Hansard, 1983-12-20

PERMISSION TO MEMBERS TO BE ABSENT Under the provisions of clause 2(d) of Article 46 of the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore, the following Members have been granted permission to be or to remain absent from sittings of Parliament (or any Committee of Parliament to which they have been appointed) for the periods stated:- Mr Sia Khoon Seong (Moulmein) - from 17th to 25th September and from 2nd to 16th December, 1983. Dr Tony Tan Keng Yam (Sembawang), Minister for Finance and Minister for Trade and Industry - from 17th September to 3rd October and from 16th to 19th October, 1983. Maj. Fong Sip Chee (Kampong Chai Chee), Minister of State, Ministry of Culture - from 17th September to 12th October, 1983. Mr S. Rajaratnam (Kampong Glam), Second Deputy Prime Minister (Foreign Affairs) - from 22nd September to 23rd October, from 28th October to 27th November and from 28th November to 27th December 1983. Mr Howe Yoon Chong (Potong Pasir), Minister for Health - from 23rd September to 22nd October, 1983. Mr Eugene Yap Giau Cheng (Mountbatten), Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Labour - from 2nd to 15th October, 1983. Mr Tan Soo Khoon (Alexandra) - from 4th to 15th October, 1983. Mr Lee Khoon Choy (Braddell Heights), Senior Minister of State, Prime Minister's Office - from 5th to 8th October and from 12th to 22nd December, 1983. Dr Chau Sik Ting, P.B.M. (Thomson) - from 10th October to 8th November and from 7th to 30th December, 1983. Dr Tay Eng Soon, P.B.M. (River Valley), Minister of State, Ministry of Education - from 10th to 20th October, 1983. Encik Sidek bin Saniff (Kolam Ayer), Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Trade and Industry and Minister for Social Affairs - from 16th to 19th October, from 14th to 17th November, from 29th November to 3rd December and from 4th to 18th December, 1983. Mr Ng Kah Ting (Punggol) - from 17th October to 9th November and from 12th to 28th December, 1983. Dr Wong Kwei Cheong, P.B.M. (Cairnhill), Minister of State, Ministry of Trade and Industry - from 17th to 19th October, from 3rd to 9th November, from 15th to 17th November, from 29th November to 4th December and from 11th to 26th December, 1983. Mr Lim Boon Heng (Kebu n Baru) -from 18th to 30th October, 1983. Mr Tang See Chim (Chua Chu Kang) - from 19th October to 23rd November, 1983. Dr Lau Teik Soon (Serangoon Gardens) - from 24th to 28th October and from 21st to 30th November, 1983. Dr Augustine H.H. Tan (Whampoa) - from 25th October to 1st November and from 9th to 15th November, 1983. Mr E.W. Barker (Tanglin), Minister for Law and Leader of the House - from 27th to 31 st October, 1983. Mr S. Chandra Das (Chong Boon) - from 27th October to 12th November, from 13th to 16th December and from 22nd to 28th December, 1983. Mr S. Dhanabalan (Kallang), Minister for Foreign Affairs and Minister for Culture - from 6th to 7th November, from 22nd November to 1st December, and from 28th December, 1983 to 3rd January 1984, Mr Lau Ping Sum (Yio Chu Kang) -from 6th to 18th November and from 19th to 31st December, 1983. Mr Sia Kah Hui (Paya Lebar) - from 8th to 12th November, 1983. Dr Ang Kok Peng, B.B.M. (Buona Vista) - from 14th to 18th November, 1983. Mr Lim Chee Onn (Bukit Merah) - from 16th to 24th Novemberand from lstto 3rd December, 1983. Encik Abbas Abu Amin, P.P.A (Pasir Panjang) -from 16th to 22nd November and from 14th to 16th December, 1983. Encik Mansor Haji Sukaimi (Kampong Kembangan) - from 18th to 30th November and from 14th to 25th December, 1983. Mr Liew Kok Pun (Boon Teck) - from 20th to 26th November, 1983. Mr Lee Yock Suan (Cheng San), Minister of State, Ministry of Finance - from 20th to 25th November and from 5th to 11th December, 1983. Mr Teo Chong Tee (Changi), Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for the Environment and the Minister for Social Affairs - from 20th to 27th November and from 26th to 30th December, 1983. Prof. S. Jayakumar (Bedok), Acting Minister for Labour - from 21st November to 1st December, 1983. Dr Koh Lip Lin (Nee Soon) - from 23rd to 29th November and from 25th to 29th December, 1983. Mr Phua Bah Lee (Tampines), Senior Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Defence - from 24th to 30th November, 1983, Mr Teh Cheang Wan (Geylang West), Minister for National Development - from 28th November to 3rd December, 1983. Dr Wan Soon Bee (West Coast), Minister of State - from 29th November to 3rd December and from 15th to 22nd December, 1983. Mr P. Selvadurai (Kuo Chuan) - from 29th November to 30th December, 1983. Mr Goh Chok Tong (Marine Parade), Minister of Defence and Second Minister for Health - from 4th to 8th December, 1983. Mr Chua Sian Chin (MacPherson), Minister for Home Affairs - from 4th to 31 st December, 1983. Mr Lee Yiok Seng (Bukit Panjang), Senior Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for National Development and Government Whip - from 5th to 31st December, 1983. Mr Bernard Chen (Clementi) -from 5th to 9th December, 1983. Mr Yeo Toon Chia (Ang Mo Kio) - from 5th to 12th December, 1983. Mr Ong Teng Cheong (Kim Keat), Minister - from 7th to 27th December, 1983. Mr Lai Tha Chai (Henderson) - from 10th to 28th December, 1983. Dr Yeo Ning Hong (Kim Seng), Acting Minister for Communications - from 11th to 15th December, 1983. Mr Chai Chong Yii (Bukit Batok) - from 12th to 21st December, 1983. Dr Lee Chiaw Meng (Tanah Merah) - from 15th December, 1983 to 1st January, 1984. Dr Yeoh Ghim Seng, B.B.M., J.P. (JOO Chiat), Speaker - from 16th to 28th December, 1983. Mr Tan Cheng Bock (Ayer Rajah) - from 18th to 22nd December, 1983. Mr Chin Harn Tong (Aljunied), Senior Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Home Affairs - from 19th to 23rd December, 1983. Encik Wan Hussin Zoohri (Kampong Ubi), Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Health and Minister for Culture - from 19th to 24th December, 1983. Mr A. Rahim Ishak (Siglap) - from 1st January to 30th June, 1984. Mr Jek Yeun Thong (Queenstown) - from 1st January to 30th June, 1984. Mr J.F. Conceicao (Katong) - from 1st January to 30th June, 1984. Dr Chiang Hai Ding (Ulu Pandan) -from 1st January to 30th June, 1984. HWANG SOO JIN, Deputy Speaker, Parliament of Singapore

ASSENT TO BILLS PASSED The following Bills were assented to by the President of the Republic of Singapore on the date stated: 6th October, 1983 (i) The Public Utilities (Amendment) Bill; (ii) The National Statistical Commission of Singapore (Repeal) Bill; and (iii) The Mass Rapid Transit Corporation Bill. HWANG SOO JIN, Deputy Speaker, Parliament of Singapore The House being met, the Clerk at the Table informed the House of the absence of Mr Speaker from this day's sitting. Whereupon Mr Deputy Speaker proceeded to the Table and took the Chair, pursuant to the Standing Order.

DEATH OF MR HON SUI SEN - (Announcement by Mr Deputy Speaker) Order. I would like to take the opportunity, which is the first that has presented itself, of referring to the death of Mr Hon Sui Sen, the former Minister for Finance and Member for Havelock, which occurred on the 14th of October, 1983. It was with profound shock and deep sorrow that I, and I am sure, Honourable Members heard the news of Mr Hon's death. I desire, on behalf of the House, to record with regret an expression of our sense of the loss we have sustained and our deep sympathy for the family of the late Member.

TRIBUTE TO THE LATE MR HON SUI SEN Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, it is with a heavy heart that I pay this tribute in memory of Hon Sui Sen. From August 1970 to October 1983, he was the Finance Minister. He steered our economy through two oil crises. But for a mild hiccough of the low 4% growth in 1974, he secured an average of 8 1/2% real growth for this period. In his unassuming way, he never claimed any credit for it. In truth he had worked for the 11 years previous to 1971 to help lay the foundations of this success. As Permanent Secretary (Economic Development) in the Finance Ministry from 1959, Chairman EDB 1961 - 68, Chairman and President DBS 1968 - 1970, he helped Goh Keng Swee to work out the strategy for our economic transformation. At a micro-level, he was Chairman of nine companies the Government held equity in:- National Iron & Steel Mills Ltd Jurong Shipyard Ltd Sembawang Shipyard (Pte) Ltd Keppel Shipyard (Pte) Ltd Neptune Orient Lines Ltd Jurong Shipbuilders Ltd Singapore Electronic & Engineering Ltd The Insurance Corporation of Singapore Ltd Singapore Petroleum Company He was also a Director of INTRACO. In 1970 I was confronted with the awesome prospect of moving Goh Keng Swee from the Ministry of Finance to Defence. The Ministry of Defence needed him to move from the first stage of basic military training to the second stage of weapons systems and brigade structures. I was in a quandary. An inadequate Finance Minister would be a disaster. There would be no money to pay for any defence build-up. Goh Keng Swee proposed Hon Sui Sen. He had retired from the permanent secretaryship in 1966 and was enjoying his work in DBS. I drew upon my friendship with him. It dated back to 1942 in Japanese-occupied Singapore. For about a year he had stayed with me in Norfolk Road sharing a room, Then inflation made his fixed salary as a civil servant meaningless. He went back to join his wife in Penang. I visited him in Penang in 1944 and stayed for several days with him in his family home at Logan Road. In 1945, after the British returned, he came back to Singapore with his wife and young daughter. He stayed with me in Oxley Road for several months before he moved into Government quarters. In the early 1950's, after I returned from England, we started to learn Mandarin together at his quarters in Cantonment Road, sharing a teacher. We have been good friends for so many years. He could not refuse me; he could not say no to public duty. But he was a reluctant politician - a technocrat before the word was defined to mean a well-qualified Minister who did not come up through the political rough and tumble. I remember his look of incredulity, his astonishment, in the counting room at the Singapore Polytechnic in Prince Edward Road in the 1972 General Elections. His unknown opponent had secured 26.8% of the votes. I comforted him. It was no insult to him. It was in the nature of the system and of the pressures of life in a society where those who did not get what they wanted vented their frustrations through the anti-vote. In 1976 he wanted to stand down. In 1980 he again wanted to retire. On each occasion I persuaded him to soldier on and to prepare his successor. In 1979 he allowed Goh Chok Tong to prepare and to present the Budget. It was no easy task. He was in charge. He was responsible and knew that I expected him to ensure that no major error was committed. He made minimal changes to the draft Budget speech and sent it on to me. In fact, I made more textual changes than he did, though we left the tax measures unchanged. The next two times, in 1980 and again in 1981, with Goh Chok Tong, there were little textual changes. In 1982 and 1983 he allowed Tony Tan a free hand with no amendments. I also left the text unchanged. Hon Sui Sen was a big man. It will not be easy to find another Finance Minister to repeat this delicate exercise in on-the-job training with the Budget. It was only possible because it was Hon Sui Sen, and because he and I understood each other well. In early 1975 he had urged me to talent scout for his successor. Over lunch he recounted a conversation he had with the then Chairman of Shell (Singapore) J.J. Gerzon. At his level and age, Gerzon said that his most important task was to identify, test, and train his successor. I pressed Hon Sui Sen to do likewise. He did. He helped me talent scout both Goh Chok Tong and Tony Tan among others. In his 13 1/4 years the per capita GDP of Singapore more than doubled from $2462 in 1970 to $5752 in 1982 at 1968 dollars; Singapore's official reserves went up by over six times from $3.1 billion in 1970 to $18.9 billion in 1983. Personal income tax rates have been reduced and reliefs for CPF greatly increased. My relationship with him was close and easy. We both shared a common basic philosophy, that hard work deserves to be rewarded, that the free market should determine the value of products and services, that savings should be encouraged over consumption, and that savings should go into investments which yield the most secure long-term dividends. That is not to say that he was averse to well-calculated risks in new industrial or commercial ventures. The wide-ranging portfolio in Temasek Holdings, testify to his eclectic and catholic approach. From a capital worth of $197 million in 1970, Government equity in wholly-owned and joint-venture companies are $2.03 billion in 1983. He brought a powerful intellect to bear on our economic and financial problems. His academic training was in the hard sciences. Born in Balik Pulau, Penang, he was educated at St Xavier's Institution. He was the top student for the Senior Cambridge Certificate Examination in all Malaya in 1932. He went to Raffles College in 1935. In 1938 he got a Class 1 Diploma in Science, doing Chemistry, Mathematics and majoring in Physics. He was appointed to the Straits Settlement Civil Service for which there were only two recruits each year. His first duty was as a Police Court Magistrate. Then he became a Deputy Collector of Land Revenue, before the Japanese occupied Malaya and Singapore. He was to specialize in Land Office work until he rose to become Commissioner of Lands in 1957. He had no academic grounding in Economics. His theoretical training in Economics was late in life when he was sent on attachment to the World Bank in 1960 for several months. What he had was high helicopter quality as the Shell appraisal system would term it: a strong power of analysis, and the imagination and sense of reality to match. For his excellent work in the Ministry of Finance and the EDB he was awarded the Meritorious Service Medal in 1962. For his outstanding contributions in starting up so many economic ventures he was awarded the Distinguished Service Order in 1967. His Land Office experience was of inestimable value to me when the British were about to withdraw from their bases in 1968. He knew the value and the uses that land could be put to. He was familiar with the different titles under which the British War Office occupied various parcels of land in Singapore - some to which they had proper title, having paid for it in private purchases, and others, the majority, which had been made available for defence use by the Government of the Colony of the Straits Settlements, and later the Colony of Singapore. He urged me to obtain the transfer and surrender of all lands, whatever the title, together with all buildings and fixtures. The British were in an apologetic frame of mind and generous in wanting to help Singapore survive the shock of withdrawal. They handed over all the real estate they held with all buildings and fixtures. This was the essential capital for a rapid development of dockyards, factories and new housing estates. We turned adversity to advantage. Hon Sui Sen set up the Bases Economic Conversion Department and, as its first Commissioner, started converting and commercialising the Sembawang Naval Base, Seletar Airfield, REME workshops in Ayer Rajah Road, and barracks in Blakang Mati, now Sentosa. Much of this success was under his direction. That Singapore made 13% growth at real prices from 1966 to 1973 is no mean achievement. That for the 10 years, from 1973 to 1983, in spite of two oil crises, Singapore could make an average of 8% growth, is a near miracle. The average growth rate of the developing countries for this period was 4.2% according to the World Bank. He was a prime mover in most of the big decisions that generated this growth. He was a deeply religious man. Honourable Members will remember him as an unassuming, modest man who never bore malice to anyone. He was an even-tempered man. Members will remember that he never lost his cool in this House. His good friend from Raffles College days is Tan Teck Chwee, now Chairman of the PSC. He summed up nearly 50 years of friendship thus: 'He was a very devout Roman Catholic who lived his life on the high moral principles of his Church. 'Though he was studying science, he read widely the liberal arts. 'He was thoughtful in his actions but a man of few words. 'I feel that he was a stoic as in the nearly half a century I knew him, he had never expressed any frustration or disappointment with anything in life. He would apply himself unassumingly and assiduously to any work he was assigned. 'He was absolutely devoid of jealousy of others - be it power or wealth. 'His tolerance of the foibles and weaknesses of his fellow men and his loyalty to all those who worked with him or under him almost verge on a fault.' I agree with this assessment, including the last point, that he sometimes allowed loyalty to subordinates to go to great lengths. Sim Kee Boon, Head of the Civil Service, described his characteristics as: 'His loyalty to his staff was almost legendary - both as Chairman of the EDB and later as Minister in charge of personnel. 'Despite tough pronouncements and fierce defence of tax or unpopular measures in Parliament, Hon Sui Sen always had a caring, soft other side to his personality. This is revealed in the Treasury files whenever matters affecting people's welfare are concerned. 'In the eyes of the Civil Servants he was an officer and a gentleman.' Goh Chok Tong was in NOL from 1969 to 1977. From 1974 to 1979 he was Managing Director responsible to Hon Sui Sen as Minister for Finance. Slowly NOL turned from red to black balance sheets. Goh Chok Tong remembered him thus: 'NOL had not done well. It was losing money every year in its first five years, But never once did I hear a complaining word nor see a displeased face when I met him occasionally as part of NOL management team. Instead, he was ever ready to pump in more money into the company. He took a long view. He showed faith in people. 'This point was reaffirmed later when I had more occasions to attend his meetings with Government-owned companies. Once he had picked a management team he would back it. He never discouraged. He always encouraged. He never blamed others for losses. He tried to offer suggestions to solve them. He thought big, never small. 'I have never seen Mr Hon angry or heard him raise his voice. Annoyed yes. The mere trace of annoyance in his voice or in his minute was enough to buck up his officials. The words were not harsh, but to know you have let him down or caused him annoyance was enough to make you feel bad with yourself.' Mr Deputy Speaker, this would be an insincere tribute if I did not add that there were occasions when I took a less kindly view of the mediocre and the pedestrian who worked faithfully for him occupying key appointments. On such occasions, I moved by transferring the responsibility for the portfolio to a less forbearing taskmaster. Such operations were never pleasant. Whilst he accepted my view that the able and talented must be emplaced in top positions in all key departments and agencies, he was prepared to settle for less than the best when they tried hard and he thought them adequate. His approach was more kindly and gradual. But even though the reshuffle pained him, he acknowledged my right to act differently. I have lost a close personal friend of more than 40 years, and an exceptionally able Minister for Finance. I still find it difficult to talk of him in the past tense. When I saw him on Tuesday afternoon on the 11th of October, I thought he had several more years. So did he. We bantered. I said that the average life span of the Singaporean male was 69. He was only 67. He countered my argument by quoting his genetic inheritance. His father had died at 53. His mother at 63. Heart failure, he said, was a good way of going compared to many other illnesses. He added that he had no intention of going just yet. Then we turned to more cheerful subjects. On Friday, the 14th of October, at 4.10 pm, whilst talking to E.W. Barker, I was sent a note that he had chest pains and was back in intensive care. At 4.45 pm, I walked in to see him at the Coronary Care Unit in Singapore General Hospital as a Catholic priest walked out. Yet he was as calm and composed as he was on Tuesday. He was at peace with himself. He was prepared to face his Maker. After 10 minutes of conversation I left to see someone else at the hospital. I went back to see him again about an hour later, at 10 to 6.00 pm. A team of doctors was trying to bring up and control his blood pressure. His eyes lit up in recognition as he saw me. The doctors then engaged his attention. I left as he was answering checks by the doctors. At my office at 7.00 pm I was told he had died at 6.30 pm, some 40 minutes after I left. What did those who knew him well think of him? Two of his friends, one a Dutchman, Dr Albert Winsemius, and another a Japanese, Mr Norishige Hasegawa of Sumitomo, travelled all the way from Amsterdam and Tokyo within hours of hearing of his death to pay their respects to him and to console his family. They had only 2 days between the death and the funeral. The normal duty of friendship and the demands of protocol did not require them to come such long distances. I met them at and after the funeral. They came because they had deep regard and affection for a warmhearted, good and sincere friend. The House will want me to send his wife and family its sympathies at their great loss. His was a happy marriage to Annie Voon. They were devoted to each other. They had four daughters, Joan, Elizabeth, Vivien and Brenda, all graduates, all married. There are 11 grandchildren. He has a close three-tier family, with one daughter and her family living with him. His home in Malcolm Road was, he jocularly told me, a creche-cum-child care centre. Over one lunch last October, he explained how easy it was to learn to change children's nappies. He helped look after his grandchildren. I had recounted my clumsy inexperience with my own grandchildren. He was a good man whose whole life has been one of service for the welfare and wellbeing of his family and of his country, and least of all himself. His sudden death was a grievous loss for Singapore.

TRIBUTE TO THE LATE MR HON SUI SEN As a mark of respect to the Late Member, I propose that the House observe a two-minute silence. The House rose and paid respect.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS 3.02 pm

HAVELOCK CONSTITUENCY - (Right to elect Member of Parliament) asked the Prime Minister what are the compelling reasons for denying the electors in the constituency of Havelock their right to elect their own representative to Parliament following the vacancy created by the death of their former representative.

HAVELOCK CONSTITUENCY - (Right to elect Member of Parliament) Sir, the General Elections must be held in another two years. They are likely to be held earlier. Before then, Havelock, an inner urban constituency, because of declining population, is likely to be merged with other constituencies. It makes little sense to hold a bye-election.

HAVELOCK CONSTITUENCY - (Right to elect Member of Parliament) Supplementary question, Sir. Would the Prime Minister say what was the reason for the amendment to the Constitution way back in 1965, taking away the requirement for the vacancy to be filled within three months?

HAVELOCK CONSTITUENCY - (Right to elect Member of Parliament) Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, 1965 did not see such an amendment. He goes by what he reads. The Member for Anson, as a member of the learned profession, should not go by what he reads in the press. The legislation on elections was governed by laws which were promulgated in 1959, and I remember distinctly that when the then Member for Sembawang died in August of 1962, we did not have to hold an election because there was an evenly divided House of 25 Members on each side until we held the General Elections in September 1963. When we became part of Malaysia, Malaysian laws then applied to Singapore. When we were separated from Malaysia, we re-adopted the 1959 practice which does not require us to hold an election or bye-election within three months. There are variations in as many countries as there are running the first-past-the-post system.

HAVELOCK CONSTITUENCY - (Right to elect Member of Parliament) Would the Prime Minister explain why it was necessary to go back - if that was the practice before the Malaysian Constitution came into effect -because the Malaysian Constitution contained a requirement that the vacancy be filled within three months? Secondly, how long does he expect to leave the seat vacant? The Prime Minister has spoken about dwindling constituents and the need to redraw the boundaries of constituencies. How long does he expect to leave the seat vacant? Thirdly, does he not agree, Prime Minister, that appointing a caretaker Member of Parliament is to stand the principle of parliamentary representation on its head?

HAVELOCK CONSTITUENCY - (Right to elect Member of Parliament) Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I find it tedious and tiresome to have to explain the simple elementary rules of parliamentary practice. There is no requirement. There never was a requirement to hold a bye-election, and we decided to go back to the practice of 1959 because of my experience. As I have explained, the House was evenly divided, 25 on each side, and we governed with firmness and fairness from August 1962 to September 1963, for 15 months, and we won the General Elections. I can assure the Member for Anson that we will govern with firmness and fairness between now and a date before the end of 1985. 1 have already given him the answer when the General Elections will be held, how long it will be, and if there is any further information which will be helpful to him, I will contrive to ensure that he is duly informed and given as much notice as all other Opposition parties.

HAVELOCK CONSTITUENCY - (Right to elect Member of Parliament) I am afraid the Prime Minister has not answered my question. Does he not agree that appointing a caretaker MP when the citizen electors have a right to elect their own representative is to stand this principle of parliamentary representation on its head? And one final question before I sit down. Did he appoint this caretaker MP as Secretary-General of his party or did he appoint him in his office as Prime Minister of the Government and, if so, under what powers?

HAVELOCK CONSTITUENCY - (Right to elect Member of Parliament) I am standing no principle on any head. The laws are as set out in the Constitution. There is no reason why the people of Havelock should have a bye-election. There is no reason why anybody should be looking after Havelock under the Constitution. There is no reason at all. For purely grassroots purposes and to ensure that the vote will be forthcoming in the General Elections, I have thought fit, both in my capacity as Secretary-General of the PAP and in my capacity as Prime Minister, to ask Mr Lee Yiok Seng, the Member for Bukit Panjang, to nurse the constituency. And it is completely open to the Member for Anson to set up his branch there and to meet us there in the General Elections. I expect him to do so; or he is wasting the time of this House and the time of the public.

HAVELOCK CONSTITUENCY - (Right to elect Member of Parliament) Question No. 2, Mr Jeyaretnam.

HAVELOCK CONSTITUENCY - (Right to elect Member of Parliament) Just another supplementary question.

HAVELOCK CONSTITUENCY - (Right to elect Member of Parliament) I thought you said that was your last question.

HAVELOCK CONSTITUENCY - (Right to elect Member of Parliament) Well, arising out of the Prime Minister's last answer -

HAVELOCK CONSTITUENCY - (Right to elect Member of Parliament) Well, you are getting to be a bit irrelevant to your original question, I am afraid. There are altogether 23 Questions today.

HAVELOCK CONSTITUENCY - (Right to elect Member of Parliament) With respect, Sir, may I ask this question?

HAVELOCK CONSTITUENCY - (Right to elect Member of Parliament) Be it the last one then.

HAVELOCK CONSTITUENCY - (Right to elect Member of Parliament) Is the Prime Minister frightened of the result of any bye-election? He has asked us to meet him. Well, why does he not name the date?

HAVELOCK CONSTITUENCY - (Right to elect Member of Parliament) Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, there is a certain amount of make-belief which is necessary parliamentary interchange. But the plain fact is: if he expects us to take him seriously, he must comport and conduct himself on realistic assumptions. This is a Government with a secure base. It will have not the slightest compunction, when the moment is ripe, to declare all seats vacant and to meet all-comers.

ELECTORAL CONSTITUENCIES - (Number) asked the Prime Minister whether there are any plans to increase the number of electoral constituencies for elections to Parliament and if there are such plans whether a committee has been set up or will be set up to re-draw the boundaries of constituencies and whether political parties will be consulted or invited to serve on the committee.

ELECTORAL CONSTITUENCIES - (Number) As there have been population shifts away from the old centres of population into the new towns, my Office will appoint an Electoral Boundaries Delineation Committee consisting of civil servants. Their report will be presented to this House. On previous occasions in 1967, 1971, 1976 and 1980, no political party served on the Committee. Until there is a credible Opposition party, this will continue to be the practice.

ELECTORAL CONSTITUENCIES - (Number) Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, does the Prime Minister not accept that what he may have done from 1962 to 1983 should not form the basis for any future conduct of elections? Now, since 1981, will the Prime Minister accept that there is a Member from an Opposition party in Parliament? And is it not time that political parties were consulted on the question of elections instead of keeping it as a preserve to himself, the Prime Minister.

ELECTORAL CONSTITUENCIES - (Number) Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, make-belief is to a certain extent necessary. We treat the Member for Anson with the necessary courtesy -

ELECTORAL CONSTITUENCIES - (Number) Do you?

ELECTORAL CONSTITUENCIES - (Number) - and extend him the sense of importance which he, as the lone Opposition Member, feels he deserves. But if he wants us to take him seriously as a person who represents the Opposition, the alternative government, then he must comport himself as such. There must be element of credibility. I find it impossible to believe that any Committee can benefit in any way from having his counsel in its private deliberations. I think there is much more value in having the deliberations out in the open than in the same futile, utterly irrelevant series of questions which leads nowhere. And inevitably he knows because he has no destination, no particular objective when he sets out this question. So I will find it much more useful, and so will the other members of this Committee who have had long years of delineating constituencies (the Member for Anson has no idea how delineations take place) and I will find it much more useful to have his contributions in this Chamber, not in the committee room.