no elaborate arrangement for the Members such as individual Member's rooms or a swimming pool, as is found in the Australian Parliament building. This is befitting as it reflects the basic philosophy of our founding fathers. I understand that you, Mr Speaker, Sir, have spent innumerable hours in recent weeks to decide on the proper level of furnishing, pitching just at the right level of quality without being opulent. I can see the imprint you have left in the building.

Mr Speaker, Sir, regardless of how impressive or functional is the new Parliament building, we all recognise that a Parliament does not a building make. What is important are the deliberations being conducted in the Chamber and the conduct of Members in such debates. Therefore, it is of great importance that the excellent traditions of Parliament be retained. Here, I echo the Prime Minister's wish that present and future Members will continue to build on past traditions to ensure that parliamentary democracy with the unique Singapore characteristics lives on.

The Senior Minister of State for the Environment (Encik Sidek bin Saniff): Mr Speaker, Sir, moving house has always been, to me, a time of rediscovery and reflection. Often times, whilst packing for the move, I would chance upon some long-forgotten item and the memories that it has evoked - an experience that many here would have shared before.

The momentous move today of this House has likewise evoked many precious memories for me, having spent almost 23 years serving in Parliament. I remember how the ruling party saw the need then to extend its reach to include those with differing opinions, so that a wide spectrum of views was represented in the process of nation building. That incidentally was how I - a teacher and critic of the educational system then - became involved in politics.

The Senior Minister and the Old Guard also saw the need to gradually hand over the reins to a new generation of leaders, and they were always on the lookout for fresh talent. In the 1976 elections, there were 11 new candidates including, myself. Of that batch, one is yourself, the Speaker of the House today, another is a Mayor of a CDC and three became Ministers, one of whom is PM Goh Chok Tong. I am glad to note that this process of self-renewal is still on-going today, as evidenced by the many young and promising Ministers and parliamentarians in our ranks.

On a lighter note, I remember there was no opposition back then and the Leader of the House, Mr E.W. Barker, had to encourage us, the backbenchers, to take on this unpleasant role. Some of us were even appointed to speak when important issues were being debated, including what language to use. It ended up with three of us - Dr Lau Teik Soon in English, Dr Ow Chin Hock in Mandarin and myself in Malay. The younger parliamentarians certainly have it easier today and, ironically, they have the opposition, NMPs and NCMP to thank for that! Seriously though, I think they also have an unenviable task, as they now have to compete with the opposition, NMPs and NCMP to put forth their views. With the introduction of NCMPs, there is a possibility that the ruling party may lose some seats in future if the NCMPs did a good job. However, this is worth it as it shows that democracy works. In the end, democracy should be the winner.

Sir, when one moves, one does not have to discard everything he had before that. Likewise, as we make the move today, let us hold on to that which was good. One of these is the multi-racial and multi-religious representation that we have in Parliament today. The recent conflicts in Serbia and Indonesia serve to highlight the fragility of non-homogeneous societies. I am glad that the Government had long recognised this and had implemented various measures over the years, such as the GRC concept to ensure adequate minority representation in Parliament. The introduction of legislation such as the Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act has also helped to ensure peace in our multi-religious society. These two Acts alone have served Singapore well, especially the minorities - the Indians and the Malays.

Sir, moving also foreshadows the resolve to meet new challenges. There will be many such new challenges in the next millennium. Time magazine reported that some of these challenges are the need for leadership, the use of IT, globalisation, ethnicity, the rise of fundamentalism and the environment. Indeed, as issues become more complex, strong leadership is crucial to steer our nation into a brighter future. SM and PM have set the pace as well as the style of leadership. Our future leaders may require a combination of both or may even need to develop a completely new style to cope with the changing times. It is my hope that our move into the new complex will signify both a continuation of what we have done so well in the past and a new starting point for tackling the challenges ahead.

Finally, Sir, regardless of how vigorous the debates may be, let us do so with the primary objective of making issues clear in our minds first, so that sound decisions can be made for the good of the nation. Let us continue to carry out our duties and responsibilities faithfully as we move forward into the future, bearing the weight of our people's trust with sure and steadfast steps. A final note - let us remember that at the beginning of civilisation, Tribes such as the Incas, Mayas, Aztecs and Greco-Romans were at the forefront of progress. By the 20th century, Joel Kotkin, the author of Tribes, named the following new set of Tribes that have changed the map of the world, namely, the Jews, British, Japanese, Chinese and Indians. Let us therefore strive together with commitment to make the "Singapore Tribe" one of the Tribes that makes a difference in the 21st century - the next millennium - in the same way that our SM has raised our nation's international profile and put us on the global map this century. 4.55 pm

Dr Ker Sin Tze (Aljunied): (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, thank you for giving me the opportunity to participate in this debate on the Prime Minister's motion.

Our House and its predecessor, the Legislative Assembly, have been sitting here for the past 45 years, since 1955. In this period of nearly half a century, Singapore has evolved from a British colony to self-government, into Malaysia, out of Malaysia and as an independent country. Socially, we have developed from a loose, migrant society into a tightly-knit multi-racial, multi-religious and multi-lingual society. Economically, we have developed from a port dependent on entrepot trade to an industrialized economy, dependent on exports and then further developed into an open economy characterised by services and high technology.

Changes in our policies have been decided during the debates in this august Chamber before they are implemented. Our Parliament has witnessed all the important decision-making on the policies of our country. It is an important source of the history of Singapore. Our House has fully demonstrated the decision-making process of democracy, whether you are a Member of the Government party or a Member of the Opposition party, in the cut and thrust of parliamentary debates. The beauty is, even after heated arguments, we have abided by the decision of the majority. Unlike parliaments elsewhere, where physical violence takes place regularly, our Members, under the able guidance of you, Mr Speaker, have fully participated in the process and demonstrated the spirit of parliamentary democracy.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to mention a historical incident which could have changed the development of our history. In 1961, when the Government proposed the motion to merge with Malaysia, heated debates took place. There were many different views. Led by Dr Lee Siew Choh, eight PAP MPs announced on 14th July that they disagreed with the party policy and decided to leave the party. In the Anson by-election, David Marshall defeated the PAP candidate. The circumstances then were certainly unfavourable to the PAP. On 20th July 1961, the then Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew, moved a motion of confidence in the House. The debate started at half past two in the afternoon and went on till 4 o'clock the following morning. The motion was won by the PAP Government with a very small margin. The confidence motion was passed.

If the House had not passed the confidence motion then, the PAP Government would have to resign and hold another election. Perhaps the history of Singapore would have completely been re-written. Although the history of parliamentary democracy in Singapore was still very short, it played its effective role at the critical moment and resolved a very serious political crisis, enabling the Government to give full play to its moral authority and power, thereby bringing Singapore to the track of rapid development and progress. It is because of this that Singapore has arrived where we are. This is a very important contribution by parliamentary democracy to the development of Singapore.

Sir, we will soon leave this Chamber to move to the new Chamber in the modern Parliament House, and continue our debate there. In the last 45 years, this Chamber has witnessed the Prime Minister, the Ministers and the MPs engaging in many debates. It has enabled the public to have a better understanding of the process of legislation. We must recognize and confirm the contributions by MPs in the past, and we hope that our present and future MPs will emulate the spirit of our predecessors in this House to carry out their duties outstandingly, as representatives of the people.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the Prime Minister's motion. 5.02 pm

The Senior Minister (Mr Lee Kuan Yew): Mr Speaker, Sir, I am the only Member here, only one of the 25 elected Assemblymen in this Chamber, when the first Legislative Assembly met in its first Session in April 1955, 44 years ago. It may be useful to recapture, if only partially, the atmosphere of that period. We had met for the first time and the first order of business of the new elected Chief Minister was to move a Motion of Thanks to the Queen. The Chief Minister, Mr David Marshall, rose and said:

"That this House conveys its humble duty and thanks to Her Majesty the Queen for her gracious message."

The message was:

"That I look forward with every confidence to the faithful discharge of this trust for I am sure that those on whom this responsibility falls will carry it out with foresight, courage and honesty of purpose."

I was then sitting in the Opposition leading three other Assemblymen out of the 25. I decided that we would let it pass, as a matter of courtesy to Her Majesty the Queen.

The second order of business was the motion by Mr Marshall's number 2, Mr Lim Yew Hock. He rose to convey to the Secretary of State for the Colonies, Alan Lenox Boyd, an expression of warm appreciation for his message. That message was a political message. I decided I would not let it pass. After it was seconded by Mr M.P.D. Nair, who was one of the new Ministers, I rose to say:

"Mr Speaker, Sir, we are asked on this motion to associate ourselves with the Government to thank the Secretary of State for the Colonies for having sent us this message. Far be it from the People's Action Party not to observe the civilities and courtesies of life, but I think it is important that we should take this occasion to remind ourselves what we have to be grateful for."

In his message, the Secretary of State for the Colonies said:

"It gives me great pleasure to send a message of greetings and goodwill to the Legislative Assembly of Singapore on the historic occasion of its first meeting under the new Constitution. My only regret is that neither I nor any of my Ministerial Colleagues can be present in person to deliver it."

Then he went on, and this is where he gave me the opening. He said:

"I must first of all congratulate all those who have taken part in the working out of this New Constitution, the Committee under the Chairmanship of Sir George Rendel who now see the fulfilment of their labours and His Excellency the Governor and his officers who have devoted much time to framing and bringing the Constitution into operation."

It gave me a golden hammer to bang the table with, because of the mood outside. It is important if you are going to make an impact, that what you say inside must resonate outside. It is not enough to resonate in this Chamber.

I moved and waded into the Chief Minister with youthful relish.

'Sir, in all these pious hopes, [we join with the Chief Minister] and we thank him for his good wishes, but we take exception when he saiys "I must first of all congratulate all those who have taken part in the working out of this New Constitution, the Committee under the Chairmanship of Sir George Rendel." Sir, the authors of this constitution, with some exceptions, were not representatives of the people. Its Chairman [Sir George Rendel] was a man with a very distinguished career in the diplomatic service, amongst whose many achievements in life was a trip across Saudi Arabia at the invitation of King Ibn Saud. No doubt that gave him a sufficient understanding of our political and economic problems, but the people of Singapore on 2nd April did not congratulate these men and they decisively showed, with one exception, that they would not have the authors of this phoney constitution. [They were all voted out.] That one exception, Sir, is because the Member concerned is a man who is versatile, a man of many sides and many colours, a man who was agile at some later date to dissociate himself from some very spurious provisions of that recommendation.'

That man was Lim Yew Hock.

I then said, I quoted the Chief Minister what he had been saying in the hustings, "that this constitution was outmoded even before it started, and if men of stature were asked to operate the constitution it would not work."

He said he never expected himself to be the Chief Minister. So I quoted him. The Chief Minister rose to say:

"Correction. That is an inaccurate report of what was indicated. I said that men of stature, [that's him] if elected [and he was] could conflict very sharply with the Official Ministers designated in that constitution. I did not say it was unworkable."

My reply was:

"Very well, Sir. I am afraid I must apologise to the Hon. the Chief Minister for having so inaccurately summarised it; .Now, Sir, I think the People's Action Party is charitable enough to believe that there are men of stature on the Benches opposite and we look forward with great anticipation, and even with some amusement, to the conflicts that would inevitably arise."

I turned to another Member of the Front bench and said:

"Only a few days ago an eminent supporter of the Government Benches, who was in Bandoeng, (there was a great conference in the city of Bandoeng where Afro-Asian leaders gathered in 1955), no doubt exhilarated by the high rarified mountain air in those parts, was moved to say that this Constitution was nothing but a cloak for colonialism."

That is another one of them. They gave me openings. I took them and rammed through. The Chief Minister was not one who would take things lying down. He stood up and tried to explain his position. He said:

"We have clearly indicated in our policy which will be debated in our motion of thanks to His Excellency's Address, the Government is of the view that the present constitution is inadequate, but it is not of the view that it is unworkable and never has been. There will be conflicts, Sir, there is no doubt about it, but the policy, the doctrine, of collective Ministerial responsibility will, I think, prevail in all circumstances. [Now he is telling his Ministers and the three officials - Chief Secretary, Financial Secretary and the Attorney-General, three British officials], . will make it workable where there is goodwill. Whatever the conflicts within the ministerial ranks, it must be remembered that the people have the majority representation in the Council of Ministers [that is, he and his Ministers], and the majority decision will prevail."

It is a very different world. There was a nominated Member of Parliament who was a Scotsman, a banker of Chartered Bank called Mr Sutherland. He represented the British commercial interests. He rose to speak and said:

"Sir, I had no idea that I should rise so early in the House, but I now do so because I am delighted to learn from the Member for Tanjong Pagar (Mr Lee Kuan Yew) that I only represent myself. So I think I have every right to say something."

So I put him on the defensive right from the word go: we represent the people outside, he represented himself. He then quoted his Foreign Secretary, Sir Anthony Eden:

"I should like to remind the House of the conditions the British Prime Minister (Sir Anthony Eden had become the Prime Minister) when he was Foreign Secretary laid down ... firstly, to suppress terrorism; secondly, to see that the people were on guard against Communist infiltration and aggression; thirdly, to develop a sound economy and administration and to achieve a durable accord between races; and fourthly, to provide a secure system of defence."

He then said:

"Speaking as a native of a country that has experienced seven centuries of freedom since Magna Carter, I thoroughly sympathise with the feelings of the Member for Tanjong Pagar, but I agree with the Member for Paya Lebar (Mr Lim Koon Teck, who was a banker and a Member of the Progressive Party) that the time is not yet ripe."

We were not ready for independence.

I believe it was not possible to predict how, from that very controlled, modulated beginning, this House went into rambunctious tumult, as strikes, go-slows and riots overtook Singapore. Because for several years before that, since the Declaration of Emergency in 1948, all was quiet. That election period let off tremendous forces that were at work, and the communist organisations directed the secret cadres in the trade unions, the Old Boys' Associations and the newspapers to come to life. They generated enormous excitement and political agitation. We were taking our first steps away from direct rule by a Governor who presided over a mainly nominated Legislative Councillors to a partially self-governing Singapore. The Chief Minister was supposed to be in charge of the Government but key subjects, like foreign affairs and defence, were controlled by London and in Singapore, the Chief Secretary, the Financial Secretary and the Attorney-General were all ex-officio British appointed officers.

Re-reading Hansard, I was reminded of the light-hearted irreverence of the proceedings in this House because we were educated about the underground forces at work and how comprehensive was the hold of the communists on that dissatisfied ground. We thought it was fun and games. It was not. It is a world that has vanished. Not quite. Some areas where communist supporters had been resettled, I notice, still voted against the Government. People do not change their loyalties so easily, in spite of prosperity. That period can only be partially recaptured by those who were present and who will refresh their memory with these records.

Sir, in those first four years, 1955 to 1959, this House provided me with a forum. It was the days before television. The newspapers were dead set against the PAP because we were identified as pro-communists or likely to be stooges of the communists and therefore a danger and a menace to democracy in Singapore. But they could not ignore what took place in this Chamber because they reflected what was going on outside - Hock Lee bus riots, series of strikes, go-slows which had erupted. By the end of the second year, 1955 to 1957, tumultuous events took place outside this Chamber. Late in 1956 after David Marshall had resigned and Lim Yew Hock took over, Lim made a terrible mistake of ordering the Singapore Police Force, led by British officers, to clear up stay-in students of Chinese High School and Chung Cheng High School. He never recovered. He was portrayed as having destroyed Chinese language, education, culture. We learned some elementary lessons on politics.

By the end of the second year (1957) after a second sweep of pro-communist union workers, after their front line leaders were removed, the second front line - when Lim Chin Siong was taken in, his brother Lim Chin Joo took over - not as bright, not as charismatic, but he carried his brother's name and regrouped the forces. This time it was portrayed as being against the workers. By the end of 1957, the ground sentiment had gone solidly against the Government and the other parties in this Assembly that supported the Government, and in favour of the PAP. The elections in 1959 was ours to lose. I made no mistakes between 1957 and 1959 and we swept to victory in the 1959 elections, winning 43 out of the 51 seats. Without the platform that this Chamber provided, the PAP could not have built up its support so quickly.

Those four years also educated my colleagues and me on the realities of the problems we were going to face once we took power. Chinese chauvinism exploited by the communists - Chinese education, language, culture - the dissatisfaction of the workers who felt that they were shortchanged. Tremendous housing shortage, unemployment, lack of schools, lack of opportunities. It was a toss-up between taking over since it was ours to lose or letting a bunch of incompetents and corrupt Ministers carry on for a second term, while we built up outside and became stronger, but ran the risk of the whole system - the civil service, all its institutions - becoming corrupted. We decided we had to move.

The next four years, from 1959 to 1963, turned out to be even more momentous. Several crises played themselves out in this House. The most important was the day we decided to have a motion of confidence, which Ker Sin Tze had recounted. We wanted to separate the goats from the sheep. It is difficult to capture the atmosphere because today the communists are nobodies. But at that time, they believed, and many people believed, that they were the tide of history. And Assemblymen had to decide whether you go against that tide of history and get swept away or you ride the surf. We took a vote. Thirteen of them decided to ride the surf. The biggest surf rider of all was Dr Lee Siew Choh. He was no communist. We had fielded him as a candidate because Dr Goh Keng Swee knew him as a fellow student, he was in medical college, and as a chess player and a gambler. He gambled in his moves. And we said, why not, he spoke Chinese. He was promised by the Communists that he would become the Prime Minister. And one doctor who was no communist also joined them. I do not know how old Dr Ker was then. Maybe he remembered reading it in the newspapers or perhaps he looked up Hansard that after the debate, at 4.00 am, after the votes were counted, we were still the Government, and the battle began in earnest.

And this time we had shrugged the albatross off our necks. We expelled the 13 pro-communist PAP Assemblymen who had abstained from voting. They did not vote against us. They were still hoping that somehow they would find a way to stay in power with us. We expelled them. They went into opposition as Barisan Sosialis, with Dr Lee Siew Choh as their leader. Quite a few Members in this House will remember Dr Lee in his interlude as a Non-Constituency MP from 1988 to 1991. But what they saw was a shadow of Dr Lee, an older, much chastened man; this time without the aura and the sense of imminent power of the communists behind him. We saw a man, who Members will remember, found it difficult to take himself seriously. He would make a statement, then he would giggle at himself, because he knew it was ridiculous to say these things. He could not take himself seriously. But I remember him in the 1960s as a defiant figure, ranting at the Government Frontbenches, fervent in the belief that he was destined for greatness as the next Prime Minister.

To those in this House who have not experienced those times, let me say why I call this House something like a theatre. Whenever there is a crisis, the crowd would fill up the Strangers' Gallery. It happened when there were riots in June 1955 when I was denounced by Mr David Marshall, and from time to time when there was great disorder outside and the Government was under pressure. And, of course, the most momentous was on 21st July 1961 when 13 PAP Assemblymen had moved across. The opposition, we were not sure how they would vote. And Dr Lee Siew Choh went great guns for seven hours with a team of script writers inside the Opposition Members' room, providing him with material that he read for the first time. My colleagues and I rose on points of order, but the Speaker, Sir George Oehlers, leaned over backwards, and allowed this filibustering to go on. I do not know what they hoped to gain by that filibuster, perhaps time to win over more PAP Assemblymen, then knock out the Government, but they did not succeed.

There was an even more memorable occasion when we had debates on the Referendum Bill that they tried to procrastinate. But by then, we knew that the dice had been thrown, and they could not overthrow us. Although it was 25-25 across the aisle, we were never voted out. I calculated rightly that the Tengku would never allow Mr Lim Yew Hock to vote us out and face the prospect of having to deal with the Barisan Sosialis government. So we have never sullied our position by taking in corrupt people into our ranks.

After Malaysia, in September 1963, the drama moved away from this Chamber. Because law and order, the police and armed forces, were subjects under the central government, so two race riots in July and September 1964 could not be debated here. When the centre of gravity returned after 9th August 1965, Dr Lee was not in this Chamber, because he had lost his election to Dr Toh Chin Chye by some 91 votes. They were critical votes because had he been in this Chamber, he would never have allowed his Barisan MPs to boycott it. As he was not here, he decided on their behalf that the 13 of them should boycott Parliament. It was a fateful mistake. For 16 years from 1965 till 1981, without any Opposition in this Chamber, in four successive general elections that we won, 1968, 1972, 1976 and 1980. We reshaped the political landscape of Singapore. Crucial was that we never abused the trust the people placed on us. We maintained rigorous standards of propriety and honesty. There was no more exciting drama, no crowds in the Strangers' Gallery. I do not miss an audience when there is none. I know that that means there is calm, peace, confidence outside. The only time it was filled up was on ceremonial occasions, like the Opening of Parliament or, perhaps, today, on the final session of this House.

But they were important years because in the calm, quiet and sober mood of deliberation, we laid the foundation for Singapore's future. We consolidated our young nation. I hope that for a long while yet the House will not attract the press and the public because they smell blood. It is when they smell blood - a government about to be thrown out when it loses the vote - that they would come to watch the kill.

Sir, when writing my memoirs to recapture those years, I scanned the Addresses made by the Head of State, the Yang Di-Pertuan Negara, and, after 1965, the President, to this Chamber. They were all crafted by my colleagues and me, and were a barometer of our concerns over the 30 years I was in charge from 1959 to 1990. They break neatly into three distinct periods: 1959 to 1965 where we had a hectic political situation wrecked by spasms of violence and tension and when grave economic problems were piling up, but not given full attention to, because Ministers were too distracted. Then a second period of intense stress from 1965 to 1971. Then it was a deep sense of urgency, an urgency that enveloped us as we knew we had to cope on our own to build an army to defend ourselves, rushed to build an air force before the British withdrew after they announced it in 1968 for 1971, that was when it reached crisis proportions. 1968 to 1971, between the time they announced it and the time they withdrew, those four years were critical years for our young republic. We knew we either made it or we would fail. We worked hard, we worked smart, and, most important, we worked as a team. By the time the British withdrew in October 1971, we had avoided massive unemployment which we had feared because some 30,000 civilian employees, about 12% to 15% of the workforce, were discharged with redundancy benefits. And some 40,000 outside - shopkeepers, bartenders, laundrymen, those maids who serviced the families of the British servicemen - were also affected.

For our defence, I think we were fortunate because, although we had an incipient, a budding little nucleus of a defence force, the British, together with the Australians and New Zealanders, decided after all, because there was a change in Government in Britain in 1970 - Labour was out, Prime Minister Edward Heath's Conservative came in - they would stay on, but in a reduced capacity. And that bought us another four years till 1975. After we rode the oil crisis in 1973, we were more confident that we could survive on our own. The final period for me, 1972 to 1990, was a time for qualitative improvements across the board, with our concerns shifting over the years and moving from fundamentals to the finer qualities of life.

So my speeches in this House mirrored the changes in mood and challenge of the time. As I said, the first two years (1955 to 1957), it was light-hearted and quite enjoyable, the cut and thrust of parliamentary debate with David Marshall providing me with the sparring partner.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise on a point of order to ask if the Senior Minister has not exceeded the time allowed for speeches.

Mr Speaker: He has not exceeded the time. Your point of order is irrelevant. Please be seated. Please continue, Senior Minister.

Mr Lee Kuan Yew: I sympathise with the Member, once upon a time for Anson, now Non-Constituency. He reminds me of people in the constituencies. Whenever the Prime Minister goes walkabout, somebody would say, "Come on, join in. They are taking a photograph." It is a photo opportunity. Unless it is a point of order, I would ask ---

Mr Jeyaretnam: On a point of clarification.

Mr Lee Kuan Yew: No. There are plenty of moments for him to clarify his thoughts.

Mr Speaker: Order. The Member having the floor is not giving way to you, Mr Jeyaretnam. Please resume your speech.

Mr Lee Kuan Yew: One photo opportunity is enough.

Mr Jeyaretnam: You say that it is not relevant and then he goes on.

Mr Speaker: Order.

Mr Jeyaretnam: You allow him.

Mr Lee Kuan Yew: Sir, when we realised how deep and all-embracing was the grip of the communists on the ground and their determination to seize power, my mood changed. I lost my youthful innocence. The seriousness of the threat and the high stakes involved brought a more sombre tone to my speeches, reflecting my deep concerns for the future. Politics was a deadly serious business, in which all the parties, all the players, including us, were playing for keeps. Make no mistake about this. In this Chamber, we are playing for keeps. The future of Singapore and its three-plus million people is not a question for light-hearted banter. We are seeing before our eyes today what has happened in the last two years in Indonesia and what is happening right at this moment in East Timor, and yet if you cast your mind back to 1997, all was peaceful. So when I hear these speeches about liberties, freedoms, and so on, I said that is a luxury we, by our tough, hard-headed policies, have afforded them to talk about. But for us, nobody would be here today. Imagine what this place would be like. So I make no apologies either to the people, to my opponents here or to my critics abroad. Nobody believed we could make it, but we have. But there is no reason to believe that we will continue to make it. We will continue to make it only if there are tough-minded people who know the difference between the froth and the substance.

Sir, as people in Singapore became better educated, our MPs reflected this change. In 1955, there were four of us. I was the only one with a university education. Goh Chew Chua, an old man, had made his way up in the world as a building contractor. Lim Chin Siong did not finish Chinese high school. And Ahmad Ibrahim, a trade unionist from the Naval Base Labour Union, did not complete standard six. In 1959, 43 PAP Assemblymen, competent politically, were not highly educated, grassroots, trade unionists, two barbers, one farmer, journalists and many non-graduate teachers. With each successive election, the educational level improved, as it must. Unless this House is able to reflect the different population that is growing up outside, it will not remain relevant.

Voters expect their MPs to be better educated, more energetic and effective than they themselves are, and humble and grateful that they have been voted in once every four to five years. But that is the way it is. This trend will continue. It means that MPs will have to be more knowledgeable and debate issues at a higher intellectual level. That is happening, and I am proud to say that I have contributed to this process. But all said and done, each batch of MPs met the needs of their generation of voters or the PAP MPs would not have been re-elected the next time round. Because if you have an MP who does not tend to his constituents and does not represent them well, that is a problem at the next election. Because they did, they enabled the Government to implement tough but sound policies and got us to where we now are. They were men and women of integrity. During the 40 years, since 1959, only four MPs have smudged this record of clean and honest government, only four out of over 100 MPs over a space of 40 years.

Because of the absence of the opposition, we encouraged our backbenchers to play a critical role; their questioning has helped to ventilate issues which otherwise would not have been brought forward. The critical period, as I said, for our foundation was three years of intense stress, 1968 to 1971, when we reshaped our industrial relations. If we carried on the way we did previously with irresponsible unions calling strikes and go-slows, we would have perished. The union leaders knew that. Although they made powerful speeches why we should not go so far, nobody, no trade unionist in this House voted against amendments to the Employment Act, Trade Unions Act and the Industrial Relations Act. They have created the foundation on which our industrial relations have produced benefits for workers, in their homes, CPF, schools, clinics, hospitals, for the employers in the businesses that they have expanded, and for the Government in their repeated good returns at successive elections.

There were no more moments of high drama because the Government's majority was never at risk. Even when we lost one seat in Anson to Mr J. B. Jeyaretnam in 1981, the excitement was momentary because no one expected major change. Mr Chiam See Tong created a bigger wave in Singapore when he won a second time in 1988 with a total of three seats. It carried long-term implications if the trend had continued. Unfortunately, for him, he fumbled and he got expelled from his own party.

The question is: will this House see the return of an Opposition that can pose a serious challenge to the PAP? My answer: that depends on whether the governing party allows itself to go soft and flabby, and ceases to respond creatively to changing circumstances, and loses its standing with the people. This will surely happen if the PAP does not self-renew by attracting some of the brightest and the best of each year's cohort to become MPs and later Ministers, men and women committed to improving the lives of their fellow citizens.

Even more important is that the PAP must never be foolish in refusing, or failing to include on its side, able and dedicated men of strong political convictions, whether because of differences of personality or unwillingness to adjust to PAP policies, and that drives them to the Opposition benches. Because a few sincere and capable leaders could be the spearhead of a group of men and women, able in one or two election terms, to present the voters with a shadow cabinet, an alternative team that can match the PAP's. I was able to build up a credible team in one election term, four years after getting elected into this Chamber in 1955, just four years, because I had a group of talented colleagues outside the Chamber to plan and implement our strategy and I could present at election time a credible government of people with experience in administration and business who could be trusted to govern the country. Apart from barbers, farmers and trade unionists for grassroots support, we presented a team with a programme that is still available in print called The Tasks Ahead.

If such a turn of events were to happen, where the PAP is displaced by a leaner, keener and shrewder team, I would not shed any tears over such an ouster. I would say that they deserved to be ousted. For this would be one way to renew the political leadership of Singapore. What would be cause for despair, and this is the reason for the Elected Presidency, if a transient mood of disappointment among the people as a result of some setback or mishap just before an election and it were to lead them to reject the PAP and vote in a motley crew of incompetents and adventurers. That could end up in tragedy. Hence it is important for us to expose opportunists and incompetents before they can pass themselves off as possible replacements for the PAP. There is a reason behind the sharp replies that we give. If you allow someone who is an adventurer, who is incompetent, who is a liar, to pass off as a credible person, then we are in trouble. And for that reason, when I look at Dr Vasoo there, I feel proud that we have such a Member because when Dr Chee came out in the 1992 by-elections and I found that he was his subordinate, I asked Vasoo what sort of man he was. He said, "Well, so-so, not so bad." But after Dr Chee's conduct in the elections, he decided, on his own, that he would expose the man as a charlatan, a petty liar and a thief. You can imagine the amount of problems we would have once he is elected and allowed to become a Minister. The spin doctors that would be at work that have surrounded themselves around his office. So there is a serious purpose which the foreign press of course thinks is dictatorial and authoritarian. But look at their countries. They do not discover the character of their leader until after he has gone into office, then they wring their hands. Is that wise?

Parliament's chamber does not stand unchallenged as a pulpit to get your views across. With television, the pre-eminence of this Chamber as a forum, has been challenged by many other settings. It is not just for Singapore. You will notice that in Britain, Tony Blair, the Prime Minister, regularly uses television settings outside Parliament, because his parliamentary setting is too raucous, too noisy, too disorderly, everybody wants to catch the eyes of the Speaker to appear on television, a television opportunity to project themselves.

At a reception you gave, Mr Speaker, Sir, a few years ago, you invited a former Speaker of the House of Commons, George Thomas (later Lord Tonypandy). And over drinks, the Prime Minister and I asked him whether the introduction of television was a good thing for Parliament. He said it was inevitable but he did not think so, because it had lowered standards of behaviour in Parliament and standards of debate. They were speaking for a wider audience. But it has to happen, and we have to live with it.

However Parliament as an arena for the contest of wits and wills over matters of policies will always remain important because of our system of parliamentary democracy, where the Prime Minister has to command the support of the majority in this House, not outside. He is elected not by the general electorate but by Members of this House, and there is a profound difference. As a voter outside, you only know Mr Chiam or Mr Low Thia Khiang from his speeches in print or from the bits you catch of him on television or from listening to him at mass rallies. But in this House, with constant interaction, you get the measure of the man, his character, his ability, his integrity, the quickness with which he is able to seize a point or the charm with which he laughs away and says, "Well, I am not very good in arithmetic." And for that reason, Mr Chiam got re-elected. Had he tried to pretend that he was a mathematician, Potong Pasir would have written him off; but Potong Pasir liked the sincerity of this man.

I believe that this is a better system for choosing a leader because the selectors have a better knowledge of the person they will support as against those voting for a presidential candidate whom they know little about except what they see on television and what the mass media reports him to have said. Therefore, Parliamentary debates will remain important, not just as a forum for the clash of ideas, but the frequent exchanges that allow Members to get insights into whether this or that MP will make a good leader and deserves to lead them in the next elections, because the leader in the next elections will decide whether you win your seat easily or whether you are clinging to the ledge of the cliff.

Sir, as we close our proceedings in this old Chamber, allow me, as the oldest Member, a moment of nostalgia. When I came up the stairs today, probably for the last time, I recall the different era when so much depended on how the votes would go at the division, the temper of the fierce opponents who used to frequent this Chamber and the Members' Room. They all played their part in keeping Singapore's parliamentary system alive and well. I do not just remember the people who are now before me, but more vividly in my mind's eyes are those who, by the accident of circumstances and the speeches they have made, etched themselves indelibly in my memory. They are ghosts that only I see. But when I go to the Members' Room or what is now the Members' Room and used to be the Select Committee room, I am reminded of the time in March 1958 when I took a communist underground leader, the Plen as I call him, into that same room, for our first encounter. It played a not insignificant part in the history of Singapore, as did many other encounters I have had in this Chamber, but none more momentous and more exciting than that one.

I had a message from a pro-communist trade unionist who used to converse with me in Mandarin to improve my Mandarin. This was in 1958 and he said, "Would I meet an important person?" I said, "Yes." He said, "It had to be very secret." I said, "Why?" Because he was wanted and he had to be very careful. So I thought, "What if I am caught with him?" I said, "Yes, I will meet him if he will meet me at the road between the Victoria Memorial Hall and Empress Place." And we agreed that we would meet there at half-past eleven. He said that the man would have his glasses placed in his shirt pocket. He would hold a Chinese newspaper. I said fine. He was there. I said, "Come with me." We came up and I took him to the Committee Room. The staff allowed him in because I brought him in. If the police were to descend on me, I would have said, "He is a constituent. He wants to see me." The staff did not know who he was. So I had prepared what I thought was a credible defence. He said, "I am the leader." I said, "How do I know?" He said, "You've got to take my word for it." I said, "Well, if you are the leader, then you order Chan Yuen Tong, who is a Workers' Party City Councillor, to resign. Then I'll believe you are the leader." He said to me, "Give me time."

Six weeks later in April, in London, when I attended a constitutional conference, I opened the Straits Times, and Mr Chan Yuen Tong had resigned. I thought, God, a man, wanted by the police, hiding somewhere, is able, without messengers, telephones, office, no bells, to get this man to resign. I was dealing with a real leader. We were to meet again three times before the elections. They were momentous meetings, because they decided how the Communists would act against the PAP, when it formed the Government.

I was privileged to be present at the opening of this Assembly and fortunate to be present today at our last sitting. Like much of Singapore, we have to move out and on. But with this change, something is lost, and not just for me. There is a reason why the British, and other people with long histories, keep a certain sense of continuity of place. So people never allow a city to be completely demolished and forgotten. When Warsaw was bombed and destroyed in World War II, first by the Germans, and then by the Russians coming back, they laboriously rebuilt Warsaw on their old plans that they dug up, because a people must have a certain sense of place.

We do not have the privilege of rebuilding around this Chamber to keep our sense of place. The building is not capacious enough, or sturdy enough, to allow us that privilege. Remember, when the British House of Commons was bombed during the War, they decided to rebuild it in exactly the same place, and kept as much of the old as was possible, so that they can say there Lloyd George, Gladstone or Disraeli, made their momentous speeches.

When we became an independent republic in 1965, my colleagues and I considered whether we should move Parliament into a more handsome building like the City Hall. We decided against it. We wanted to keep our sense of proportion. The importance of this Chamber did not, and does not, depend upon its size and its grandeur, but upon the quality of the men and women who occupy it as representatives of the people. We must have that sense of proportion.

When I heard Sidek Saniff saying that perhaps we should be one of the memorable tribes that Kotkin wrote about, I say, if only that were true. It is beyond our reach. But the premises we are moving to is within our sense of proportion. It is better furnished, more spacious, but not the magnificent and awe inspiring edifice that many new nations put up. By the standards of other public and private buildings in Singapore, it is modest by comparison. But that is a virtue. Behind the understatement lie great strengths of character, integrity and determination. That is what will see Singapore through, not the grand statements and monuments in brick and mortar or steel and concrete, with which so many other new nations try to impress themselves and their followers. [Applause.]

Mr Jeyaretnam: Mr Speaker, Sir, may I, by way of clarification, put one question to the Senior Minister? Will he tell us, within the few minutes left, after he came into power, why he jettisoned many of the things that he had stood for when he was in the opposition?

Mr Lee Kuan Yew: I do not find any profit in this exchange. If I had not lived and learned, I would have failed, and Singapore would have failed. Every day that I live, I learn something new. The world changes. I keep abreast of it. And we are abreast of it because I have never stopped learning. I am not static and I hope never will be. The trouble with the Non-Constituency Member is that his mind froze. I have ceased to want to listen to him because I hear nothing new. It is frozen in time, which is a pity for him and for those who have to report him.

Mr Jeyaretnam: I have another question. Will he tell us ---

Mr Speaker: Order. We are running out of time. I suggest that if you want to discuss this, save it for another occasion.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Will the Senior Minister be present at the next debate?

Mr Speaker: Hon. Members, in a short while, we will be leaving this Chamber and we will be making our move to a new House. I hope you will bear with me if I take this opportunity to say a few words. [Applause.]

With your encouragement, I think I will now say more than a few words!

Hon. Members, this building is the oldest Government building in Singapore. In 1819, when Stamford Raffles landed in Singapore, the site of this building was occupied by the Temenggong of Singapore and his followers. Raffles purchased the site from the Temenggong. But by an administrative oversight, a permit was issued to J A Maxwell to build a two-storey mansion on the site in 1826. Maxwell did not occupy the building when it was completed but instead rented it to the Government which bought it back in an auction in 1841.

It was then used as a court house and subsequently as public offices. It housed the Supreme Court of the Colony until 1939, and after World War II, it continued to be used by various Government departments. In 1953, extensive works took place to transform it into Assembly House which was officially declared open by the Governor, Sir John Nicoll, on 7th July 1954. The Legislative Council, which hitherto held its meeting at the Victoria Memorial Hall, had its first sitting in the new Assembly House on 20th July 1954. On 22nd April 1955, the Legislative Assembly of Singapore held its first meeting here in this Chamber.

After independence in 1965, the building was renamed Parliament House. In late 1988, this Chamber was renovated to seat 90 Members in the enlarged Seventh Parliament, and even as recent as two years ago, with the increase in the number of Nominated Members, minor adjustments had to be made to increase the seating capacity to its full complement of 93.

From 32 seats in the first days of the Legislative Assembly to 93 seats in the Ninth Parliament, this Chamber has housed the legislature for forty-five years.

It would be appropriate for me to say a few words about some of the people who have made contributions to our legislative history and who have served the House for the past forty-five years.

The House has had five Speakers from 1955 to 1989. They were:

George Oehlers, who served in that position from 22nd April 1955 to 21st October 1963;

E W Barker, from 22nd October 1963 to 31st October 1964;

A P Rajah, from 2nd November 1964 to 5th August 1966;

P Coomaraswamy, from 17th August 1966 to 18th January 1970; and

Yeoh Ghim Seng, from 27th January 1970 to 8th January 1989.

A total of 12 Deputy Speakers served in that position from 1955 to 1993. They were:

R C H Lim, 1955 to 1959;

G Kandasamy, 1959 to 1961;

John Mammen, 1961 to 1963;

Fong Kim Heng, 1963 to 1965;

P Coomaraswamy, 1966;

Yeoh Ghim Seng, 1968 to 1970;

Tang See Chim, 1972 to 1981;

Hwang Soo Jin, 1981 to 1985;

Tan Soo Khoon (myself), 1985 to 1989;

Lim Boon Heng, 1989 to 1991; and Abdullah Tarmugi, 1989 to 1993, at a time when the House had two Deputy Speakers; and

Eugene Yap, since 1993.

Members will, of course, be cognizant of the fact that one amongst us, Senior Minister Lee Kuan Yew, has that singularly rare distinction of having served in this House since its first sitting day as the Legislative Assembly in 1955.

I will also want to briefly mention the Clerks who have served the House. L W Donough was the Clerk of the Legislative Assembly until 31st March 1956. He was succeeded by P R Lewis who served as Clerk from 1st April 1956 to 5th March 1957. Loke Weng Chee succeeded him from March 1957 till May 1965. Abilio Lopez succeeded Loke Weng Chee and served as Clerk until 31st March 1995. He, in all, worked in this building for over forty years. Another figure some of us will fondly remember was the Sergeant-at-Arms, Sidek bin Allang, who served from 22nd March 1972 till his untimely death on 17th January 1991.

All these officers, as well as others, too many for me to mention here today, as well as the present officers of the House, will be remembered for the part they played in its history. There are many others who have made significant contributions to our legislative history and on behalf of Honourable Members, I want to thank all of them for their contributions.

Some of you may not have noticed it, but since the last sitting of the House on 18th August 1999, we have moved the Table of the House (made when this Chamber underwent extensive renovations in 1988) to the new Chamber. In its place here is the original Table of the House. It appears fitting that at this final sitting in this Chamber, we bring back the original Table together with the old despatch boxes, which were given by the New Zealand Government on 16th September 1963. One may well say that it was on this original Table that the future of modern Singapore was laid out. Those with a tinge of nostalgia will be pleased to know that this very Table, which has been kept for the past ten years in the Committee Room will be brought to the new building along with several other items. I, myself, have been moved to retain in the new Chamber the Chair that I have used for many years in presiding over our sittings. It is, as they say, bringing along something old with something new.

In a few moments we will close the doors of this Chamber for the last time. Unaccustomed silence will then fill the Chamber, but this silence might not be for too long if, as has been reported, the Singapore Symphony Orchestra decides to use this place for chamber music. Within these four walls, many speeches have been made in over four decades, speeches that have helped shape the history of our country and the destinies of our people. Across this floor many have crossed their verbal swords, but wit and humour have also flowed even as Members pressed home their points with force of argument and passion. These four walls have witnessed poignant moments of excitement and drama, of hope and fear, of joy and tears, and of laughter and sadness. There were the moments to remember, as have been vividly recalled, such as in 1963, when the House had to listen to a Member who spoke for a record of 7 hours and 16 minutes, a feat which mercifully will not be surpassed because of the constraints of time on speeches which were adopted by the House after that. Or of special sitting days which were called, such as the one on 20th July 1961, when the Legislative Assembly met to debate the Prime Minister's motion of confidence on the Government, a debate that did not end till almost 4 am the next day. And again when the time the House had to meet on a Saturday and a Sunday (12th to 13th December 1959) in order to pass the budget on time before the financial year ended.

I believe that I reflect the sentiments of hon. Members when I say that it is with some sadness as well as with fond memories that we leave this building that we have all grown so attached to. Like each and every one of you, I remember vividly the first time I stepped into this chamber as a new MP. But we are happily looking forward to our new premises. Some things we have to leave behind, but we will carry along with us the many parliamentary traditions and practices that have been and continue to be the hallmark of this fine institution.

I thank hon. Members for their kind patience and indulgence.

And now I will suspend the sitting and invite hon. Members and our guests to join me downstairs in a simple ceremony to symbolise our move to the new Parliament House. I will resume the Chair at 7.00 pm and look forward to welcoming you in our new Chamber. [Applause.]

Sitting accordingly suspended at 6.20 pm until 7.00 pm. Sitting resumed at 7.00 pm In the New Parliament Chamber

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

Debate resumed.

Mr Speaker: Order. Honourable Members, I extend to all of you a very warm welcome to the new Parliament House of Singapore.

It was ten years ago that the idea of a new Parliament House was first discussed. As I had related to Members earlier, accommodation in the Chamber of the old building had reached its maximum capacity and further expansion was physically impossible. In 1989, I announced that the old Parliament Building, together with its annexe as well as the Attorney-General's Chambers, would undergo major restoration and renovations to create a new Parliament complex. Since then much of what we had originally thought of has changed and today we have built three new blocks and renovated the AG's Chambers to create this new Parliament House.

An article in the Straits Times of 3rd April 1991 perhaps best summarises the feelings of some of us at that time. Recalling that some decades ago, many countries had gained their independence and freedom from their colonial masters, the writer of the article stated that at some stage in their post-colonial development, these countries had found it appropriate to construct a new Parliament building to symbolise their independence. But not Singapore, he wrote. Instead, it used an old townhouse built in 1826. Describing the old building, he wrote, and I quote:

"For Mr Lee Kuan Yew's government, it seemed a suitable symbol - frugal, unostentatious, powerful but subdued, linked to the colonial roots of Singapore, but in no way assuming a dominating form ..."

He continued:

"The Singapore Parliament Chamber is rather cramped. In an increasingly participatory democracy, there is little space for the public, and the press gallery is restricted. Television cameras are conspicuously present. The Speaker's Chamber is not generous; the library is not extensive for its function; individual Members of Parliament have no space in which they can meet their constituents or the press; they do not have a dining room; and the chamber for select committees is inappropriate."

The idea for a new building was therefore motivated by sheer necessity for more working space and the need to provide for Parliamentarians well into the future, rather than by any desire to have a symbol of grandeur and glory.

In the past ten years, many have contributed to the planning and construction of this new building. In 1990, I led a study team comprising Mr Lim Boon Heng, Dr John Chen, Dr Wang Kai Yuen and Mr Chandra Das and architects from the Public Works Department to study Parliament buildings in various countries. We brought back many ideas and sought feedback and further ideas from our colleagues. In 1993, a Committee on Parliament Complex Development Project chaired by me, together with Mr Wong Kan Seng, Dr Lee Boon Yang and Mr Lim Hng Kiang, and a Parliamentary Officer, Ms Ng Sheau Jiuan, as Secretary, was formed to formally liaise with the architects in its planning and construction stages. Piling work started in 1994 and construction began in 1995.

The new building occupies a site area of 2.2 hectares with a total gross floor area (excluding the car parks) of 19,765 square metres. For good measure that stretch of High Street which flanks the eastern side of the building, and which we had just walked along, has been appropriately renamed Parliament Place. Our new building has been designed to give it a civic character as a state building with consideration of the historical and architectural significance of the surrounding buildings. It is in fact a blend of the old and new, as care has been taken to restore the old AG's Chambers to serve present-day needs, but together with the new blocks, it is without doubt a modern complex. We have ensured that it will be a building that will enhance the dignity of Parliament but at the same time it is not ostentatious and luxurious. If it is large, it is not because we want it to be a dominating building but because we need more space, perhaps not all of it right away but certainly in the future. Simplicity in style and practicality in its functions have been our guiding principles in determining the final shape of this new Parliament House. It is a building we want all Singaporeans to be proud of.

Members will have no doubt begun to feel the difference between this Chamber and the old one. For one thing, we now have seats for up to 100 Members, with the possibility of adding another 20 in the future. The galleries are larger and will hold more members of the public and the media. There is a new sound-proof Education Gallery that will allow students to be briefed by their teachers while our proceedings are on. Together with the programme which Parliament's Education Department has drawn up for schools, it is our way of reaching out to a younger generation. For those of us who cherish the institution of parliamentary democracy, it is our way of ensuring that future generations inherit our beliefs, practices and traditions.

In this new Chamber, too, many Members would have noticed that the television cameras are less conspicuous, but nevertheless they are still here, well-hidden behind the walls. Electronic voting has been provided for and in future, divisions of votes will be over in less than a minute. It is not too often that we have a division but if we do have one, Members will, I am sure, appreciate this new time-saving device. Computer terminals have been provided for each seat but I must add that Members will not be able to activate these as the House has not made a decision to allow the use of computers in the Chamber.

Nevertheless, this new building is fitted with the latest information technology links and computerisation facilities to allow Members to have access to information databases and electronic forms of communication, and to allow the administrative machinery of Parliament to discharge its functions and work more effectively.

Some things remain as they are in this new House. We have brought over the Table that was made in 1988 and as I fondly told you earlier, I have also brought over my old Chair. The Mace, which was made in 1959 at the then princely sum of 1,000 English guineas, continues to serve us as the symbol of the authority of the Speaker and Parliament.

But one thing must not change. Physical improvements alone cannot make for a better Parliament. It is the Members who are the life and soul of Parliament and they are the ones who determine what Parliament will be like. It is here that we must continue to reflect the aspirations of our fellow citizens and re-affirm the confidence that they have placed in us as their representatives. We will continue to debate and argue, to probe and query, to criticize and rebut but we must remember not to abuse the powers and privileges that membership in this House confers upon us. We must preserve the fine traditions and dignity of this House, and continue to observe the high standard of decorum that is expected of us as Parliamentarians. These have been guiding principles that have been the bedrock of legislative history in Singapore and must continue to be so in the years ahead.

Honourable Members here today have that rare distinction of being the first to sit in this new House. I myself am honoured by the equally rare opportunity of overseeing the building of this new House and presiding over the move from the old to the new. Few Speakers anywhere or anytime can claim this unique privilege that you have bestowed on me and I am humbled by the confidence that you have placed in me. I thank each and every one of you, and the many others, including the architects, engineers, interior designers and the staff of Parliament, who have contributed towards the realization of this new Parliament House. [Applause.]

Mr S. Iswaran (West Coast): Thank you, Mr Speaker, for this rather unexpected honour of being the first to resume the debate here in this new House.

Sir, I fully support the motion standing in the name of the Prime Minister, and I would like to focus on the key contribution of our founding fathers and past Members of this House, our unwavering commitment to the principles of meritocracy and multi-racialism. In doing so, I draw on my experience as a young parliamentarian and also on my discussions with young Singaporeans. For young Singaporeans, the events of the past two years have been a crash course in politics, governance and economics. It has had a profound impact on young Singaporeans. It has vividly imparted lessons that no lecture or textbook on politics or economics can. For many, it caused intense emotional and financial strain at the personal and family levels.

Sir, the crisis has also had a salutary effect on our youth. Singapore youth have acquired a deeper appreciation of the need for good governance. In a recent survey conducted by the Feedback Unit, more than 85% of our youth felt that our Government's performance in helping Singaporeans affected by the economic crisis has been good or very good, and more than 90% felt that the Government-people relationship has remained strong, if not going stronger. These results are comparable to those for older Singaporeans and indicate that our young Singaporeans, like their elders, appreciate the value of good government, especially in a crisis.

Sir, the crisis has imbued young Singaporeans, in my view, with the renewed respect for commitment to multi-racialism and meritocracy. In the course of the recent convulsions, we have seen countries compelled to re-examine their core beliefs and principles by both external forces and internal developments. In observing these transitions, young Singaporeans have learnt one important lesson. It requires moral courage and commitment to adopt and defend core principles such as meritocracy and multi-racialism - even when we know these principles to be self-evident. It is not easy even in the best of times, what more at the birth of a nation.

Therefore, Sir, Singapore and Singaporeans are indebted to our forefathers and past Members of this House for looking beyond the pressing challenges of a newly independent country to focus on the key organising principles of our nation, for their steadfast commitment to meritocracy and multi-racialism even during the toughest of times. They have also put in place several institutions and processes to uphold these principles in practice. The Public Service Commission selects recruits for the civil service on the basis of merit. We have transparent criteria for admission into our schools and tertiary education institutions. The Presidential Council on Minority Rights and the GRC system emphasise the need to ensure that all Singaporeans are engaged in the mainstream of our country, and that all their concerns are also addressed.

Furthermore, this House has not shied away from open and vigorous debates when it was felt that these principles might perhaps be compromised. Neither has the Government shirked its responsibility to act. The recent debate on bias in the labour market based on gender, ethnicity or age comes to mind. Another was the vigorous debate on SAP schools.

Mr Speaker, Sir, with the move of this House to its new premises, I wish to place on record, on behalf of all Singaporeans, our deep appreciation of our founding fathers and past Members' steadfast adherence and defence of these fundamental tenets of meritocracy and multi-racialism. I also hope that current and future Members of this House would be equally firm in their commitment to these principles and resolute in its defence.

Sir, I support the motion.

Mr R. Sinnakaruppan (Kreta Ayer-Tanglin): (In Tamil): Mr Speaker, Sir, today is a day of historical importance for Singapore Parliament. The old Chamber which was founded 45 years ago had been nurturing parliamentary democracy in a consistent manner.

Parliament has been functioning with integrity and openness. It has been debating the country's laws in depth, providing pragmatic suggestions and solutions. It has earned the people's trust, respect and praise. It must be stressed that the basic reason for Parliament to have earned the highest regard of the people is the excellent performance and moral uprightness of the first generation leaders. Some of the best leaders of our country have been Members of this Parliament, especially our Senior Minister, Mr Lee Kuan Yew, who has been in this House since its early days till today for about 44 years. This really adds dignity to this august Chamber. The old building was built in 1826 with bricks from Malacca and China and Indian chunnam or plaster.

Accordingly, Members of the various ethnic groups, including Indians, have been serving in this Chamber. It reflects Singapore's present multi-racial society. Apart from the present Indian MPs, 18 other Indians had served as Members of this Parliament. Among the former Indian Members of Parliament, Mr A P Rajah, Mr Punch Coomaraswamy served as Speakers and Mr G. Kandasamy and Mr John Mammen served as Deputy Speakers.

Mr Speaker, Sir, let us at the new Chamber continue to play our part for the development and progress of our nation.

The Senior Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Zainul Abidin Rasheed): Mr Speaker Sir, thank you for allowing me to speak on the motion by the Prime Minister. I rise in support of the motion.

Before that, Sir, I could not resist just to mention that it is indeed an honour for us that the session at the old Parliament House ended with the most senior speaker in our Senior Minister Lee Kuan Yew and that we start the new Chamber with the youngest speaker this evening. Mr Speaker, Sir, I think it bears well for multi-racialism that the first three speakers in the new Chamber are all from the minority group. Sir, this motion today and the historic move from the old faithful High Street Parliament House to the modest, yet high-tech, spankingly new Parliament House at North Bridge Road give us an opportunity to remind ourselves and Singaporeans just how far we have come since the embryonic years of parliamentary democracy. In the words of our PM, not just the lesson of how people vote at general elections and democracy, but also the progression from hardware to heartware. But yet 45 years are still "budding", in terms of an evolving democracy and, indeed, nation building. Lessons however are plenty, as a guide for us and future generations to avoid the dangerous rocks that could sink us asunder. Yes, we have weathered many trials and tribulations in the chart of parliamentary democracy. But the journey is never complete. While we have to continue to keep a lookout for the OB markers, let us also not be too keen to see pebbles for the rocks and reel back with over reaction when meeting future challenges. Our road ahead in this more open, global and interdependent world to build on the accomplishments of our predecessors requires a firm but passionate hand and heart. This might sound contradictory to some. But to me, that is tomorrow's reality today, that is, a balance between the clarion call for the strong-willed, the lion-hearted and the care for the weak.

To me, this motion today is also like a call for a vote of confidence on our parliamentary system of democracy. This reminds me of the fateful debate in Parliament on 20th July 1961. It was then a battle between the PAP non-communist and the pro-communist elements. In the words of the then Prime Minister, now our Senior Minister Lee Kuan Yew, it was a motion, as the Senior Minister said it earlier today, "to sort out the goats from the sheep". To achieve their agenda, the pro-communists had even consorted with their arch-enemy, the British. That is how complex the situation was.

An American scholar, Prof. Robert Tilman, who had studied South East Asia for 25 years, once wrote in his book, South East Asia and the Enemy Beyond, said "how geography, history, language and culture had all conspired against the countries of ASEAN to make their task of nation building and economic development more difficult." Luckily for us today, we do not have to bring an MP on a stretcher by a hospital ambulance to muster a simple majority vote for this motion.

This happened in that Parliamentary debate in 1961. Mdm Sahorah bte Ahmat made that difference by delivering that deciding vote for the non-communist PAP. For those who have read The Singapore Story: Memoirs of Lee Kuan Yew will learn that even securing her vote was like a parliamentary cliffhanger. Mdm Sahorah was holding back her vote, not because she liked the pro-communists, nor was she a communalist, but rather because her other Malay colleagues were ostracising her and thus she refused to give them her support. So we can see it was not just ideology and race but also human feelings, if not ego, coming into play in deciding the fate of our efforts at establishing parliamentary democracy. But common sense prevailed and thanks to former MP, Mr Chan Chee Seng's power of persuasion, Mdm Sahorah voted for the motion and history took its course to bring us to where we are today for prosperity and harmony.

From the swamps of Jurong to a world-class model industrial estate, to a wealth we can bank on in Shenton Way, to the futuristic Marina Bay hotels, Millenia Walk and Suntec City, Singapore has shown what can be done when we have a stable and workable parliamentary democracy. This is especially true when the Government and the people can work together in harmony.

For our parliamentary democracy to continue to work, social cohesion is critical. We cannot take it for granted. Singapore Parliament recognises this and this is evident in the Acts it has passed to enhance racial harmony and social cohesion. Whether the establishment of the Presidential Council for Minority Rights, Islamic Religious Council (MUIS), the Hindu Endowments Board, the Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act and the GRC, it shows a Singapore well grounded for racial and religious harmony. But even then, we cannot take that for granted.

Mr Speaker, Sir, to enhance the parliamentary democracy we now enjoy, may I propose two points. One, we need to ensure that multi-racialism continues to be a critical pillar to parliamentary democracy. We must also continue to be bold and creative to strengthen that position. The more pillars we have to strengthen the base for democracy, the better we are. Institutions which we now have for nation building and community upliftment and which have been a source of irritation or controversy among some quarters, for example, the community-based self-help groups and the SAP schools, will have to be continually monitored to provide more opportunities for cohesive and harmonious relations. Similarly, the present creative parliamentary democratic institutions unique to Singapore, such as the GRC and the Presidential Council for Minority Rights, need to be periodically reviewed and refined, whenever necessary.

Two, more opportunities should be created for Singaporeans, especially the younger and succeeding generations, to appreciate the trials and tribulations of our efforts at establishing and enhancing parliamentary democracy. Our school's effort at civic education and understanding Singapore's post-war history should include such highlights.

Mr Speaker, Sir, may I conclude by saying that we at Punggol East, Cheng San GRC, have a slogan which emphasises progress in harmony. That, to me, sums up the case in point. For democracy is nothing without progress in harmony. In the spirit of that important pillar of our parliamentary democracy, multi-racialism, allow me to close my comment by repeating that slogan in three languages: majulah dalam harmoni, inakkathudan munneru and he xie qian jin.

I support the motion in the name of the Prime Minister, Sir.

Mrs Lim Hwee Hua (Marine Parade): Mr Speaker, Sir, the challenges confronting Members of this House have been vastly different in each of the last four decades. We went from creating an economy virtually from scratch to building it to what it is today, a well diversified composition of manufacturing and services. We achieved this in spite of our lack of natural resources.

Sir, we started off then by catering to a migrant population of different races and cultures with different needs, leanings and aspirations. We now have a population whose cohesion as a people has been manifestly evident during the current downturn. We enjoy racial harmony and high standards of living, something which we know did not happen by chance, and we have achieved this in spite of our short history as a nation. The common thread running through the decades can be found in the confidence the electorate has in the integrity and openness of our parliamentary system. This has been fulfilled and established by the unequivocal commitment of past Members.

Sir, we will continue to sail in uncharted seas. But the key is to mark out the reefs and rocks and to avoid them as best as we can. The challenges will continue to be different even as we strive to build a first world economy in an era that is marked by intensifying competition and borderless business dynamics. Singaporeans will increasingly cater to a global economy and be forced to adopt the necessary skills and perspectives. Demands on the family unit will be ever present. Whilst we can never be sure how challenges will be shaped in the future, we can be certain of our responsibilities as Members of this House as the same qualities and attributes are required of us. Our responsibility is to guard against complacency, to embrace a willingness and the moral courage to make the necessary changes and, most importantly, to preserve the integrity of this House in order to maintain at least the same level of confidence. Only then can we move ahead with conviction and commitment. Sir, whilst I may be short on experience in this House, I intend to be long on my sense of duty and responsibility to the people of Singapore. On that wish, Sir, I support the motion.

Dr S. Vasoo (Tanjong Pagar): Mr Speaker, Sir, thank you for allowing me to join in the debate. It is indeed interesting to speak after the younger speakers because they could urge me on and, at the same time, we could provide an anchor for them.

Sir, as SM Lee was speaking, my mind went back when I was a secondary school student in the 50s. I did not know what democracy was then. All I knew was the common rhetorics that have been said by some of these Opposition Members, rhetorics about good life, democracy and various other things. What I remember was that I was looking forward for the supply of piped water and electricity to my village and proper shelter. But it did not come as there was an inefficient and corrupt government under Lim Yew Hock.

Our villagers voted for change in 1959 and supported the PAP government. They hoped for better social conditions. In the late 60s, people in my village saw the arrival of piped water and electricity and some improvements in the social conditions of the village. That was Nee Soon where I lived as a young secondary school student. The village comprised a lot of corrupt officials, corrupt middle community leaders and they supported all the corrupt practices of the government then. It was a change for me and my villagers after 1959.

I recall that people in my village were very discerning. They were very sharp and could see what good and honest government was then, and they attributed the improvements and the change to honest government and capable leadership. I could vividly remember this as a young person then, because all of them were looking for better life, for change, and I recall many of them saying that we could not just go on with democracy on an empty stomach. All the sayings under the Lim Yew Hock Government did not produce any results. We hoped that the PAP government would bring progress and good life for all of us.

Under the capable leadership of SM Lee, then the PM, the village transformed. People can see through if we have an honest government and they have voted election after election for an honest government and capable leaders. Sir, honest government and capable leadership is a good premium which we now also enjoy the leadership of PM Goh. So I hope Singaporeans would be mindful to vote honest and effective people into government in the future so that the social premium will continue to pay dividends to enhance the quality of life of Singaporeans further.

Sir, one major challenge we are likely to face in future is the task of tackling the dangers of social divide between those who have and those who have a little. It is important for us to encourage those who are able, to assist those who are less able. The able cannot isolate themselves and have a parochial interest, for if they do, they will not enhance social cohesion.

Sir, I hope that we would be able to nurture many good people and attract them into Parliament and the various social institutions to carry out the very good work of our founding fathers, including mothers, who have contributed to the healthy development of Singapore.

Sir, with that call, I support the motion of PM Goh.

Mr Jeyaretnam: May I clarify with the Member who has just spoken? He mentioned about the rhetoric calls for democracy made in the 50s. Does he realise who were making the calls for democracy and does he say they were purely rhetoric to be forgotten soon after the Party took power?

Dr Vasoo: I do not want to engage in a debate with the Member because he comes back like an old record all the time on these issues. But they all sound the same all the time, same music, same tone all the time that I have heard.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Answer that question.

Dr Vasoo: Sir, there is no need to engage in a debate with him because he has been saying the same old thing since 1980.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Answer the question.

Dr Tan Boon Wan (Ang Mo Kio): Mr Speaker, Sir, thank you for this opportunity to join in the debate.

I rise to support the motion by the Prime Minister, Mr Goh Chok Tong. Parliament had just sat for the very last time in the old Chamber before it moved here to its new home a very short while ago. It has much to be proud of during its stay there since 22nd April 1955. Much has been achieved in that august Chamber. As a country and a people, we have much to be grateful for. Its occupants have risen to the many challenges and their decisions had led to the impressive development of our nation and the good living that we, its citizens, enjoy today. We must continue with the good work here in this new Chamber.

Our parliamentary system is based on the Westminster model as with other Commonwealth countries. However, over time, each Parliament has evolved in its own way in response to the characteristics and needs of the country and its people. We do likewise. The major factors that dictate our actions are the short history of our country, our small size and the multi-racial, multi-cultural and multi-religious aspects of our society. These are some constraints that we have to manage. Many countries with such constraints have found out at great cost how potent they can be if not handled carefully, sensitively and appropriately. We have therefore evolved, for example, the Group Representation Constituency (GRC) to take care of the multi-racial nature of our society and the Non-Constituency MP and the Nominated MP to allow for a wider range of views to be reflected in its debates.

But, unfortunately, not everyone, especially critics in the developed countries, understands, appreciates, agrees or is convinced of what we have done or our objectives for doing so. They would prefer our institutions and systems to be like theirs. But we cannot do what they wish. At the end of the day, we must decide for ourselves and do things the way that fits our circumstances and meets our needs.

Many things that the larger and older nations have, we may eventually also have. But we would have them in good time and at our pace if these are good for us and we, as a society, are ready for them. We must not allow ourselves to be pressed to change, to conform or to be misled into believing that we must have them. As a society, we must decide for ourselves what is good for us and to stand firm in the belief that we are the best judges of this.

The role of Parliament is to help manage the country for the good of its people. Its Members represent the citizens. The success of the Members of Parliament is a collective one, reflected in the development and growth of the country, the well-being of its people and the respect that the people accord to Parliament as an institution and the MPs as their representatives. If this is the criterion, then I believe we have done well. I am therefore happy and proud that our people understand and appreciate what Parliament has achieved.

To be in Parliament is a serious matter. The development of a nation and the well-being of the people depend on its deliberation and decisions. Members of Parliament see it as a forum to input their knowledge, skills and experience to rationally and effectively debate the issues of the nation so as to arrive at decisions that are in the best interest of the nation and the people. As a result, the proceedings in Parliament are carried out efficiently and effectively with the earnest and decorum that the august Chamber deserves and the people expect of the representatives. This must continue.

Singapore is a young country. Singapore will face yet many new and demanding challenges. As Singapore evolves, so has Parliament to do likewise. We must seek not only to maintain the progress and good work done and the high standards set by those before us, but wherever and whenever possible, to improve them further. We have to ensure that we remain relevant and useful to the lives and needs of our nation and our people that the decorum and respect of Parliament is maintained. We must bravely do what we believe is good for our country and our people. This is a demanding responsibility that we, as parliamentarians, must persevere to fulfil, never let go off or forget.

Mr Goh Chok Tong: Mr Speaker, Sir, as I look around this new Chamber, it reminds me very much of the old. The layout is the same, the furnishing is just as modest and even the colour of the seat cover is the same dark maroon. I only wish my seat was as deep as the one in the old Chamber.

This Chamber, however, is more spacious. It should serve our needs for at least another 100 years, if not forever. The seating layout can even be re-configured into a horseshoe shape or circular shape if some future Parliament chooses to do so. We can now also vote electronically. But just as a house is not a home, a new Parliament building alone does not guarantee a good Parliament. Whether this Parliament building becomes a respected home for parliamentary democracy will depend on the present and future Members of this House. We must therefore continue with the tradition of the old Chamber, upholding standards and working for the benefit of the people whom we represent.

I thank Members who have spoken in support of the motion. I want to thank Senior Minister in particular. He has recalled a bit of history with his speech and added meaning to this nostalgic occasion. I do not intend to respond to every comment made by those who spoke. It is not necessary and time does not permit me to do so.

Dr Lee Tsao Yuan said that there is an excess demand for political participation and policy consultation in Singapore. I disagree. Yes, many people want to have their views and comments heard or seen in print but they also want to have the safety of staying out of the political arena plus the luxury of being able to carp or shoot from the hip without attracting Government counterfire. Meaningful political participation must mean joining or supporting a political party, advancing its cause and work, attending to constituents and if invited, take part in elections, win and serve as an MP.

How many upcoming successful Singaporeans want to sacrifice their careers, privacy and time with their families to participate actively in politics? I invite Dr Lee to find me five suitable women candidates for the next general elections. She has two or three years to do so.

Mr Chiam and Mr Jeyaretnam, as we must expect, will always take the opposite view. They must not blame the Government, or blame us, for their own failure to increase the number of seats for Opposition Members.

Mr Jeyaretnam has fought five general and three by-elections since 1972. He lost six times, won only twice. He may criticise us for impeding parliamentary democracy, but the truth is that the people have rejected him, the last time in Cheng San. He owes his presence here today to the pragmatism of Singapore's parliamentary democracy.

Some hon. Members: Hear, hear!

Mr Goh Chok Tong: I want to remind him that in 1984, he vigorously opposed the concept of Non-Constituency MP (NCMP). Now, he must be grateful for such a scheme.

Except for NMPs and NCMPs, we are all elected by the people. We owe it to them to look after their interests. We best do this by leading and taking a principled stand on issues, and not merely following popular sentiments. MPs will come under pressure from the public whenever tough, painful policies and measures are introduced. Our job is to lead, to explain, to persuade. This is not to say that we ignore public sentiments. They are important. We must understand them, be sensitive and responsive. Wherever possible, we must consult people - people who can contribute to the formulation of public policies.

Consultation does not mean taking a straw poll and following the majority view. Our response must be based on longer-term national interest, even if it means short-term pain, and on larger collective interests rather than individual interests. We must explain our policies and persuade people that they are right. This is the meaning of leadership, and this is the key role of MPs, as the people's representatives.

In this new building, our eyes must be cast on the future rather than on the past. What new challenges will confront us? Can we overcome them? Expectations of a new generation of Singaporeans - can we meet them? Will future generations throw up strong and able leaders to protect, defend and lead Singapore to more good years? This and future Parliaments will have to find the answers to these questions.

If we continue to increase the quality of representation in this House, we will maximise our chances of perpetuating the virtuous cycle we have created, good MPs, strong and good Government, political stability, sustained economic growth, good living environment and comfortable homes, a cohesive and supportive people, committed leaders, and so on.

Parliament has played a key role in the development of Singapore. In time to come, this new Parliament House will have its own history to tell and its own memories to recall. May the spirit of Singapore's parliamentary democracy live on. [Applause.]

Mr Jeyaretnam: May I ask the Prime Minister, by way of clarification? He has, speaking for the first time in this new House, again mentioned that Singaporeans wanting to take part to join political parties. May I ask him now, as Prime Minister, whether he will give an assurance from this House that henceforth, persecution of people who take part in politics will stop?

Mr Goh Chok Tong: Mr Speaker, Sir, if there is any prosecution in court, I think the candidates or the opposition MPs deserve it. Mr Chiam has not been prosecuted. Mr Low Thia Khiang has not been prosecuted. And so long as they stay within the law, they are free to stand for elections, and to make their points of view known to us.

As Dr Vasoo has said, Mr Speaker, Sir, I do not think we should engage in a debate with the Non-Constituency MP on this occasion.

Mr Jeyaretnam: May I ask him, by way of clarification, Sir?

Mr Speaker: Mr Jeyaretnam, I think you are using this right to make clarification by engaging in a constant debate. If I allow you to continue, it seems it will never end. Again, I have to ask you that if you have anything else to say, to save it for another occasion.

Mr Jeyaretnam: I will table another motion.

Mr Speaker: All right.

Resolved,

That this House, at its last meeting before it moves to its new Chamber across the yard, (1) notes the progress in establishing the system of parliamentary democracy since its early beginnings in this chamber on 22nd April 1955; (2) records its appreciation for the contributions made by past members in establishing the confidence the electorate has in its integrity and the openness of its proceedings; and (3) urges present and future Members to build on the accomplishments of their predecessors.