Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for giving me this opportunity to participate in this debate. Sir, the Member for Anson, since his entry into this Chamber, has frequently talked about the lack of parliamentary democracy, the suppression of individual freedom, fundamental rights, freedom of organization, freedom of free expression and so on. I think most Singaporeans will not agree with his view that in Singapore there exists a form of totalitarian state where there is suppression of individual freedom, where there is no opportunity for people to express themselves. Over the years, since 1959 when the People's Action Party came to power, there have been considerable opportunities for the people at large to develop their participation in the political process. There have been elections since 1959, not just general elections but also by-elections. Anyone who has the qualifications can participate. Anyone can put out statements to the press. So there is no obstruction on the part of the Government to prevent the development of the political process in this country. Of course, the Opposition Member may be referring to the constraints which are imposed on the practice of what may be called liberal democracy in this country. I would accept that. There have to be certain constraints in the practice of parliamentary democracy. Before coming to that, Sir, may I just mention this very briefly. When one talks about parliamentary democracy, which model of parliamentary democracy are we talking about? I think that the Opposition Members have constantly in their minds the model of the United States or the United Kingdom or the Western democracies where you have considerable liberal democratic practices with very limited constraints. I do not say that there is complete freedom of the individual to do whatever he likes, to express his views and so on. There are constraints within those democracies as well. But the consequences of liberal democracies like those in the United States and the UK are evident for all to see. There are the positive aspects of their parliamentary system, but there are also the consequences which are evident. One can see the social dissent within those countries, the rampant strikes, the unemployment, the relatively low standard of living on the part of certain sectors in society. There are slums within those countries. Today, one can see, for example, the large unemployment in the United Kingdom and in the Western European countries. On social matters, in those countries, there is such liberalization that the people are beginning to react against those freedoms. For example, the question of freedom of the press or the dissemination of pornographic materials. The people are beginning to react against such rampant individualism which exists in those countries. That is not the type of democracy that we would want in Singapore. On the other hand, there are also those countries which call themselves democracies but are in fact authoritarian states, one-party states. Many of us, Sir, including you, have been involved in meetings of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association, the Inter-Parliamentary Union, and all those countries say they are parliamentary democracies. Look at those countries where they have one-party system. Are they democracies? But they call themselves parliamentary democracies. Again, that is not the sort of model that we want to look at. So, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, when we talk about parliamentary democracy in any country and, particularly, in our case, we have to look at the system which is most suitable to our social, our economic and our political conditions. There are certain factors inherent in our society which, if allowed free expression, could lead to political instability. Let me just mention some of these constraints. We are a multi-racial society. If we allow for freedom of expression without constraints as far as racial issues are concerned, then there could be considerable racial conflicts existing in the society. We have experiences of racial riots. Therefore, there has to be this constraint. No political Party, no politician can be allowed to champion racial or ethnic causes to the detriment of others existing in our society. Then there is the question of ideology. Those in the West would say we are not a democratic country because we do not allow the Marxist-Leninist Party to exist. So we are not a democracy. Clearly, if we allow such an ideology to exist in this country, then you create deep divisions because the brand of Marxism-Leninism in this part of the world is very akin to a major Asian power and that has racial overtones. So we cannot allow for that. Does it mean that we are not, therefore, a parliamentary democracy? Then there is the question of the trade unions and whether they have the automatic right to strike. These issues have been taken up in the Western press, and the Opposition Members, I am sure, are keen readers of the Western press. They are aware of the issues which are brought forward by the Western journalists. Industrial stability is crucial to our political development, to our nation-building, to our economic growth. We cannot allow for any employee who feels like it to down his tools and then to have the executives in the union to go on strike automatically, as can happen in the Western democracies. Here, we have a very regulated, due process of settling industrial disputes. So we have the Industrial Relations Act and the Employment Act. Does it mean then that we are not a democracy? This has to be so, the need to have industrial stability, because it is vital, imperative for political stability, for economic growth. And this leads to the other factor that we must always bear in mind, that Singapore has very limited resources, ie, land and manpower. And we have to be overly dependent on foreign countries for trade, for investments, and so on. We have to be concerned with the political systems in our neighbouring countries. So when we talk about parliamentary democracy and its practice, we must be aware that there have to be constraints because of the limitations of the kind of society we are. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the Member for Anson in his motion talked about the growth of parliamentary Opposition. Any political Party that aspires to grow must have, among other things, effective leadership. Does his Party have effective leadership? The Party must have a good organization. Has his Party a good organization? The Party must be able to appeal to voters. Has his Party the appeal? And last but not least, it must have a good programme. Here, in this Chamber, Sir, Ministers of the Government have constantly asked the Opposition Member: What is your programme? What are your proposals? What suggestions can you give to enhance our economic growth, full employment, eradication of poverty? There was no response whatsoever. No programme. No effective organization. No effective leadership. So, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, may I suggest to the Member for Anson that if he aspires to develop the Opposition, he must fulfil these pre-requisites. And one of the first things that he has to do would be, of course, to have a thorough house cleaning of his Party and to inject new blood so that it may have some prospect of continued existence. 11.35 am