NOMINATED MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT

5.20 pm

The Leader of the House (Mr Wong Kan Seng): Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move,

That this Parliament, in accordance with section 1(1) of the Fourth Schedule to the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore, resolves that there shall be nominated Members during the term of this Parliament.

Since 1989, the Singapore Constitution has provided for the appointment of Nominated Members of Parliament (NMPs). However, before they can be appointed, Parliament must so resolve to have them at the beginning of each session of a new Parliament.

This is why I am back here the third time moving this motion at the beginning of the Tenth Parliament. The last two occasions when I moved a similar motion were on 29th May 1992 and 5th June 1997.

Mr Speaker, Sir, since the implementation of the NMP scheme in 1990, Parliament has granted 26 individuals the privilege to take part in the proceedings in this House. While not all of them made the same level of contribution to the debates in this Chamber, they have, generally, acquitted themselves well, with some serving two terms of four years.

Over the years, we have also increased the number of NMPs from two to six, and then to nine, and improved the selection process by having proposal panels to nominate representatives of functional groups as NMPs. So, in 1997, apart from inviting the general public to submit the names of suitable persons, the Special Select Committee on NMPs wrote to organisations representing three major functional groups: (a) business and industry; (b) labour; and (c) the professions - to propose candidates for this Special Select Committee's consideration.

At a sitting on 5th June 1997, when we debated the motion on having NMPs at the start of the Ninth Parliament, I also said that the Government would con- sider further improving the NMP selection process, by expanding the number of functional groups invited to submit nominations. Thus, for this Tenth Parliament, the Government would like the Special Select Committee to also invite an additional three functional groups: (a) social and community service organisations; (b) tertiary educational institutions; and (c) media, the arts and the sports organisations - to submit nominations. The Special Select Committee will nominate a coordinator among the constituent organisations of each functional group. Each coordinating organisation will then consult its constituent/constituents and eventually submit up to two names of two individuals to the Special Select Committee for consideration and interview.

Sir, the Government hopes that the outcome of doubling to six the number of functional groups involved in the selection process will be an even wider cross section of NMPs entering Parliament, whose diverse but non-partisan viewpoints ought to make a contribution to our Parliamentary debates.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the merits and usefulness of having the NMP scheme have been thoroughly debated since the Constitution was first amended to provide for it. At our subsequent sittings of Parliament to resolve to have NMPs, we also exhaustively argued over the need to continue with the scheme and we voted for it. So I would not repeat the reasons why we should have the NMPs in this term of Parliament. For those who are interested, I would recommend that they run through the Hansard on all the debates that we have had in the last three times.

It suffices me to sum up by saying that NMPs have been a plus for our Parliament. Many have distinguished themselves. Their objective, non-partisan views on a wide range of issues brought before this House have added value.

Sir, when I moved a similar motion in 1992 and 1997, the Party Whip was lifted. Now, for this motion, the Whip will also be lifted.

Question proposed.

Dr Tan Cheng Bock: Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to urge Members of this House not to support the motion moved by the Leader of the House.

Mr Speaker, Sir, Parliament is an elected institution and we must keep it that way. Each Member in this House fought their way through an electoral process involving nine hard days of campaigning and countering many traumatic moments of electioneering. Some who fought lost and are left out of this Chamber. There were risks taken, like giving up comfortable jobs to venture into this political arena. If we had lost in Jurong, our hon. Member, Mr Tharman would be jobless because he left MAS. I am sure that he must have some moments when he asked himself why he got into this when matters got very hot in Jurong. But he went through the hustings and I am sure he felt a sense of pride and joy when he won. He told me that he felt very humbled, just like what I felt when I won my first election in 1980. Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee, my good friend, fought very hard and he lost a lot of weight, but he won. So also my good friend, Assoc. Prof. Low Seow Chay. Steve, you gave him a hard fight, but you lost.

At every election, we go round to campaign for votes in trucks, lorries, we walk, we run. Every time we meet somebody, we ask them, "please vote me". It takes a lot of courage to ask somebody, "please vote for me". Those who have not gone through an election do not understand, but most of us, who have gone through would realise how difficult it is for us to ask somebody to vote for you. And when they go knocking at the doors, sometimes when people open the door to you, they do not offer you pleasantries. They call you - I do not know whether it is unparliamentary language, Mr Speaker - "PAP bastards, you get out!" But this is part of the hustings and we have to go through it. At the end of the day, we develop a certain inner strength in us. We develop thick skin, as the Prime Minister said. We learn to handle abuses but we gain the respect.

These experiences will mould and change us, but also help us to tackle issues and to manage crisis. So we Members in this House deserve to come into this place because we made it, we earned it, we have the mandate. Do we want people nominated to come into this House and enjoy what you have fought so hard to earn a place here? You better think twice.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I have once asked a Nominated Member of Parliament why he wanted to come to this House. He was silent. He said he was not interested in politics. So I asked him, "Do you know what this Chamber is?" In this Chamber, every discussion is political in nature. So I do not understand why a person, who is not interested in politics is prepared to come into this Chamber, which is a political Chamber, as I have said.

Mr Speaker, Sir, we want men of substance, not men of words in this House. In the last four days, we have heard numerous speakers in the House giving their views on the remaking of Singapore and they addressed a wide range of issues, from high-tech to the bread and butter issues, and even to what is happening in the region, terrorists, tudung and so on. And there were no NMPs in this House. I wonder whether anyone of you felt you missed their presence. I did not.

The ideas and issues raised by all of you in this House would give the Ministries a lot of work to do, and they will be kept busy for a long, long time. Yet, we were told by the Leader of the House, in the last debate, that they needed non-elected Members to give us alternative views. I have watched NMPs perform in this House. Yes, some of them were good at articulating issues, but no better than our Dr Vivian Balakrishnan, Mr Tharman Shamugaratnam, Dr Wang Kai Yuen, Assoc. Prof. Chin, so many of you here. So if we ask ourselves, are they better than all of us, and if they are better than any one of us here, you let them in.

Because some of you are new here, let me bring up some of the things I said in this House 10 years ago. It is still relevant. We had Nominated MPs in Parliament. It was not called Parliament. It was called the Singapore Legislative Assembly and there was a recommendation by the Rendel Commission. The Rendel Commission recommended four, two to make sure that the minority interests are taken care of, and two to make sure that trade and business matters are taken care of. I am sure you can quite understand. In 1954-1955, what was Singapore? We were a third-world country. We did not have so many PhDs. Education was very low. Therefore, we can expect that these people were there to oversee their interests. We can understand that.

But there was an overriding clause that that feature was to be a transient feature, and that it would not be permanent. And this non-permanent feature was later examined by another Commission. This Commission was chaired by the former Chief Justice Wee Chong Jin in early 1966, which examined whether a council of nominated people called the Council of State should be a part of Parliament. They were non-elected people, and their primary function was to make sure, again, to check on minority rights. And for the benefit of the new MPs, I quote paragraph 54, page 15, of the Report of the Constitutional Commission 1966:

'It will be a body separate from Parliament, but to which Parliament can look for serious and weighty advice and while having no control over legislation, it will, to the extent of having given its advice, share with Parliament the responsibility for any legislation passed pursuant to such advice. We think the continued practice of a sound democratic system of government in Singapore will best be achieved if our recommendations leave untouched a unicameral legislature which we have at present, where all Members of Parliament are elected by the people by secret vote at elections held at regular intervals of years. In this way the many and grave responsibilities which Members of Parliament taken upon as the elected representatives of the people will rest solely on them.'

Even our Senior Minister - I would not quote him - said that no nominated people can give him advice. So, Mr Speaker, Sir, we have seen these two reports and they were crafted by non-parliamentarians and yet, today, we are asking parliamentarians, all of you here, to endorse this Nominated Members scheme.

Sir, 30 years have passed since those reports. This Parliament is very different. Members of the House are experts in their own field. Like I said, we have experts in finance, health, law, business and even unions. The fear of no minority representation has been taken care of. We have the Presidential Council on Minority Rights to make sure that all legislation in this House must pass through their hands to make sure that there is no discrimination against minority interests. Then we have the GRC system to ensure that minority representation is guaranteed in this House.

Lack of women was one of the reasons our Prime Minister gave for wanting Nominated Members of Parliament. Now I see 10 women in this House, and Members have all listened to how our 10 women have performed in this House. They are more than adequate. They are women of substance, and we have even included single women. So, I think, we have covered the whole range of women's interests.

I ask this House, what more do they want? Alternative voices? We have the Opposition parties here. We have the NCMP. If we expect Nominated MPs to give opposition views, our past experience shows that some of the Nominated MPs are more PAP than the PAP!

Mr Speaker, Sir, we cannot artificially create another voice in this House to represent sectoral and functional interests. We are pandering. The moment we start to pander to functional and sectoral groups, we are in trouble, because there is no end to it. Everyone will come knocking at the door every two years asking why he is not represented.

And who do we select? They have a whole list of functional groups that are coming in. But I said that if we look at some of the women representatives of the previous nominations, invariably, one must come from AWARE. To me, it is proxy representation for AWARE. Why should this House be used as a platform for them to air their grievances and their views?

We select lawyers. I wonder why. We have Davinder Singh - he is great. We have Shanmugam, another great senior lawyer. We have Ravindran, Indranee, Sin Boon Ann. We have so many and yet we want more. I think it is crazy.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the worst - I cannot understand - is that we want unionists to enter this House. If I were an elected unionist MP, I will be thoroughly embarrassed. How can the elected unionists have a nominated unionist sitting side by side, listening to him, cautioning and advising our Minister for Manpower? Surely there must be something that is not correct. I am sure that our unionists here, Yeo and others, will all agree with me that they all can do a very good job.

And yet the very people that cannot get representation - the hawkers, the shopkeepers, the taxi drivers and so on - either they do not know the system or because they are not familiar with the procedure. I wanted to know why. So I spoke to a former Nominated MP, Gerard Ee. He said that there is some eliteness in our selection process, which is quite true, because we are biased towards the professionals. So, who are they representing? We are missing a big group of people outside clamouring to come in, and we are not giving them representation. It is not fair.

While listening to the Prime Minister, it suddenly dawned on me that this system could be a backdoor entry for religious and racial politics. The Prime Minister said that we are in charge. Yes, we are in charge. Let me tell you that some enlightened ones will study our selection process. They will be wise to how we select, and they will train themselves to present in a very acceptable form for this selection committee. And before long, we will get someone very well educated, but he is a proxy representation of maybe one of the terrorist groups. [Laughter] This is not a laughing matter. It is a remote possibility. But if things can happen now, it can happen later. Why do we take this chance?

Finally, Mr Speaker, Sir, this House, being the highest legislative body in the land, must send the right signals to Singaporeans. We must remember that in this House, we set policies, we set rules, we make laws. Singaporeans read and watch us on television. So, everything that we say and do here is examined in the living room, and they take the cue from us. So they listen to all of us. Many Members call for Singaporeans to be prepared for a change in lifestyle, to take risks, to go into business areas where nobody dares to go. And we always tell them, "Don't worry. If you fail, jump up, start again." So we are risk advocators.

We have to ask ourselves how Singaporeans are going to react on the way we vote on this scheme. We are asking to approve a scheme to accept non-risk-takers as Members of Parliament. So it contradicts what many Members are saying in this House. We must think very carefully whether we want non-risk-takers to come into this House. Non-risk-takers are afraid of elections. They are afraid of being challenged by the electorate. They are afraid of abuses. But you all are prepared to go through. You went through and you came out of it strong, and you are all here.

We must send a correct message to the ground. And if the ground thinks that we have a double standard, then we are all hypocrites. We cannot have a double standard. You cannot say that you can take risk, I cannot take risk. Why can I not take risk? Because I am a professional, I am well heeled, but I am afraid you can take risk. You do not belong to that category. To me, it is a double standard.

Finally, this time round, the Whip is lifted. I know Prime Minister has spoken about the Whip. And PAP Members here are not stupid as to bring down the Government, but this issue is not a life-and-death issue. This issue is to bring in non-risk-takers into this House. So, if Members want to agree to have non-risk-takers, then vote for it. But I will vote against it. [Applause.]

The Minister of State for Foreign Affairs and Trade and Industry (Mr Raymond Lim Siang Keat): Mr Speaker, Sir, I support this motion.

I read the NMP debate on Hansard since 1989. I have read many of the arguments of Dr Tan Cheng Bock in the Hansard. I think what sticks in his throat when it comes to NMPs is that they enjoy the ride but they do not pay the price. And I understand this sentiment. No one is suggesting that the men and women here are not excellent. I think they are absolutely excellent.

But the key question that we must ask ourselves on this motion is whether having Nominated Members of Parliament in this House will serve the national interest. Do NMPs add to the public welfare that we, as elected representatives of the people, have been entrusted with? My view is that it does. If we take the position, which I believe is shared by many Members in this House, that a vital role of Parliament is as a debating Chamber on issues that affect the public welfare, then the addition of Nominated Members can only further this cause.

To arrogate this right to debate, to review and question the Government to only elected representatives is not to add but to take away from the public interest. It is precisely because we believe the discussion on public affairs should not be the exclusive preserve of political leaders, but a right as well as an obligation of citizens that various initiatives have been launched to engage the public in matters that affect their lives and future. Feedback, dialogue sessions, the Remaking Singapore Committee and the Economic Review Committee are but manifestations of this belief. The Nominated Members of Parliament provision gives institutional recognition to this in the highest deliberative assembly in the country.

"Democracy", as Clement Atlee said, "means government by discussion.". Lord Lindsay, in his classic work, Democracy and Discussion, argued that ". anyone with experience of the effectiveness of discussion in a small democratic society must recognise how valuable is the contribution of those who are not easily convinced but can stand up resolutely for their own point of view."

Since the introduction of NMPs into this House, many resolute men and women had, together with elected Members, committed their intelligence, expertise and experience in the service of this nation by discussion and debate on issues that affect Singapore's future. In doing so, they helped to fulfil one of the most important aims of Parliament, which is to ensure that the Government acts in the national interest, free of partisan inclinations and local prejudices.

With that, Sir, I support the motion.

Dr Wang Kai Yuen (Bukit Timah): Mr Speaker, Sir, to me, Dr Tan is a man of principles. I have known him as a fellow MP for the past 17 years. He is a righteous man. To him, the world is black and white, and very little grey in between. He also tends to be obstinate, which is a virtue under certain circumstances. Sir, if I were to choose just one man to go into battle of life and death, I would choose Dr Tan. I knew, with him at my side, I would not have to cover my back, as he is absolutely dependable as a friend and as a comrade. He also knows his politics very well. He is now in Parliament for the sixth term. His PAP Ayer Rajah Branch is indeed a very small branch, compared to the other branches of PAP. In fact, we have been urging him to build up his branch. And, yet, in the last General Election he polled 88% of the popular votes. How he managed to do that is something that we all should learn from. I think the speech he just gave showed us some of the things he really learned how to do it. And he had named all of us who would speak against him, making it difficult for us to speak against him.

Therefore, when Dr Tan spoke about the right of representation in Parliament and spoke against the NMP concept, I believe all of us take his views very seriously. However, despite my respect for him, I think he is too obstinate in his view in this area. I believe he missed two major points in his speech. Firstly, the right of representation by ballot box - he insisted that to be in this House, one has to be tested by the ballot box. Secondly, I think he completely ignored the contributions of the NMPs in Parliament to-date, those who had served us in the past.

Sir, around the world today, there are variants of democracy and democratic representation, each evolved to suit the situation of the respective countries. Enough had been said about this in the previous debates on this very topic in November 1989 and March 1990 when the Bill was tabled for the Second and Third readings. The subject was again extensively elaborated in March 1992 and June 1997 when a motion to admit NMPs in the respective term of Parliament was debated again. Basically Dr Tan argued for what I would classify as a static vision of Parliament. He would like to see that as long as possible - the concept that he had learned as a young man be perpetuated unchanged in this Parliament.

I say, Sir, representation in Parliament should not be that static and should not be locked into time. Parliament is a living thing and it should evolve with the needs of the time. Just like the concept of marriage, husband and wife, that evolves through human history. Today, one man, one wife is the accepted norm in Singapore. However, under the Women's Charter, bigamy is illegal in Singapore, but it was not that way that long ago. Just about 50 years ago, it was quite acceptable in Singapore for a man to have more than one wife. Now if you really go back in time, anthropologists would tell us that most human societies were a maternal society, remnants of which could still be found scattered here and there around the world. In some of these, a woman could have many spouses. Today, in some western societies, same sex partner families are recognised by law as a basic family unit similar to the traditional family unit. So even with a concept as fundamental as the concept of family, there is no absolute. It is but a value system acceptable to all members of the community appropriate to the demands of the time.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I will present to Dr Tan that this is the case with Parliament. We should be an institution that should be enhanced to meet the needs of the time. NMP to me is an innovation in the Singapore Parliament. The constitutionality of the NMP concept has already been settled. Theory aside, the question we should ask ourselves, as Mr Raymond Lim has pointed out, in this motion is whether NMPs inducted into Parliament have been positive or negative to Parliament. Have they added to the depth and the breadth of debate in Parliament? Sir, I think everyone, including Dr Tan, must agree that many of them did contribute to better debate in Parliament. Names that readily crop up include Prof. Walter Woon, Claire Chiang - I think we all missed her very much - Jennifer Lee, Shriniwas Rai, Thomas Thomas, Zulkifli Baharudin, Tay Beng Chuan, among others. I do not think these are non-risk takers. Many of them are successful businessmen in their own right. Surely, they are risk-takers. Yes, while some NMPs could have contributed more but, overall, I think we are better off with NMPs in Parliament.

One of the arguments Dr Tan has as regards NMP representation is whether they represent anyone when they come into Parliament. I think, Sir, we should ask instead, whether NMPs are Members of Parliament. The answer actually lies with Singaporeans. Do Singaporeans accept them as Members of Parliament? And whether NMPs have been accepted by the international community of parliamentarians is another question we should ask.

Sir, I have the privilege of attending several international conferences of parliamentarians with some of our NMPs in the past, and these NMPs had done us proud in these international forums. They were accepted by all as equal. So if a flower looks like a rose, feels like a rose, smells like a rose, it is a rose. The other argument Dr Tan has against the NMP concept is that we should not provide a backdoor for people who are non-risk takers into Parliament. And I believe he said that this is not just a debating shop; it is a political chamber where we make decisions. Surely, Sir, Dr Tan knows from the bottom of his heart that there is actually a major difference between an elected Member of Parliament and a Nominated Member of Parliament. This difference is obvious even to those who volunteered and were selected to be NMPs. In my view, an elected Member of Parliament is more than just a representative of the people in his constituency because we, the elected MPs, do not carry out an opinion poll of our constituents every time we speak. An elected MP, everyone of us - Backbenchers, Opposition Members included - is a leader in our own right. So, in a crunch, I think we are expected to step forward and to lead. Having NMPs in the Chamber does not dilute or blur this distinction. Thus, in my mind, Sir, having NMPs in the House does not provide a backdoor.

Nominated Members are just a different category of Members in this House and should be recognised and accepted as such. Sir, being an NMP is already difficult enough. They have to make a mark within a very short period of time. I am already a fifth term MP and I still have a lot to learn to improve my performance in Parliament. For NMPs to leave a mark within their first two-year term, they are indeed rare individuals with outstanding abilities. Talents are hard to come by and we should not make it harder for talented individuals to step forward to serve in this capacity as NMPs in this House. We should not denigrate the office of the NMP, thereby discouraging more outstanding individuals to step forward. With all due respect to my good friend, Dr Tan, I do not think he is doing a service to this House by opposing this motion.

Sir, I support this motion and urge all my colleagues to vote in favour of it.

Mr Leong Horn Kee (Bishan-Toa Payoh): Mr Speaker, Sir, first, I would like to thank you for allowing me to join in this debate on Nominated MPs (NMPs).

The objective of the NMP scheme is, of course, laudable. As explained by the Leader of the House, Mr Wong, the addition of up to nine NMPs will add to the quality of the debate in this House. I surmise therefore that the NMP scheme is introduced not so much due to the lack of PAP MPs, but to overcome the lack of opposing and discerning views in Parliament, arising from the lack of Opposition MPs.

Sir, allow me to state my case on why I feel that for this new Parliament, there is no need for an NMP scheme, in spite of the fact that there continues to be a paucity of Opposition Members in this House. I would like to bring up some new angles, instead of what some Members have claimed to be old angles, as raised by Dr Tan Cheng Bock. There are many reasons why this new term of Parliament could do away with NMPs. I think the NMP scheme has been useful in the past, but I think it will serve limited use in the future.

My first point is that for this new session of Parliament, the PAP Whip will be lifted. That makes a big difference. The Leader of the House has said that in cases of certain Bills that are not critical - even the PM himself has said so - he will allow PAP MPs to speak up, which means that now, except for some critical Bills, we have a new body of MPs to take on issues - the PAP MPs. With this new Parliament, the new PAP MPs, as well as the old PAP MPs, can therefore speak with more conviction and freedom. Their views on Government policy can be more engaging. In the past, we all know that the PAP MPs' mouths had been gagged. We could not speak up, because there was a Whip behind us.

Some hon. Members: No.

Mr Leong Horn Kee: You can speak against it, but you have to vote for it. It sounds very illogical. Anyway, now that the Whip has been lifted for those who want to speak, I think they can speak more readily and more heartily. But, of course, they have to be responsible for whatever they say. Therefore, I think we do not need more NMPs, because we already have such a large body of PAP MPs. This is one major difference.

Sir, the second difference I would like to say is that we now have a large quantity and quality of MPs, and new PAP MPs, in this Parliament. There are 24 new PAP MPs and one new NCMP. Certainly, with these 25 new faces put together, and with the old existing veteran MPs, what more views can be offered in this House and not more effective that can be covered.

We have heard how well most of the MPs who have spoken - all the 50-over of them - how well they have covered their points, and how eloquent they are. As you have seen, even including a poem by my GRC colleague, Dr Ng Eng Hen. And also we just saw this morning how well a new Minister of State, Dr Balaji, had fielded the barrage of questions from the other MPs. Many of these questions are from the new MPs themselves. So these are examples that we are going to have good debate in this House with this new crop of good MPs.

Sir, even the hon. Member, Mr Chiam - I remember he told me just two days ago - that it was most refreshing to hear our new PAP MPs speak. Is that not right?

Mr Chiam See Tong: Right.

Mr Leong Horn Kee: Sir, the other argument about having NMPs is that they represent a wider spectrum of public opinion. Once again, I wish to contend that we already have a wide and adequate representation in this House. As Dr Tan Cheng Bock has said, we have businessmen, we have Ph.Ds., we have entrepreneurs, we have unionists, we have professionals, doctors, lawyers - what else do we want? Everything is in this House.

Sir, in terms of elected female MPs, again like Dr Tan Cheng Bock has said, now we have increased from four to 10, and we see more colours of dresses now. So do you want more colours from the NMPs? I think not. Dr Wang had also mentioned that in the past, there were some very good NMPs. I must say I agree with him. I can single out some very good ones myself. But my contention is that for every good NMP, we have at least one good PAP MP to cover or be equal to the person.

Let me cite you examples. I recall Assoc. Prof. Walter Woon - he was eloquent, penetrating in his remarks. In fact, he came out with the Maintenance of Parents Bill, which was very remarkable. We had Dr Augustine Tan, equally eloquent, equally deep and penetrating in his debates. Then we had Dr Lee Tsao Yuan, from the NMP side; on our side we had Dr Aline Wong, equally eloquent and adequate in covering points. I think in the last Parliament, we had Mr Tay Beng Chuan, a good businessman who brought up several business issues, but we have Inderjit Singh. And then we had, of course, Mdm Claire Chiang, who is a very good speaker as well. We have Dr Lily Neo who can match Mdm Claire Chiang, word for word, speech for speech, maybe dress for dress. I think she also has one up on Mdm Claire Chiang. She has her famous "Hairdo Debate".

So, all the other past NMPs that we have in this House can be equally matched by our PAP MPs. So what can they add? I would like to argue against Mr Raymond Lim that, at best, the contributions the NMPs can give are marginal, not substantial. Of course, we also have the other NMP who was quite notable, Mr Simon Tay. I remember him very well. He made very good remarks, very articulate. Of course, we have on our side Dr Tan Cheng Bock himself, well matched to Mr Simon Tay.

Sir, I do not want to belittle the contributions of the past 26 NMPs, or imply that they did not contribute to the debates, or the cut and thrust of this House. I said they are honourable people and I have very high regard for them. I respect them. All I am saying is that we do have sufficient numbers of elected MPs in this House to cover all the bases.

In addition, there are three strong lines of attacks we have from the backbench to take on the frontbench.

After listening to the speeches of the MPs in the last few days, I am even more convinced than ever that we do not need NMPs. The backbenchers are particularly pleased with the return of Mr Tan Soo Khoon, the former Speaker. He has demonstrated just by two speeches that he is a speechmaker par excellence, as Dr Wang Kai Yuen has said.

Therefore, in this new House, we have three strong lines of formation of attack to take on the frontbench. The first line are the 25 new MPs which includes the "Magnificent Seven", ie, the seven new Ministers of State and Senior Ministers of State. The next line we have are the second, third and slightly older MPs, which include people like Mr Inderjit Singh, Mrs Lim Hwee Hua, Dr Lily Neo and Prof. Chin Tet Yung. Then we have the final line, the strongest line we call it, there we have the double Tans: Dr Tan Cheng Bock and Mr Tan Soo Khoon. And backed by them are also good and capable MPs, Dr Wang Kai Yuen and, again, Prof. Chin Tet Yung, and of course next to him, Dr Ong Chit Chung and others. These are all very good back-up forces to support the two Tans. With all this firepower, why do we need NMPs? I do not understand.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the final analysis on whether or not we should have NMPs does not depend on how well they speak, but what value they bring to the House and what contrasting views they can bring. Sir, I must say that they do bring some views. But I must contend against Mr Raymond Lim that maybe, at best, marginal. Sir, my GRC colleague, Dr Ng Eng Hen, has called this Chamber a "theatre". I am sure he did not mean that this House is a theatre for shows. Not a place for wayang wayang, or play-play.

This House debates on serious matters. We all agree on that. Therefore, it is not the quantity, that means the additional number of NMPs, that counts, but it is the quality and substance that count. Added to that, we need to add in "conviction". Elected MPs need to have the conviction. They speak from their hearts for the people. NMPs do not have to do that. They have no constituents. NMPs can come and go. But elected MPs cannot. Elected MPs have obligations to the people who vote for them. Elected MPs must be responsible, speak up and make their voice heard in this House. Sir, Dr Wang Kai Yuen said that roses that smell like roses must be roses. I do not agree. NMPs and elected MPs are different, and they are different. They come from a different breeding process.

Sir, when this NMP Bill was first introduced in 1989, I was ambivalent and unsure of whether to support it. I checked the Hansard and noted that I did say that I could support this Bill subject to certain qualifications. But over the years and after observing my fellow elected backbenchers perform in the last few days, I would say that now I do not feel the need for the NMPs.

When the Bill was first introduced by the Prime Minister, Mr Goh Chok Tong who was the first Deputy Prime Minister then, he summed up the debate by saying that he surmised that the uneasiness was not so much about the Bill itself, but with the uneasiness of the elected MPs themselves. I think this uneasiness was true, and is still true. Let me explain why.

Let me use the concept of "shelf space". Parliament is an august House, not a theatre, where all the elected MPs do their serious work. This is where MPs do their work, by making laws and debating on Government policies, as the Prime Minister has just made a very important and inspiring speech for us to hear. Parliament is also a major avenue for elected MPs to reach out to the constituents they represent. Their constituents want to hear their MPs speaking out for them. They want to see their MPs at work. Now, the NMP interrupts this process of the elected MPs at work.

Again, let me explain the "shelf space" concept. NMPs occupy shelf space. In a supermarket, every product is fighting for shelf space to gain consumer attention. One extra product, one extra can of sardine by another brand, takes up the shelf space. So PAP is the premium No. 1 product. The consumers decided that this is so. They also decided that Opposition MPs can only have two out of the 84 shelf space. So be it. But why do we need more? There is no reason for us to introduce a third brand called NMP. NMP is, what I call, a "generic" brand, a no-name brand, a "me too" product. No self-respecting premium brand producer wants to introduce a generic brand to the consumers just because the competitor No. 2 is very weak. I do not understand this marketing strategy.

Sir, I want to reiterate that we are not against competition as such in this House. It is good to have more debates and more competition. And I have nothing against NMPs themselves. I also do not want to debase their past contribution, but I am only against the NMP scheme. Those who have accepted to be NMPs in the past have contributed, but there are other avenues for them to be heard, to voice their opinions. Of course, they can first join the elections, no matter whether they are on a PAP ticket, or opposition ticket. Or they can become an independent candidate, if they want to. If not, they can join the other processes where they can also have their views heard. They can be invited to the Economic Review Committee, the Remaking of Singapore Committee, Feedback Committee, public forums and dialogues where their views can be heard. So I contend that there is no need for them to enter Parliament. As Dr Tan Cheng Bock has said, it is a political process, not a talking process.

The elected MPs have work to do here. Sometimes, I am very saddened to hear an MP, especially a newer MP, making very good points in Parliament, but because of the limited media space, as I said earlier, shelf space, they are shut out. They did not get the media coverage they deserve, such that their constituents cannot know what he or she has to say on their behalf. Elected MPs have constituents to answer to. NMPs do not. The debate on the Presidential Address is a prime example. Over 50 MPs spoke up, not counting the Ministers, DPM and PM himself. But many MPs' speeches were not covered at all by the media. So, if we have more NMPs, it means even less coverage for the elected MPs.

Sir, allow me to make a final point as to why I feel that things are a bit different now. Debate is a two-way process. NMPs may add to the debate, yes, I can agree with that. But we can have all debates we want in this House. It is no use if the Ministers are not listening. We now know that the Ministers are listening. Yesterday, DPM Lee actually assured the House that he would listen, and he would not bristle. When the Ministers are listening, at least the speeches they make are making an impact. So it is not the quantity or the numbers that count. It is whether the recipient side also makes an effort to hear and to take into account the views. With more receptive Ministers, of course capable and good Ministers, and more eloquent and elected MPs, do we need more NMPs? Surely not.

Sir, let me end by saying that since the PAP Whip is lifted, I urge my fellow PAP MPs to search deeply into their hearts. Ask yourself: is there a need for NMPs? What is it that they can do that we elected MPs cannot do? With the Whip off my back, Sir, I intend to vote against this motion.

Just like me, those MPs who have spoken in support of the Bill in the past, which I did, could change their minds given the new circumstances. That is precisely the purpose of the motion being tabled and put to the new term of Parliament, so that each new term of Parliament can reconsider whether there is a need for NMPs. Sir, there is no longer a need. I contend the time has now come for us, the elected MPs, to speak up, speak from our hearts. We, the backbenchers, have asked the Minister and civil servants for a mindset change. How about our own mindset? We also must change. Be prepared to say, no, if you are persuaded that a "no" is right. Say "no" to the NMP motion.

Mr Davinder Singh (Bishan-Toa Payoh): Mr Speaker, Sir, the speakers before me have been addressing the question as though the issue before Parliament is whether there is merit in the NMP scheme. But we have passed that, have we not? I thought the question now is whether, having regard to the experience we have had of the NMP scheme for more than 10-12 years, there is a reason to get rid of it. We have already decided, many of us still in this House, that there is merit in the scheme, that it serves the purpose and it improves the process. If this House is being asked to look at it afresh, it must be with a view to asking ourselves whether something has gone wrong with the NMP scheme for us to say that throwing it out is justified. Let us look at the record.

What has happened to the NMP scheme which has degraded the parliamentary process? What have the NMPs, who have come to this House, session after session, done to diminish the standing of this House? Have they done anything which has adversely affected the interests of the people? Have they done anything which has made it more difficult for this Government to govern? Have they done anything to make it more difficult for the elected MPs to put their views across? If I hear an argument which suggests that, yes, they have done something contrary to our interests which, ultimately, affects the man-in-the-street, then we can begin a debate about casting away this scheme. But what we have is a rehash of the arguments that we went through in 1989.

I looked at the Hansard and Dr Tan Cheng Bock had done a service to us by reminding us of his arguments that he made in 1989 and, to a large extent, so too has Mr Leong, although then I think he took a different position.

Let us go through the arguments one by one. The NMP scheme resulted, apart from anything else, in the passage of the Maintenance of Parents Act. How many people have been hurt by that and how many people have benefited? Would that Act have come through this House and ended up as legislation on our own steam? Could it? I have difficulty believing that because I remember, when Prof. Walter Woon stood up, many people in this House spoke up against it. Let us ask ourselves honestly: would that Act have been passed on our own initiative? And has that Act operated to benefit people in Singapore, people who do not have the resources to go to court, and people who need the help of the Government to recover from recalcitrant children? Do we throw the NMP scheme out because people have benefited?

Let me ask Members another question. One of the concerns highlighted by Dr Tan in 1989 was that this scheme was going to open the door for racial and religious groups to be represented in this House and, therefore, we were asking for trouble. Has that happened? In 1992, I think, Mr Tang Liang Hong tried to make a move to come in under the NMP scheme, and the people who stood up, who wrote in to oppose it, were the elected MPs. As a result of that opposition, he failed to get into this House. Since then, no other person has tried, no matter how cleverly, to get into this House so that he can advance a sectarian cause. It is one thing to say that there is a "remote possibility" - I think Dr Tan used those words - of that happening; it is another to ask ourselves: has it happened? And, really, is there any chance, given the fact that we are now talking about it, that we will let that happen?

Let us go to the next argument that is made, ie, that Parliament is an elected Chamber and, so, as purists, we should retain this form. And that is the operative word - form. Having heard the arguments that Dr Tan and Mr Leong have very eloquently put across, it seems to me that they would have no quarrel with this notion. We will have a separate body, we would not call it Parliament. The NMPs - we can call them something else - will sit there with our Ministers in the Frontbench, make their speeches, get responses and have the media cover them. But so long as they are not in this House, so long as they are not in this elected Chamber, that is fine. But because this is an elected Chamber, they should not be sitting in these seats and they should not be joining us in this House in the debate. But they can do it in another forum.

We are past form. We were past form a long time ago, when we brought in the NCMP. He is not elected by any stretch of the imagination. So we can either go for form or we can go for substance. And, at the end of the day, has it been substance the last 12 to 13 years, or has it been form? Mr Leong himself says that there have been very good performances from Prof. Woon, Ms Claire Chiang and the others whom he has named, and that is credit given where it is due. It has not been pure eloquence; it has been substance. It has forced the rest of us to sit up to do a bit better. It has added a dimension to this House which none of us were able to give and had the time to give. How have we lost out by that process? I have difficulty understanding how all these points aggregate to create an argument to throw out a scheme that has done well for us and for Singapore.

Then the argument is made that these NMPs do not speak for their electorate, in other words, I assume, their constituents. None of us speak for our constituents. None of us do. We are brought into this House by the electoral process, many of us unopposed. My experience, four times. I do not speak for my residents in Toa Payoh. When I make a speech, I make a speech which I consider will benefit Singaporeans at large. So this argument that we are speaking on behalf of our own constituents is a fiction, and must be recognised as a fiction. And the moment we recognise it, we move away from the fallacious argument that we are only here for our constituents. We stand here, after thinking about our speech, because we know that at the end of the day there is a chance that the speech will be reproduced in the media and that every Singaporean, whether he lives in your constituency or not, is going to read you and assess you, and that he is going to take a view about your arguments. So this is not a forum for espousing views peculiar to your constituents; it is about Singapore. And if a few additional brains can come into this House to add breadth to the debate, why not?

Let me end by turning to a point which I think Mr Leong and Dr Tan made. The strongest argument they have for doing away with the NMP scheme is the quality of the new MPs in this House. I accept that. Their quality is impeccable. Why do we need NMPs when we have what Mr Leong has called, "the magnificent 7"? Let me ask Members this. Assume that despite the best efforts of the political leadership, none of the seven agrees to join politics and come to this House. We have seen the quality of what they can say. We have seen them speak, we have heard them speak, we know their quality. Assume that they refused to enter the political game and did not stand for elections. Would we be better off if they came in as NMPs, or would we be better off without them in this House?

I support the motion, Sir.

Mr Steve Chia Kiah Hong: Thank you, Mr Speaker, Sir, for allowing me to join in this debate. I am speaking not in favour of the motion to have Nominated MPs in this session of Parliament.

The PM had earlier in the debate lifted the PAP's Whip and allowed its Party Members to vote freely on this motion. This is excellent. Otherwise it is pointless for us t/o continue in the discussion. If the Whip is not lifted, the

82 Members would have only the "Yes" button to press when it comes to voting. This lifting of the Government Whip gives Members of the House a free choice to exercise their individual beliefs and philosophy. While I disagree with the PM on the Whip, I shall not debate it here.

The question that is put before us now is whether there is a need for NMPs in this First Session of the Tenth Parliament. It is no longer a debate about the merits of the NMP scheme anymore. That has already been very well covered in the last two Parliament sessions, and by Dr Tan, Dr Wang, Mr Leong and Mr Davinder Singh earlier.

The performance of past NMPs has also shown that the scheme works. Times have changed, however. What had worked in the past does not mean that it will continue to work in the future. The NMP scheme had worked in the past for two main reasons. First, the Special Select Committee did a good job in selecting outspoken but sensible critics. But, more importantly, there was, in my opinion, a gap, a niche that past NMPs had fulfilled. That niche is to generate debate and critical evaluation of the Bills that were presented. At most, MPs, again in my humble opinion, might have failed to perform effectively. It could be due to the Whip or the presence of the Whip, and the lack of consistency between speaking up against a policy and, yet, voting for it at the end of the day. There are probably constraints and restraints by the Party's internal rules that do not allow them to vote against their Party leaders. This was confirmed again by the Prime Minister earlier. However, we have also heard from the PM that the Government is prepared to lift its Whip more often. This will free the current batch, as discussed, "the magnificent 7" and all the other 25 new MPs to be vigorous, to be more vigilant, in asking questions and debating the important policies, as what we have seen in the last five days. And I believe the new and old MPs will be able to do a good job, speaking what concerns their heart. Given more opportunities, there will be more alternative views to be presented in the months to come.

In the last four days, we have also heard many Members talk about the scepticism and cynicism of youths towards the Government. Sir, it is the youths who are sceptics and cynics, and they cannot vote. So it does not mean that the 75% of the population who voted for the Government are not sceptics. Some of these youths have remarked to me that the Government introduced the NMP scheme to drown out the voice of the Opposition MPs. I do not see how that can be the case when we are so out-numbered. If there is a reason to drown out, it will be the presence of the PAP MPs who speak against us that will drown us out.

The success of the NMP scheme shows the failure of the governing Party MPs in speaking up and being critical. To a certain extent, the impression of the public is that they need the NMPs to do the job for them because they cannot do it as Party members. The question on the minds of many Singaporeans, including myself, is whether the Government, when it talks about opening up society and engaging the young, is for real. The question asked is, if the Government is not prepared to open up its Party and allow its Members to speak up and vote freely, how can it be genuine in wanting to open up society? Many Singaporeans are watching, silently waiting and hoping that the Government's action will match its words. Like a resident in Choa Chu Kang once remarked to me in Hokkien, "mai gong ka jue, zuo lai kua sheng". He said, "Do not talk so much. Do and show me first."

The best action for the Government to convince its critics and the many young cynics out there is to free its Party Members completely from the constraints of the Whip. The PM had said no to this permanent lifting of the Whip. I disagree, but that is a decision of the governing Party and I have no say in it. However, I hope that it can be proven that there is no need for more NMPs to come in to help this fine team of MPs in the debates.

We have already had NMPs for 10 to 12 years. Let us try for two years, for this Session of Parliament, without NMPs. If, at the end of two years, the Government MPs, ourselves included, fail to do a good job in airing alternative views or constructive dissent, then let me be the one to move the motion to have NMPs at the Second Session of this Parliament.

In conclusion, Mr Speaker, Sir, I strongly believe that we must seize this opportunity to get rid of the growing cynicism in young Singaporeans. We can do it by allowing the MPs in this House to be genuinely critical. This is leadership by example. It will be the best way to convince Singaporeans that the Government is willing to stand corrected.

I propose that we do without NMPs, Sir.

Mr Sin Boon Ann: Sir, as I sat there listening to the speech of the NCMP, I take it that he supports, in principle, the idea of the NMP, save that we should give it some time before we propose to introduce them into this House. That is precisely the nature of this debate now and I rise in support of the motion that we have NMPs in this present term of Parliament.

Sir, five years ago, during my first term in Parliament, I have spoken in support of the motion to bring Nominated Members into this House. I am now into my second term of the office and having had the experience and the benefit of engaging the Nominated Members in debates, I can say that I stand by my conviction that I believe that at the end of the day, NMPs do make a positive contribution to this House. I remember then when we debated on this issue, Dr Tan Cheng Bock had then said that I was still fresh, wet behind the ears, still green and, that we would come back to look at the issue five years later and see whether I am still of the same view. I hate to disappoint Dr Tan that unfortunately, I have come back to say that, yes, we were right when we supported the initial motion.

Sir, the underlying arguments against the introduction of the Nominated Members essentially run along three grounds. First, they lack moral standing because they were not elected. They did not contest in an election, therefore, because of the absence of a contest in an election, they have no right to represent the people of Singapore in this Chamber. Secondly, the argument was made that there are enough avenues existing in this country to allow for an expression of dissenting opinions and with these avenues available, there is really no need for Nominated Members to then come to this august Chamber to debate and participate in policy deliberation. Of course, the final argument that is made that I see coming across is that in this new climate, with the partial lifting of the Whip, and the new batch of Members of Parliament with sterling qualities in engaging the rest of the House in eloquent debates, there is really a question as to whether or not you need any more Members to come in to contribute to the cacophony of sounds or as the Prime Minister puts it, the symphony of music that we now seek to generate in this House.

Sir, I agree with my colleague, Mr Davinder Singh, that the issue of whether or not we want to bring in Nominated Members of Parliament is not a live issue. We have gone past that. The question that we have to ask ourselves is: going forward, how do you want to see the model of democracy, and in particular, the nature of this House evolving in this country? I do not believe, Sir, that there is a single model of democracy and as such, we should not be so restricted by forms and our fixed views as to what constitutes it, who should have the legitimate right to sit in this House and to participate in the deliberations. We have to ask ourselves this basic question: what exactly is it we want that is in the interest of Singapore? I agree with my colleague earlier that in looking at this question, we have to ask ourselves, looking at the participation of the Nominated Members, is Parliament richer for it with the Nominated Members present or are we poorer? Is Singapore better off with or without the presence of these Members? My colleague has articulated these views rather eloquently when he said that if we look at the past instances of their contributions to the debates, without the presence of these Members, we would not have had such lively debates, we would not have had such a rich diversity of views coming into this House.

If I may, Sir, I think we can look at this analogy. An argument that was made earlier is that we have had people of various expertise and therefore, do we need any more of such people? I think essentially, if an analogy can be made here, the question is, you have a 2.1 mega pixel camera, do you therefore need a 3.1 mega pixel camera? In the nature of things and in the nature of human beings, if you can settle for a 3.1 mega pixel camera, why settle for a 2.1 mega pixel camera?

Sir, there is also the argument that they are not elected, and therefore, they have no right to speak for Singaporeans. The argument suffers from the flaw that only elected Members have the monopoly to speak for Singaporeans. Let us not forget that Nominated Members are also Singaporeans. We have to move away from the rigid mindset that the elected forum should only comprise elected Members whose sole right is to speak for Singaporeans. Nominated Members, being Singaporeans, also do enjoy the legitimate right to speak for Singapore and they represent the interest of all Singaporeans, not just constituent Singaporeans, but also functional groupings. Therefore, if you look at the Nominated Members, they come across as being non-politically party partisan and I think they perform a useful role here.

As I have said before, Sir, a Government for all the people, by the people, is not premised on the functions of the elected representative people alone. The Government of the people must be founded on a cornerstone on what is best for the people, and this must surely include listening to the voice of the people in this land, including the voice of whom the NMPs seek to represent.

With that, I support the motion.

Ms Irene Ng Phek Hoong: Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of the motion.

I support it for three reasons. First, since the NMP scheme was introduced in 1989, the NMPs in each cohort had justified the usefulness of this scheme. By and large, they had contributed to a lively debate and, as the previous Members have said, to our constant search for better solutions to the many complex problems facing this country.

I have a confession: when I was a political correspondent sitting up there in the Press Gallery, I would often look forward to hearing some NMPs speak. They included Prof. Walter Woon and Dr Kanwaljit Soin and we know the work they have done here. Their views were often refreshing. They added different dimensions to the issue being discussed. I think Parliament debates would have been the poorer if they had not been present. They easily outshone the Opposition. This is not to say that the PAP MPs did not make refreshing speeches. Many did. But as we have said so often, nobody enjoys a monopoly over wisdom. And the fact remains that some NMPs did add to the debate in constructive and meaningful ways.

That conclusion, which I made when I was a journalist, does not change just because I have migrated down to the Chamber. On the contrary, because I am a PAP MP, I feel it is incumbent on me to support this scheme. The PAP is the dominant party in the House. One reason it is dominant is because it is a party that is constantly evolving to stay in tune with the times and that is always searching for ways to secure a better future for Singaporeans.

To keep NMPs out, just because we, the elected MPs, came in the hard way, is to lose sight of the greater good. We must take the moral high ground that what is good for society must be the foremost concern. Nearly every political philosopher, from Aristotle, Confucius to Max Weber, has agreed that the provision of a good or just society is the end purpose of government. We cannot always agree on what defines a good society, but at the minimum, the people from a very wide spectrum society can all feel that they all get a fair hearing here. This gives a sense of legitimacy to a dynamic and complex society. This will also increase their sense of belonging to the country.

When I stood for elections last November, I said that the younger generation wanted a greater say in policy-making, and that they wanted a more transparent and accountable system. I saw one of my roles as an MP as furthering this cause. This brings me to the second reason for supporting this scheme.

It opens the door for more Singaporeans, who are credible, to have a greater say in policy-making in all areas, and at the highest levels. To that extent, it does make for a more accountable and transparent system.

Recently, it was announced that the door will be opened wider to usher in a greater variety of groups. The number of functional groups will be doubled from three to six to reflect a wider spectrum of society. Besides business, unions and professional groups, they now include representatives from social and community service organisations, as well as the media, the arts and sports organisations. This is to be welcomed. It encourages active citizenship, which is one of our mantras in Singapore 21. It also reflects our seriousness in remaking Singapore, to go beyond the 5Cs and to nurture our budding civil society, as well as the arts and the sports. It would also send a signal that this PAP-dominant Parliament is a dynamic and bold one.

Recently, I was involved in two dialogues with two separate groups of young Singaporeans. One group was undergraduates, the other group was Secondary 3 and Secondary 4 students from the Gifted Education Programme. Some students in both groups expressed scepticism about how ready the PAP was to accommodate alternative views. I pointed to the diverse slate of the PAP MPs, especially the new ones, as a sign of PAP Government's openness to different views and to the easing of the Party Whip. I also pointed to the NMP scheme as another example. This is not just a case of the Government being open to alternative views. This is a case of a Government going out of its way to consciously make room for alternative views. How many governments would initiate a scheme that allows non-elected MPs to speak up in Parliament, and even a non-elected Opposition Member to be here with us?

It must be a strong Government, confident of the ability of its MPs to hold their own in the House as well as on the ground. Therefore, the NMP scheme should not be seen as an indictment on the quality of PAP MPs in the House. On the contrary, the NMP scheme is the by-product of the PAP's success.

The third reason I support the NMP scheme is because it could help to increase the number of MPs from under-represented groups, such as women. It is true that the number has increased in this latest batch to 10 - but we are still under-represented. It is a fact that we have a hard time finding good women to stand for elections. It exacts considerable sacrifice in both their personal, family and professional lives, as many of us have found out.

Some of my women colleagues here have expressed their worry to me that this NMP scheme would only make it more difficult for us to persuade women to stand for elections. This scheme provides an easy alternative to be here. They just pop up in Parliament, all nice and neat, make a speech and the next day, they appear in the newspapers. Whereas, the rest of us have to slog it out on the ground, hair dishevelled, pumping hands, staying at MPS late at nights, attending countless grassroots meetings. And for my married women colleagues, they go home and they have also to meet the needs of their families. Often, we do our best work as MPs out of the limelight, championing the causes of our residents conscientiously. Hence, the concern that, if given a choice to women, they would probably go for the NMP scheme than to join politics full-time.

I share this reservation. But I am also pragmatic. Politics, the election kind, is still seen as a male-dominated field in Singapore today. Indeed, I have heard reservations expressed that if a strong woman candidate were to contest in a single seat against a weak male candidate, it is very hard to say whether the female would win even though the merit is with her, even though she is a superior candidate in all aspects.

Our society is still a patriarchal one, I am often reminded. So, given this patriarchal system that we are operating under today, I would say that if the NMP scheme will help bring in more women and for them to share their valuable perspectives with us, then let them in. With more female voices in Parliament, we can work better towards our vision of a society where all citizens, including women, live their lives experiencing justice and equality as a right and not by grace or favour.

I started my speech by saying that I supported the scheme because previous batches had proven its usefulness. I would urge the Government to ensure that the quality of future NMPs is not compromised even as it widens the groups to be represented here. Presently, the selection process is not transparent. Can the Minister assure us that the selection process is rigorous enough? We must keep high the entry bar.

At the end of the day, the usefulness of the scheme depends on the quality of the NMPs. They must be intellectually honest, pro-Singapore and offer useful views that will make for a better Singapore.

I am glad that we have this debate, if only to remind the NMPs that if and when they sit among us, it is only at the pleasure of a strong Government and the individual elected MPs in this House.

On that note, I urge my fellow MPs to vote for the motion alongside with me.

Ms Indranee Rajah (Tanjong Pagar): Mr Speaker, thank you for allowing me the opportunity to participate in this debate.

As I was listening to Dr Tan Cheng Bock, I was very disturbed to realise that I am actually a major obstacle to the NMP scheme because he said we should not have them because we have lawyers - I am a lawyer. We should not have them because now we have more women - I am a woman. And we should not have them because we have more singles - guilty also.

I was very disturbed, particularly, Mr Speaker, because I am going to support the motion. Also because when Dr Tan described the degree of hassle and the heat of battle that one has to go through in elections, I was actually privileged to see him in action, because I was assigned to understudy him during the elections at Ayer Rajah. I must say that is why it gives me a certain degree of grief to be disagreeing with Dr Tan, because, in many respects, I regard him as my si fu. Si fu, te pui chi, but this unworthy student is about to disagree with you.

I think that we do need to have NMPs in order to have alternative views in Parliament. And when I say "alternative", I mean alternative here to the PAP. We have

85 Members of Parliament, out of which 82 are PAP and only 3 are Opposition MPs. If we had more Opposition MPs in Parliament, my view might well be different. But because we are such an overwhelming majority, I do think it is necessary for us to have alternative views.

Three arguments have been made as to why we should not have NMPs. The first is because, or as the allegation goes, the Whip will be lifted, which will encourage more debate and therefore we do not need NMPs. It is true that every Backbencher who sits here understands the need to speak up in accordance with our conscience. But there is a difference between speaking up and voting, and in some cases the Whip will not be lifted. So there is some value still in having NMPs.

Secondly, no matter what we say, in the eyes of the public, we are still such an overwhelming majority in Parliament that we have 82 Members of the same party, I think, for the public, it is important for them to know and understand that there are alternative views, and that these alternative views can be aired in Parliament. Make no mistake, I do not make any apology whatsoever for being part of the majority in Parliament. I think it is in the nature of parliamentary democracy, especially party-based politics, that every party tries its best to get as many of its members as possible into Parliament. So I make no apology for being part of the majority. But if you are a majority, it is necessary to hear from others.

If the NMPs agree with Government policies, so much the better, because it means that there are people, other than party affiliated MPs, who agree with Government policies. If the NMPs do not agree with Government policies, so be it. At least, we have heard from another voice.

The second argument is that we do not need NMPs because we have such good quality Backbenchers, especially this new batch. Thank you, on behalf of all the new MPs who have come in. We may be good but I do not think we are that good, that we are able to cover the entire spectrum of views. I think there is always room for alternative views from different groups.

The third argument is that NMPs are not elected and they therefore do not have the mandate of the electorate. That is true, but they will not be here as representatives of the electorate. They will be here, if they are invited in, as people who provide alternative views. And as long as we understand that, I think it does not matter that they have not been elected.

Mr Steve Chia said that the success of the NMP scheme shows the failure of the PAP MPs. I do not agree with that. I do not think there is any other government in the world who actually takes steps to invite people that are not of their party to come into Parliament and give alternative views. So I think the success of the NMP scheme is an indication of the willingness of this Government and this party to hear alternative views and to try its best to solicit from as many areas as possible ideas that are good for Singapore. So, the crux of the matter really, as I see it, is that we are an overwhelming majority. We do need to hear alternative views and I therefore support the motion.

Mr Low Thia Khiang (Hougang): Mr Speaker, Sir, initially, I did not intend to speak on the issue, because the stand of the Workers' Party is clear. We oppose the introduction of NMPs in Parliament. It is not my habit to repeat what I have said and argued, as they have been recorded in the Hansard.

However, Sir, when I revisited the speech made by the then First Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Defence, Mr Goh Chok Tong, on the rationale of the introduction of the NMP scheme, I find that there are some interesting points worth for the House to recall and consider before the House decides whether there should be NMPs in this term of Parliament. The MP for Bishan-Toa Payoh, Mr Davinder Singh, just now said that perhaps we should look at whether there is anything wrong with the NMP scheme in the past 10 years.

Perhaps we should look at another perspective, ie, whether the NMP scheme has achieved its original objectives. First of all, let me quote Mr Goh, Prime Minister, in 1989 [Hansard, 29th November 1989, Vol. 54, col. 695], he said:

'The aim of this Bill is to further strengthen our political system by offering Singaporeans more opportunities for political participation .' Sir, has our political system been strengthened in the past 10 years with NMPs in this House? Has the political participation of Singaporeans increased? Strangely, Sir, 10 years after the introduction of NMPs to generate more political participation, we are still hearing in the last few days about how the Government should involve more Singaporeans in the remaking of Singapore.

Secondly, according to Mr Goh, Prime Minister, the need to introduce NMPs is because the Opposition is inadequate. He said:

'After nearly one year's experience, the feedback is that the two of them, ie, the two Opposition MPs, do not adequately express significant alternative views held outside this Chamber.' [Vol. 54, col. 698].

He further added:

'In 1984, despite a sharp drop in national support for the PAP, a drop of 13%, the PAP lost only two seats. In 1988, though the support level went down by 1% from 1984, the PAP lost only one seat. In fact, it recovered one from the two opposition seats which it lost in 1984.' [Vol. 54, col. 704].

But the Prime Minister conveniently forgot that the primary reason why the PAP was able to win back the seat it lost in 1984 was because Anson Constituency held by my party's former Secretary-General was redrawn into Tiong Bahru GRC. As a result, when I stood for my first election there, my team, all new faces, had to face an incumbent veteran MP, Mr Chng Jit Koon, who had been the MP for Tiong Bahru for 20 years. I believe if Anson had remained as a single seat constituency, the result could have been different. Sir, for your information, Anson today is part of Tanjong Pagar GRC.

Since the PAP has found that the political system is not ideal and that there is a need to strengthen the political system, I wonder why the PAP did not face this problem squarely, as it did with most problems, instead of having NMPs. Is it because the PAP does not consider the Opposition as part of the political system? I also wonder why the PAP did not find problems with the political system and take issue with the lack of participation prior to 1984, when there was no Opposition in this House at all? Why was there this sudden wake-up call in wanting participation and the introduction of the NMP scheme after 1988 when there was a substantial vote swing against the PAP? Sir, I do not have answers to these questions. I leave it to Singaporeans to answer and to judge.

The third reason for introducing the NMP scheme is that the NMP is politically non-partisan. Mr Goh said:

'Nominated MPs are not Government MPs either. They should and will be people who will vote as they think right.' [Vol. 54, col. 700].

Sir, I find that most of the NMPs voted with the PAP all these years. Of course, we have heard that it does not matter if they vote for the PAP. But what was the purpose of introducing NMPs? Yes, they have their views and they can express their views eloquently, but I find that most of the views they expressed were similar to the PAP's views, but expressed in different style. So I doubt whether the NMP scheme has achieved its non-partisan objective.

However, Sir, I do find that the NMPs have one useful role to play, ie, because they are not PAP MPs, when they criticise or attack the Opposition, they would sound more convincing and would be more receptive to the public.

Mr Goh, the then First Deputy Prime Minister, also revealed interesting workings of the PAP. He said:

'PAP MPs often vote on issues, but this is done in closed-door party meetings. Once a vote is taken and the decision made, they are expected to abide by the majority decision.' [Vol. 54, cols. 698-99].

Sir, it seems to me that the real Parliament is actually behind the PAP's closed-door meetings. And the problem is that they are not allowed to vote against the Government unless the Whip is lifted, and this is one of the reasons for bringing in NMPs who could vote freely to show dissent. Sir, now that the Prime Minister has decided to lift the Whip - I do not know - but just now he said maybe not. So I do not know whether the Whip is lifted or not lifted, not only on this NMP issue but for other issues for enlightened debate. If that is the case, is there a need for NMPs to show the public that there is indeed sufficient dissent in Parliament? Sir, the essence of parliamentary democracy, I understand, is representation of the people in the decision making process and accountability. I am quite surprised to hear Mr Singh say that he does not represent a constituency. Perhaps the PAP wants to explain to us their thinking and how they feel about the political system such that they can walk into Parliament without being elected. Anyway, I think they should go through the political system. My understanding is that Parliament is the highest decision making body of the country. So it is essential that those who are present in Parliament participate in the decision making process on behalf of the people and be accountable to them. I think it is not simply a question of having their views, as what some Members have said. We can have their views, yes, but I think we are here not only to express our views. We are here representing the people and making decisions on their behalf. We must have some basis for representing the people and, to me, "representing the people" means going through the election process. If not, how do you claim you are representing someone? It has got to be some electoral process that you have gone through.

Sir, if the Government is sincere in wanting participation from the people, wanting Singaporeans to be concerned about the country and wanting Singaporeans to take ownership, and thereby feel that they are rooted here, and it is our home, I think it is time that it should consider seriously either a proportional representation system or a hybrid system of first-past-the-post and proportional representation system. Is the PAP open enough for the idea? Or we just shut the door immediately and say that the change is too radical and will weaken the Government and social structure, etc, etc.

Sir, let us wait and see.

Mr Chiam See Tong: Sir, imagine the nine Nominated MPs are now in Parliament, and we have heard our debates for the last five days, and 61 speakers have spoken, do our Members here want to hear another nine Nominated MPs speak up? I do not think so. They cannot contribute anything else. Most of the points would have been already covered, and I would imagine more eloquently than if the nine Nominated MPs were present.

I personally think that circumstances have changed. I have been here 18 years and I can see this particular session that we have just had is completely different from what I have seen before in this Parliament. The debates are not only lively but of very high quality. In fact, today we have seen PAP MPs debating vigorously against another PAP MP, which is a very, very rare thing to see in this House. So things will change with this Tenth Parliament, and I think for this particular Tenth Parliament we certainly do not need nine more Nominated MPs. I do not think they will make Parliament debates richer or of higher quality, which I think we already have.

Unlike Dr Tan, who feels very strongly against NMPs because he says that he has to fight through the election hustings to get into Parliament, whereas NMPs just walk in through the backdoor without paying the price, well, I do not feel as strongly as him although I fought a hard, vigorous election. But my reason for objecting to having NMPs in this House is not because they do not pay a price for it but because it undermines the very system that we believe in, and that is a democratic system. In some countries, they do not call their legislatures "Parliament"; they call them "House of Representatives" - that is what made our legislature here democratic. Because we are representatives of our constituents, we are elected by them. As for NMPs, they are not representatives. They represent only themselves or, more likely, represent the ruling party that selected them and put them in.

Sir, whatever Mr Davinder says, I still believe that we represent our constituents, and the people want their representatives in Parliament. That was clearly proven by one NMP who was highlighted in the papers. He had a high profile, and he thought he could win easily at an election. He went to have a try - I think it was at Chua Chu Kang - and he just got off by the skin of his teeth in not having his deposit forfeited. I think he obtained only 14%. So what does that tell us? That tells us that the voters do not want an NMP, although he had performed so well in Parliament. He was rejected outright. Singaporeans do not want Members of Parliament who are not voted by the constituents. That was a very, very clear signal that the people do not want MPs who are not elected by them.

Right from the start, from 1989, I disagreed with this scheme because I think that the real reason for the PAP wanting NMPs is part of its election strategy. They want the NMPs to dilute the Opposition in Parliament, and I think they also read the ground rightly that people do want the PAP to rule them but, at the same time, they still want Opposition voices in Parliament. So they say, "All right. PAP is ruling, and at the same time we provide you with Opposition voices in the form of NMPs.".

But when the NMP scheme was announced, the NMPs were supposed not to take sides, either with the ruling party or the Opposition. They were supposed to be the third voice, to be on neutral ground. But I have said before, there is no such thing as a third voice, or neutral. Either you are for or against an issue. The other day we heard that the person who stands in the middle of the road gets run down by a motorcar. And during the time of the cold war, some nations sided the Soviet Union and others sided the US and the west, but some Asian countries conveniently said that they were neutral. And the one time Secretary of State of the United States, Mr Dulles, said, "neutrality is immoral". If neutrality is really immoral, then there is no place for NMPs in Parliament because they cannot take the neutral ground or be the third voice.

We have debated for five days on the remaking of Singapore. It would appear that the Government hopes that things will change, Singapore would open up a bit, people will speak up, entrepreneurs will be bred and help Singapore out. But this NMP scheme is not in sync with this whole concept of the new Singapore. NMPs are, firstly, not elected MPs; they do not have to win the battles to have their own right to be in Parliament; they are appointed. We are in a way going back to the authoritarian style - appointments rather than open up and be democratic. I think the NMP scheme does not fit in with the times. Times have changed. We are going to see a new Parliament and it is going to be changed. As the Government has said, they are going to lift the Whip more often and, I think, circumstances have changed and therefore it will be for the greater good of Singapore if there were no NMPs in Parliament.

Mr Raymond Lim also argued that today NMPs are here for the national interest. I can say that they are not for the national interest for the simple reason that they will erode our belief in democracy, in representation, because they do not represent anyone. And if you erode democracy and make people think that you do not need to elect your MPs, let the Government appoint them, it is going to be a wrong signal sent to the people of Singapore, and I do not think that it is good for Singapore.

As for the contributions of Prof. Walter Woon in initiating the Maintenance of Parents Act, actually, to me, as a nation, I think we should not have this Act at all. He thinks it is good; but I think it is bad. What sort of society will we become when the parents have to sue their children to get maintenance? I think in Israel and England, they have this Act, but after a while people became so shameful about the whole thing that that Act just died a natural death. I hope the Maintenance of Parents Act will also die a natural death. [Interruptions]. I suppose you are waiting for the next NMP to do it. [Interruptions]. I said "you", not me.

Mr Davinder Singh has said that the quality of new MPs is impeccable, and I entirely agree with him. In fact, these few days, I look forward to hearing many of them speak. So if we have such good quality elected MPs, I certainly think we can leave NMPs out this round. I think they will just be redundant, occupying unnecessary spaces here.

Sir, before I end, I call for a division on this motion.

Mr Davinder Singh: Mr Speaker, may I have your permission to raise a point by way of clarification.

Mr Low Thia Khiang and Mr Chiam See Tong have both misunderstood the point I made. I did not say, as Mr Low claims, that I do not want to represent the residents of Toa Payoh and I did not say, as Mr Chiam claims, that we are not here because we were not elected by the residents of our constituencies.

My point is a different one. My point is that when you stand up and make a speech in this House, you are accountable not only to your constituents, but you are accountable to every single Singaporean. You are accountable to yourself, to your family and to every single Singaporean. So the proposition that you are only accountable to your constituents and therefore only elected Members should sit in this House is a fiction. Accountability is to everybody. And in the way that Mr Low and Mr Chiam spoke about this motion, Mr Chiam and Mr Low did not speak on behalf of the residents of Hougang and Potong Pasir in rejecting this motion. They spoke, I believe, in what they considered to be in the best interest of all Singaporeans when they speak against that motion, not your residents only.

Assoc. Prof. Chin Tet Yung (Sembawang): Mr Speaker, Sir, I cannot resist taking up a point by Mr Chiam just now when he said he was going to wait for the next NMP - if I heard him telling correctly - to introduce a Bill to repeal the Maintenance of Parents Act.

Mr Chiam See Tong: I say probably the next MP will repeal it.

Assoc. Prof. Chin Tet Yung: You said "next NMP".

Mr Chiam See Tong: They asked me.

Assoc. Prof. Chin Tet Yung: Yes, but you did say the "next NMP" which suggests that you are in favour of the scheme. And I have to say that I have to address Mr Chiam's very serious point about Nominated Members of Parliament undermining the system of democracy.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I think anyone with even a casual knowledge of democracy and models of democracy would realise that in Westminster, for example, we have the House of Lords which comprises non-elected Members and, in fact, they do have even non-partisan members sitting in which they call the cross-benchers. So the notion of Nominated MPs, as it were, is not unknown to the world of democratic governments. So we have to say that these two arguments would not wash in relation to whether we should have NMPs or not.

Sir, if I may address the motion. I have to say that when I first came to Parliament in 1997, I recall listening to the eloquent speech of the hon. Member for Ayer Rajah against the NMP scheme. And I remember, with some trepidation, how I am going to be able to match such eloquence, or even come close to such eloquence. I remember, in particular, the array of reasons he gave as to why we should not have such a scheme. And I took the liberty to list them out and, strangely enough, they also comprise the "magnificent seven" reasons.

If I may digress a bit, Mr Speaker, when some Members of this House referred to our new MPs, the "magnificent seven", I have to say that, if I remember the movie The Magnificent Seven correctly and the Japanese version of Seven Samurai, I think at the end of the film, only two survived. So may I wish the magnificent seven good luck and may the best man win.

Let us turn to Dr Tan's seven magnificent reasons. May I be so bold as to take out the rhetoric and the eloquence and just take them for what they are. First, he said that the NMPs are not risk-takers. Second, that they come in through the back door without having to go through an election. Third, they seldom, if ever, raise issues that are not already raised by the elected MPs. Fourth, that they represent no constituency and know very little, if anything, about the feelings and views of the people. Fifth, there is ample supply of lawyers, accountants, doctors and we do not need more of them in this House. And, sixth, that the couple who did well, Prof. Walter Woon and Dr Kanwaljit Soin, cannot be taken as evidence of the success of the scheme, and I remember the hon. Member saying that two swallows do not make a summer. Finally, the seventh argument is that, which he mentioned again just now, there may be difficulty in choosing the right NMPs, or, for that matter, ensuring that the various interest groups are represented, or vice versa, that extremists may find their way in through such a scheme.

Apart from these magnificent seven reasons which I think we must try to rebut if we want to support the scheme, I think Mr Leong referred to the idea of shelf space and that as NMPs are not bound by the Party Whip, they are often given much better coverage, make a better impression on the media, than the elected MPs; in other words, they make the elected MPs look dull, ordinary and even boring.

Sir, these are very powerful arguments indeed and they have to be taken into account. However, I have to say that I have great personal discomfort in having to disagree with the hon. Member for Ayer Rajah and state why I support the scheme. First of all, we must be clear why the NMP scheme is of such value to the House. To be clear about that, let us first look at what the elected Members are here for. The elected Members represent their party in the House, both Opposition as well as the PAP. We are elected on the party's manifesto, with promises made to the party as to what the voters can expect if they voted for us, the candidates of the party. That is also the reason why we have the Party Whip because it is necessary to keep party discipline in the House so as to make good on election promises.

For those who are elected on this basis, we must in general believe in supporting the party's programme. Otherwise, we might as well run as independents or apply to be NMPs. Given that this is the case, I think it will be on very rare occasions when the Whip is lifted, or on where personal conscience dictates, that we, PAP MPs, would not support a piece of legislation proposed by the PAP Government, especially when it is attempting to carry out the programme promised to the people. And if PAP MPs make speeches in support which are then not given as much prominence as the NMPs who project a different point of view, I do not think we need to feel apologetic. That is something which we should expect the media to do, even though we may not agree with it. The Minister's speech supporting such legislation is usually taken to state the policies for such legislation and the MPs' speeches in support are just seen as excess baggage, no matter how interesting the speech might otherwise have been. We can only hope to persuade the media to give us more attention, or as much attention as they give to the NMPs.

If we look at the NMPs, the NMP scheme is intended to add value to the debate precisely because they offer the opportunity for non-partisan voices to be heard. In answer to Mr Chiam, it is not really wrong for NMPs to agree with the Government if they have good reasons for doing so. The point is that they are not bound by Party Whip, that they can express their personal opinions as to what they think is the value of such legislation. So it is not that they are sitting on the fence if they agree or disagree. They will take a position.

And I do think that NMPs take risks when they decide to put themselves up for Parliament. I remember saying so to Prof. Walter Woon, who was a colleague of mine at the Faculty of Law, when he came to talk to me about his intention to be put up as an NMP. I remember telling him that the public would scrutinise him and that he would definitely lose privacy and that, as an NMP, as any MP, he would run the risk of looking ridiculous in public if he were to come up with quirky ideas. He had not. But we have on occasions seen NMPs coming up with strange ideas. But the point is that they take individual responsibility for their views and indeed can be said to be at more risks because they do not have party support. And as for not having a feel of the ground, sometimes, not always, I think that is a strength. NMPs can concentrate on the merits of legislation instead of being preoccupied with the political consequences which may impact adversely.

Much has been said of the Maintenance of Parents Bill, which Prof. Walter Woon introduced, and Mr Chiam himself pointed out that there were some fierce adverse comments from Members of this House as well as from certain sectors of the public. But, as an NMP, he can afford to do so because he is responsible only for his views, he is himself, but he is acting in the interest of Singapore.

NMPs also take an Oath of Allegiance to the Constitution and to the people of Singapore to serve Singapore. We can expect them to give off their best and, if they do not, then it is quite obvious what consequences will occur. But the success or failure of the scheme depends very much on the quality of the candidates willing to put themselves up for this. Here, I would put it this way. For example, it is a common perception of many that those who entered the Miss Singapore competition may not be the most beautiful, charming or eloquent women in Singapore. There are many we know who prefer not to display their beauty and brains in competition. In the same way, if our most intelligent, independent and non-political minds were not persuaded to come forward to participate in the NMP scheme, then it would be time to re-examine the scheme. But, as of now, I would agree entirely with my Parliamentary colleague, Mr Davinder Singh, that the time has passed for questioning whether on principle such a scheme is correct.

The scheme has produced excellent MPs who have added much value to the debates in this House and we should, in this Parliament, continue to support the scheme so long as there are good people who can contribute their non-partisan views publicly. Their non-partisan support for Government policies and legislation will be reassuring to Singaporeans. And if they do object to legislation, then Ministers would have to take that into account. All in all, I believe very strongly that it can only improve the general quality of Parliament and Government in Singapore. And to borrow an analogy from Dr Wang Kai Yuen, if we can have a rose garden, why not have different types of roses, rather than just red roses or white roses. Why not have yellow roses also? It makes for a nicer garden.

For these reasons, Sir, I support the motion.

Mr Yeo Guat Kwang: (In Mandarin): To put it frankly, just as Dr Tan Cheng Bock has said, we, the elected MPs, have come in from the main door. We have gone through very vigorous battles and had to fight off the Opposition candidates to win our rights to represent our constituents here. Put it in a more dramatic way, we were like what the Chinese classics would describe, guo wu guan, zhan liu jiang - crossing five strategic passes and slaughtering six generals. On the other hand, our Nominated MPs were carried in on sedan chairs. They need not go through the battles. Honestly, seeing them coming in in such a glamourous and easy manner, if you say you are not envious and feel like banging your chest, I think you are probably not telling the truth.

However, we have to think very seriously about it. What contributions have Nominated MPs made to Parliament? Are they hua she tian zu (draw a snake and add feet to it) or jin shang tian hua (add flowers to the brocade)?

If it is to add something to the existing system like adding feet to the snake, it is like what the Hokkien will say: "kay kiang" - pretending to be smart. Having drawn a snake, why would you want to add some legs to it? You are doing something superfluous. But, if it is jin shang tian hua, that you are adding flowers to a beautiful piece of brocade, we are making it even more beautiful with 3-D effect.

The Nominated MPs and the elected MP have raised different voices, coming from different backgrounds. To me, elected MPs and Nominated MPs are like people holding pink ICs and blue ICs respectively, that is, citizens and permanent residents. The NMPs are contributing to our parliamentary system like the permanent residents contributed to our nation building and both are adding value to us. I do not agree with Dr Tan Cheng Bock that, as a labour MP or union leader, I had to feel bad when Nominated MPs are invited to come into this House as representatives of the labour movement. Does it mean that I am not doing my job? I do not think so. Having other union leaders here as Nominated MPs, will only make our good work here even better.

As Dr Tan Cheng Bock has said, we need to have people from different educational and family backgrounds coming here. All these union grassroots leaders who were promoted from the rank and file are in a better position to reflect the opinions of the workers. If you look at the previous batches of NMPs from the labour movement, we can see very clearly that they have brought in alternative views and constructive suggestions from the workers. I think it is value added to our whole parliamentary system. Their contribution is definitely not like adding legs to the snake.

However, since the Nominated MPs come in by a sedan chair, we have to be very careful when we are carrying them. They are different from us because they do not have to go through the General Elections and win the mandate of the voters to come in. So, I agree with Dr Tan Cheng Bock that we have to be more stringent in our selection system, so that there will not be any black sheep slipping in from the crevices.

Mr Low Thia Khiang: Sir, may I have your permission to seek a point of clarification?

Mr Speaker: Yes.

Mr Low Thia Khiang: (In Mandarin): Mr Yeo has said that the Nominated MPs are adding value and they are not redundant. If you look at these two idioms he uses to illustrate his points: jing shang tian hua and hua she tian zu, can he tell us what is the difference between them?

Mr Yeo Guat Kwang: (In Mandarin): If you draw a snake and put legs on it, then it is no longer a snake.

Mr Inderjit Singh (Ang Mo Kio): Sir, I have just got one small point to make. I support the motion. We have heard that there are NMPs who have made useful contributions and many did not too and they just occupied the seats in this House. So I would urge the Special Select Committee and the Leader of the House that when we implement the NMP system in this round, let us not just fill up all the nine seats that we have. If it means it is two, it means two. If there are four who qualify out of five, then let it be that, and not just stretch to nine to make up the number. Because in the last round, I think we have seen the quality dropping.

Mr Speaker: Can we have one last speaker, please?

Miss Penny Low (Pasir Ris-Punggol): Sir, I know it is getting late, so I will keep it very short.

As I hear the arguments and the debate itself, it appears to me that the issue of the NMP scheme sounds a bit like the issue of foreign talent. I think Mr Chiam said that NMPs drown the voice of the elected Members. So it is the same argument, that foreign talents dilute local talents. Some said that the NMPs have no constituency and, therefore, they cannot speak for the people. It is the same argument that the foreign talents do not know Singapore and, therefore, cannot work for Singapore. There is also someone who said that NMPs have never fought the GE itself and, therefore, they do not have the emotional rootedness, which is the same argument that foreign talents would just pack up and go.

But I disagree with these arguments because I support the foreign talent issue itself. The NMPs, by adding them on, will not drown out the voice of the elected Members unless, of course, the elected Members themselves choose not to speak. In terms of media space and so on, if they can stir up a very good argument that promotes debate itself, then perhaps the media can consider giving us more space, rather than limited to that number of pages.

In terms of constituency, I would say that although they do not represent a constituency, they do come from certain associations or representations. In that sense, they can be contributing to the debate itself with perhaps a little bit more depth on specific issues. As for the fact that they never fought GE and, therefore, they do not have the emotional rootedness, we also know of the same NMP who then went to fight the elections and garnered only 14 votes. I think he must have gone through -

An hon. Member: 14%.

Miss Penny Low: 14%, yes, I am sorry. I did not mean to insult him. 14% of the votes. He must have thought that, after going through the parliamentary process and so on, he has more to contribute. I do agree, however, that the process of selection itself has to be more diligent. We have to be careful about whom we want to speak for and which constituent is not represented. I think Mr Steve Chia actually mentioned that the youths and so on are not represented in the voting process because they are under 21 and perhaps they are the group of people whom we want to represent. Then, of course, there are other minority voices that we need to hear. So I would think that, yes, if we can broaden some of these selection criteria on the one hand and make sure that it is not just based on some people who have academic excellence but that they have really done something in some associations, even if they do not have that kind of academic excellence, we can bring them into this House, so that the various groups have a voice.

Last but not least, I would like to remind this House that, earlier on, Mr Chan Soo Sen spoke about "lu san dian", ie, the three points that he talked about, that we have to be "xin xiong kwang yi dian", "guang huai duo yi dian" and "dan zi da yi dian", which relate to taking risks.

In that light, I would say that, yes, one, let us be "dan zi da yi dian", ie, take some risks. In retrospect, the NMPs have indeed contributed to the debates in this House. Will they do more harm? I think we have to be "dan zi da yi dian" and take a little bit of risk there.

Two, "xin xiong kwang yi dian". I think if we do not view it as a zero-sum game but that the net result of this debate itself can add on to the validity of some of the Bills that are passed or even the debates in this House, then Parliament and Singaporeans at large will actually benefit.

Last but not least, "guang huai duo yi dian". If in a spirit of wanting to involve more people in the process itself we involve more people in the form of NMPs who will also be getting the voice from their own represented groups of people, then I think we will all strive towards a much better society and a much better Parliament.

Sir, I support the motion.

Mr Chiam See Tong: Sir, can I make three clarifications? Two are in regard to the last speaker, Miss Penny Low. What I said was that the NMPs dilute the Opposition in Parliament, and not dilute the elected Members.

The purpose of my bringing up the instance of an NMP standing for election where he obtained only 14% of the votes and of course lost the election was not to show his contribution, but the fact that he was rejected by the electorate. In other words, my point is that NMPs are rejected by the voters.

The other clarification is with regard to Assoc. Prof. Chin. I do not support the NMP scheme. I brought up the point that the next NMP, if he comes along, could move a motion to repeal the Maintenance of Parents Act because I think the Leader of the House asked me to repeal it and I said no. I said the next one who comes along. I assume that this motion will probably be passed.

Mr Low Thia Khiang: Sir, can I have a clarification on Mr Chiam's point? Sir, Mr Chiam said that NMPs dilute the Opposition. I am from the Opposition. I do not feel that way. Sir, I am prepared to face whatever challenge, whether NMP or whatever.

Mr Chiam See Tong: Sir, I did say that Parliament will be different from now on.

Mr Low Thia Khiang: Sir, that is one. Secondly, he mentioned about the NMP who participated in the election in Chua Chu Kang and was rejected. Sir, I have a different point of view. For the MPs who have been here for 10 years, we have seen many NMPs. At least there is one NMP who was prepared to say, "OK, I am prepared to stand for election since I am somehow interested in politics." Sir, the point is - I was in the Special Select Committee for NMPs - sometimes, when we go through the interviews, what crosses my mind is: why are these people prepared to be NMPs but are not prepared to participate in the political process?

Mr Speaker: Mr Low, do you know that you are making another speech?

Mr Low Thia Khiang: No, Sir, I have a clarification on the points made. What I am saying is that perhaps we should not look at the NMP who only had 14% of the votes as being rejected. The last thing we want is for the NMP scheme to become something that encourages NATO, ie, no action, talk only.

Dr Tan Cheng Bock: Mr Speaker, Sir, my name keeps cropping up every time when -

Mr Speaker: Dr Tan, are you making another speech or are you asking for a clarification?

Dr Tan Cheng Bock: Mr Speaker, Sir, I think there are certain points that have been raised, at least I must respond.

Mr Speaker: No, you cannot. Either you ask for a clarification or you do not.

Dr Tan Cheng Bock: Can I seek clarification?

Mr Speaker: If you seek clarification, yes.

Dr Tan Cheng Bock: Thank you. I do not know who spoke. There were so many. Mr Speaker, Sir, I think there is a difference between personality and policy. Some Members who addressed this issue to me, did mention some of the good -

Mr Speaker: Dr Tan, I am still waiting for your clarification.

Dr Tan Cheng Bock: Sir, my clarification is that these people must make a clear distinction between personality and policy when they bring this matter up. The other clarification is that I am not so obstinate as Kai Yuen said. I support the NCMP, so I am not so stubborn as the Member thinks I am. The other point is that there are many avenues -

Mr Speaker: Dr Tan, I must insist that you clarify or I will rule you out of order.

Dr Tan Cheng Bock: I do not know who spoke -

Mr Wong Kan Seng: Point of order, Sir. I do not think Dr Tan is quite clear about what he wants to ask. Maybe he should go back and think about the kinds of clarification he wants to seek, whom he wants to seek from and then ask that person. Otherwise, we can be here befuddled about what he is thinking about.

Mr Speaker: Yes. Mr Wong, do you want to wrap up?

Mr Wong Kan Seng: I am quite clear, Sir. This is the third time I am doing this, and I have heard many of the arguments before. I spent the whole of last night going through this fairly thick file which the Parliament Librarian was very kind to photocopy for me, and I am very familiar with the arguments. In fact, if Members were to go through the same Hansard, they would have noted that Dr Tan made these same arguments in the Hansard reports in 1989, 1992 and 1997. So I will not go through all these points again because Members can find my answers there too.

But there is one point which is not quite clear to many Members and that the Prime Minister himself has answered it quite eloquently way back in 1989 when he was explaining the meaning of Parliament and parliamentary democracy. And the Prime Minister took some time to research into the meaning of these terms and quoted one paragraph from this book by Mr Stanley de Smith on the Constitutional and Administrative Law, which said: "At common law, Parliament, as the legislative body, consists of the House of Commons, the House of Lords and the Queen", and that, of course, is in reference to the British Parliament, the mother of all parliaments.

In other parliaments, eg, in Malaysia, they too have a similar provision in Article 44 of the Constitution, where it says: "The legislative authority of the Federation shall be vested in Parliament, which shall consist of the Yang di-Pertuan Agong and two Majlis (Houses of Parliament) to be known as the Dewan Negara (Senate) and the Dewan Rakyat (House of Representatives)."

Of course, in our case, we have the Constitution that provides for the legislature that consists of the President and Parliament, and we have a unicameral Parliament. We do not have a two-tiered Chamber.

In the other parliaments, eg, the British Parliament, Malaysian Parliament or even, if I may call the Canadian Parliament the daughter of the mother of all parliaments, they too have an unelected Chamber called the Senate. 105 of the Senators are totally unelected. In fact, in the British House of Lords, 713 of the Lords were totally unelected and yet they have as much or, if not, a lot of authority, including coming up with new Bills and passing Bills in the House of Lords.

Sir, I will not belabour this point. I just clarify that, indeed, there are different ways that we can structure a parliament and, in our case, it is just a unicameral Parliament and we have devised a scheme to allow unelected Members to be brought into this Chamber. That is an interesting device because we have allowed others to come in and take part in our debate, which otherwise they would not have been because we do not have a second Chamber.

It is because of the way that we have been evolving our parliamentary system that we have NCMPs too. So I am quite puzzled as to why Mr Steve Chia would want to object, because, following the same purist principle, which he so strongly supported Dr Tan for, then he should not be here, because he is also unelected. He came in by the grace of the PAP Government that changed the Constitution that provided for the NCMP system that allowed him to be here.

And I also hope that Mr Steve Chia would not begin to speak like a PAP MP because, if he does, then people will really be confused. The Whip is not applied to him. He does not need to talk about the Whip at all. So whether we have a Whip or not is our internal Party business. So he does not need to remind our MPs that they are not subjected to the Whip. He himself is not subjected to any Whip at all at any time, unless Mr Chiam wants to impose it on him.

Mr Chiam's argument, about people rejecting the NMP, is really a great leap of imagination. I do not understand how an individual, having been here as an NMP, eventually went out and contested in an election and got rejected by the people, rejected him because they do not want him to be an elected MP, means that they do not like the NMP system, that is beyond me.

Mr Chiam See Tong: Can I clarify?

Mr Wong Kan Seng: Sure.

Mr Chiam See Tong: Sir, I would like to make two clarifications with the Leader of the House. The first is regarding the NCMP. The Leader says that an NCMP is not elected but the issue is not whether he is elected or not. The issue that I brought up is that democracy is representation. But, in his case, to some extent, he has representation, about 35% of the votes. Even the first NCMP, Mr J B Jeyaretnam, I think, had 44% of the votes in a GRC. The issue is representation, and not whether he is the first to pass the post and he has obtained 50%. That is my point.

The other point is regarding Chia Shi Teck. He lost when be obtained only 14% of the votes. My point is not that he dares or he wants to present himself in the electoral process. My point is that he was a high profile NMP, and the newspapers gave him a lot of coverage. So he went to stand for elections on the strength of his reputation as an NMP, and on that score, he lost. So my conclusion is that the people do not want an NMP.

Mr Steve Chia Kiah Hong: Mr Speaker, Sir, can I clarify?

Mr Speaker: Mr Wong, are you giving way?

Mr Wong Kan Seng: Yes.

Mr Steve Chia Kiah Hong: Sir, the Leader of the House said I am a purist. I am not a purist. I did not object to the scheme of NCMP but my argument is that: do we need to have NMPs in the House in this first session of Parliament? My argument is that we do not need to, because the Government could show their sincerity in their action by allowing their people to speak up even more.

Mr Wong Kan Seng: If I remember Mr Steve Chia correctly, when he was talking about this point, he said that we do not need the NMP scheme at this time and that after two years, if it shows that the elected MPs did not prove themselves, then let us bring back the NMPs. Maybe he should read the Constitution. The Constitution, in the Fourth Schedule, says that at the beginning of every term and within six months, which is now, Parliament must resolve to have NMPs. Once we go beyond six months, and we do not so resolve, we cannot have any more NMPs during this Tenth Parliament. He would have no chance to come back here and introduce a motion to get back NMPs unless he gets elected in the Eleventh Parliament.

Now on the issue of representation. In our system, representation means "first-past-the-post". It means that a candidate must get 50% plus one vote, then he gets into Parliament. He may get 49.99%, but he is still voted out. So he has no representation at all. Mr Steve Chia does not represent 34% of the people who voted for him. He just received 34% of the votes and, therefore, he has not the same right as Mr Chiam has to be here. And he came in here because we have a system to allow NCMPs to come in here.

Mr Low Thia Khiang raised a more serious point. Apart from the reasons he cited, he said that the original objectives why we should have NMPs were not really fulfilled. I do not think that is the case because, if that is the case, we would not be talking about NMPs here. If NMPs show up the inadequacy of the Opposition, then that has got nothing to do with us. It just means that the Opposition just does not have enough numbers. And if the NMPs outshine the Opposition, then the Opposition has got to work very hard the next time. They have got to find other ways of convincing people. Following the same argument that Mr Chiam is worried that NMPs dilute the Opposition, I think that is a real reason for him to fear why we should not have NMPs, which also means that he has got to work very hard the next time round to find people to join him and be convinced to their cause.

But Mr Low's serious point is that if we want to talk about getting more representation and more views, why not change our political system to proportional representation or have a mixed system. Do not forget that Singapore is a small country, a multi-racial and multi-religious country. The moment we have a proportional representation system, we are going to have different sectional, communal, religious interests represented in this system. Then we are going to have a very unstable system. In Western Europe, many of the Parliaments there do have a proportional representation system. As a result, you can see that, as far as policy-making is concerned, and as far as the government is concerned, it has not progressed that far. It becomes very difficult for decisions to be made, for laws to be passed and a lot of trade-offs and compromises would have to be made.

There is one country that attempted a mixed system, which is proportional representation plus the first-past-the-post system, and that is New Zealand. In the same way, they have almost ground to the ground - very difficult for policies to be passed and laws to be made. In a small Singapore, where we have so many constraints, we have so few alternatives and choices and only one or two ways of deciding on a policy, we do not have that luxury of choice. We should think very seriously before we change the system. But that does not mean to say that political systems should not change. We have. We have evolved over the years to allow for NCMPs, NMPs and GRCs where all races can be represented in this Parliament. Were there further changes? Of course, we changed the Presidential system. We have an Elected President to ensure that certain safeguards are in place to protect our reserves, veto key appointments and certain key decisions of the Executive, like the ISA detention. We would change, but we should not rush into just overhauling and changing the system completely that we become unbalanced to the detriment of Singapore.

I have just covered very briefly the few points made by Members. I have to come back here every term to ask for this motion to be passed and even then, in the Fourth Schedule, it says that NMPs can be appointed for two years, which means if Parliament lasts the full five years, then we have to start the process of selecting NMPs three times during the full five-year term. I am going to propose, at an appropriate time, a change to this 2-year term, to stretch it out to 21/2 years or 3 years so that, within one Parliamentary term of 5 years, we only need to do it twice. Otherwise, if you remember, like the last term, we had NMPs who only served about one month or so, yet we have to go through the whole process of public advertisement, inviting members of the public to send in nominations and interviewing them, and so on. This is an administrative change which I will have to put forward to Parliament at an appropriate time when we amend the Constitution.

Mr Low Thia Khiang: May I make a point of clarification, Mr Speaker?

Mr Speaker: Make it short.

Mr Low Thia Khiang: Sir, I expected the answer from the Minister on proportional representation. But I would like to ask him: do we not have confidence in the people because you are worried that the system will generate issues such as race and instability? Eventually, does the Minister agree that it is a process and it is a question of whether Singaporeans are mature enough?

Secondly, he talks about other countries having the system. I thought the PAP always says we are different. When are we different and when are we the same with other countries? Is it at your convenience, you cite examples and you decide?

Mr Wong Kan Seng: Sir, it is not a question of whether we have confidence in our people or not. I believe our people are sophisticated enough. But in every society, there will be extremist elements who will try and there will be groups of people who will believe in them and, therefore, we must not provide such opportunities for groups and for people like that to gather together and find a seat in this place. That is precisely the worry that Dr Tan Cheng Bock has, that when we select NMPs, we may invariably or unwittingly bring in an extremist. We hope that will not happen because every time we have a list of NMP candidates, we circulate the list to all MPs for their comments and views. If by any chance, Members know any of them who holds certain views that we should not entertain in this House, then they must register their points strongly with the Special Select Committee. That vote, in a sense, is with Members to tell us who the NMP candidates are and why they should not be here.

As far as standards are concerned, we will maintain the standards. We have to maintain standards. Of course, much depends on the kind of people we have coming forward. If we cannot find nine good men or women, then we shall not have nine of them. We shall have a fewer number, so be assured. Last time round, we only have eight. We will make sure that our standards are maintained. If, unfortunately, one of them did slip in, because either we do not know the person's background or he did not show it earlier, then in one term, we will find that out and he will not be around the next. That is very simple.

When do we learn from other people and when do we not learn from other people? We cannot have hard and fast rules about what to take and what not to take. We have got to see whether it is useful for us. If it suits our circumstances, our social context, then we should take these ideas. If they do not, then we should not graft them into our system. Otherwise, we will be the worse in for it.

Mr Speaker: The Question is, "That this Parliament, in accordance with section (1) of the Fourth Schedule to the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore, resolves that there shall be nominated Members during the term of this Parliament."

All those who are of the opinion say "Aye".

Some hon. Members: Aye.

Mr Speaker: To the contrary say "No."

Mr Chiam See Tong: Division, Sir.

Mr Speaker: Will hon. Members who support a division please rise in their places?

Mr Steve Chia Kiah Hong, Mr Chiam See Tong, Mr Leong Horn Kee, Mr Low Thia Khiang, Dr Tan Cheng Bock and Dr Lily Neo rose.

Mr Speaker: Yes, we will take a Division. Before I proceed to start the electronic voting, Members are reminded that they are to press "Present" on their electronic unit located at the left armrest before indicating their vote. Those who fail to press "Present" will not have their votes recorded. Voting will be open for 45 seconds from the time "Voting in Progress" is flashed on the display board. Members are reminded to check their names and vote indications posted on the display board after the close of the voting. If a Member is of the opinion that his vote has been taken in error or has been recorded wrongly, he may rise and request the Chair to have his vote taken correctly, provided that such request is made before the Chair declares the result of the Division. You may now proceed to vote.

Division taken: Ayes, 58; Noes, 5; Abstention, Nil.

Ayes

Abdullah Tarmugi

Ahmad Khalis Bin Adul Ghani

Ahmad Mohd Magad

Balaji Sadasivan

Chan Soo Sen

Chay Wai Chuen

Chen Seow Phun, John

Chew Heng Ching

Chin Tet Yung

Chong, Charles

Chong Weng Chiew

Davinder Singh

Fong, Arthur

Foo Chee Keng, Cedric

Gan, Andy

Gan Kim Yong

Halimah Yacob

Hawazi Daipi

Heng Chee How

Ho Geok Choo

Inderjit Singh

Indranee Rajah

Iswaran, S.

Khaw Boon Wan

Khor Lean Suan, Amy

Lee Boon Yang

Lee Hsien Loong

Lee, Warren

Lim Boon Heng

Lim T.E., David

Lim Hwee Hua

Lim Swee Say

Low, Penny

Mah Bow Tan

Ayes - (cont.)

Mohamad Maidin B P M

Mohamad Maliki Bin Osman

Neo, Lily

Ng Eng Hen

Ng Phek Hoong, Irene

Ong Ah Heng

Ong Kian Min

Othman Haron Eusofe

Phua, Cynthia

Seng Han Thong

Sin Boon Ann

Tan Boon Wan

Tan Keng Yam, Tony

Teo Chee Hean

Teo Ho Pin

Vivian Balakrishnan

Wang Kai Yuen

Wee Siew Kim

Wong Kan Seng

Yaacob Ibrahim

Yeo Guat Kwang

Yu-Foo Yee Shoon

Zainudin Nordin

Zainul Abidin Rasheed

Noes

Chia Kiah Hong, Steve

Chiam See Tong

Leong Horn Kee

Low Thia Khiang

Tan Cheng Bock

Abstention

Nil

Resolved,

That this Parliament, in accordance with section 1(1) of the Fourth Schedule to the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore, resolves that there shall be nominated Members during the term of this Parliament.