Hansard, 1988-01-12

Under the provisions of clause 2(d) of Article 46 of the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore, the following Member has been granted permission to be or to remain absent from sittings of Parliament (or any Committee of Parliament to which he has been appointed) for the period stated:- Maj Fong Sip Chee (Kampong Chai Chee) - from 12th to 28th January, 1988. YEOH GHIM SENG Speaker Parliament of Singapore

asked the Minister for National Development whether the Housing and Development Board will consider providing toilet facilities and more tables and chairs in the void decks of HDB estates for the use of senior citizens.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I am answering on behalf of my Minister. In new HDB estates, a kiosk with an attached toilet is provided to serve each precinct consisting of four to six blocks of flats. The toilet is manned and maintained by the kiosk operator who sells sundry items. It is a condition of the tenancy of such kiosks for the kiosk operator to open the toilet to the public for a fee. Residents can use such toilets. The HDB will not provide any other public toilets on the void deck because of maintenance problems. The HDB provides a Residents' Corner on the void deck of new apartment blocks. In each Residents' Corner, there is a partially enclosed space with a set of table and stools. Additional tables and stools can be provided if needed. In existing estates where there are no kiosks or Residents' Corners, the HDB can provide these facilities under the Repairs and Redecoration Programme.

Sir, will the Minister of State consider asking the HDB to build kiosks in the existing estates so that such facilities can be provided?

Mr Speaker, Sir, as I have said in my main answer, HDB will consider such proposals.

asked the Minister for National Development what acreage of State land has been tendered out for non-pollutive farming activities as at the latest convenient date and where, and how many more parcels and acreage of land will be tendered out.

Mr Speaker, Sir, with the development of Agrotechnology Parks at Loyang, Tampines, Jalan Kayu, Nee Soon, Mandai, Sungei Tengah, Hong Kah, Murai, Ama Keng and Lim Chu Kang, about 1,500 hectares of land will be made available for non-pollutive farming. The land will be allocated in phases as and when the infrastructural works are completed. As at 31st December 1987, 40 plots of land at Sungei Tengah, Murai and Loyang totalling 137 hectares have been allocated by tenders for intensive high-tech farming. In addition, with the phasing out of pig farming in Jalan Kayu and Punggol, about 180 hectares of land will be available for short-term non-pollutive farming on three-year tenancy agreements. In these two areas, 49 plots totalling 60 hectares have been tendered out.

Sir, could the Minister of State enlighten the House how successful has been the tendering of these plots of land for non-pollutive farming activities?

Mr Speaker, Sir, in the tendering exercises, the response has been very good. Of the 40 plots that have been tendered out, 38 plots of land have been allocated to local farmers who have been successful in their bid and who have made plans to start up their farms. The other two plots have been tendered out to local companies who are interested in diversifying into agri-business.

Sir, in this case, could the Minister of State indicate what main farming activity is being carried out?

Mr Speaker, Sir, a variety of farming activities is allowed on these plots of land. They range from cultivation of vegetables and food crops to orchids and ornamental plants. There is even a tender for one plot of land to be used for aquarium fish, bird and dog breeding. Other uses include 10 plots of land that have been tendered out for turf production on a three-year tenancy agreement.

The following question stood in the name of Mr Chiam See Tong- 3. To ask the Minister for Communications and Information whether he is aware that the television and radio have blacked out all news concerning the Workers' Party and, if so, what are the reasons for doing so.

I notice Mr Chiam is not here again.

Question No. 3, Sir.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I see the Member for Potong Pasir has got into the habit of having his questions asked by a PAP MP. Sir, I am not aware of any news blackout because there was none. Whether the news about the Workers' Party's quarrels, dissensions and resignations are included in the very limited air time available for TV and radio news are matters for the editors to decide. Sir, the editors base their decisions on the judgment of what is newsworthy and of interest to their viewers and listeners. TV News enjoys one of the highest viewership of all programmes on SBC. This indicates the widespread support for the editor's balance of international, regional and local news items.

asked the Minister for Communications and Information whether the Mass Rapid Transit Corporation has taken a decision to extend the MRT line to Hougang New Town.

Sir, my Ministry is currently studying possible extensions of the MRT system. This study is carried out with the assistance of the Ministry of National Development and, in particular, takes into account the long-term plans of the HDB. No decision has been taken to extend the MRT line to Hougang New Town yet.

Mr Speaker, Sir, can I ask the Hon. Minister concerned whether he will ask MRTC to consider such a suggestion?

Sir, the Hougang New Town is one of the areas where plans for extension of the MRT is actively under consideration.

asked the Minister for National Development whether the pedestrian overhead bridge under construction at Ang Mo Kio Avenue 6 near the Yio Chu Kang Mass Rapid Transit station will be provided with shelter; and what will be the cost of providing such a shelter.

Mr Speaker, Sir, it is the Public Works Department's practice not to provide a covered overhead pedestrian bridge if it is not connected directly to buildings at both ends. The overhead pedestrian bridge under construction at Ang Mo Kio Avenue 6 near the Yio Chu Kang Mass Rapid Transit station is not connected to any building and will not therefore be provided cover. It would only make sense to provide a sheltered overhead pedestrian bridge if the bridge under construction is extended 70 metres to the Mass Rapid Transit station at one end and 20 metres to the nearest HDB flat (Block 636) at the other. Such a covered overhead pedestrian bridge will cost $422,000 as against the bridge under construction which will cost $238,000.

Sir, would the Minister of State consider in the longer-term, in order to upgrade the quality of life and to provide greater convenience to residents, to review this policy of providing shelter to all overhead pedestrian bridges?

Mr Speaker, Sir, PWD constantly re-assesses its designs for overhead pedestrian bridges. If there is a need and if it is cost-beneficial to improve the design and provide cover, then it would be considered.

asked the Acting Minister for Health whether his Ministry will consider building a community hospital in Serangoon New Town.

Sir, there are no plans at present to build a community hospital in Serangoon New Town. As I had stated in this House on 25th March 1986, my Ministry plans to build two community hospitals during the next 6 to 7 years. The first community hospital will be built in Ang Mo Kio New Town. As the concept of a community hospital is a new one, my Ministry would like to review the position after the initial years of operation before building the second in the early 1990s. The exact location has not been decided yet.

Order read for Resumption of Debate on Question [11th January, 1988], "That the Bill be now read a Second time." Question again proposed. 11.10 am

Mr Speaker, Sir, before I proceed any further, I want to state categorically that I fully and wholeheartedly support the institutionalization of multi-racial representation in our Parliament, and this is also the stand of my other Malay colleagues in this House. I may have reservations about the way we go about achieving this very noble objective. Sir, in moving the Parliamentary Elections (Amendment) Bill at yesterday's sitting of this House, the First Deputy Prime Minister read part of the letter I wrote him on 30th September 1982 where I had raised strong objections to the "Twin Constituencies" concept under which a Malay candidate from one constituency and a non-Malay candidate from another, probably a Chinese, would have to stand in a General Elections as a pair. The First Deputy Prime Minister has also disclosed the reasons for my objections and I do not therefore intend to repeat them today. Mr Speaker, Sir, I still have reservations abot the GRC proposal. Members of the GRC teams do not even have constituencies of their own to look after. They all belong to what I term "super constituencies", each of which is about three times the size of a single-member constituency. Mr Speaker, Sir, but what moved me to support the GRC proposal was the voting trend in the 1984 General Elections and, frankly, Sir, by what took place in Chong Boon as described by the First Deputy Prime Minister yesterday. As I have stressed earlier, I still have reservations about the GRC proposal. But do I have a better alternative that will overcome the trend where voters pick candidates according to their personal attributes and ignore the basic need for a racially-balanced slate of candidates in Parliament? The answer, Mr Speaker, Sir, is no. I do not have a better alternative. It took Cabinet almost four years to finally come up with the GRC proposal. It is the best means we can think of. The public had a year or so to discuss and debate the Team MP concept at forums organized for the National Agenda or at other similar forums. Yet to this day, Sir, no one or group has a better alternative to offer. But the doors are not closed, Sir. The Government is still open to suggestions - good suggestions, of course. But until a better proposal can be thought out, the GRC formula will at least ensure that our Parliament will be multi-racial in composition, irrespective of whether the PAP rules Singapore or not. Of course, Sir, one way of ensuring Malay presence in Parliament is to assign constituencies for Malays only where only Malay candidates can stand in General Elections. But let us ask ourselves, Sir: Will this be fair to the non-Malays in these constituencies? Should they be compelled to choose their representatives in Parliament from among candidates from a particular race? The answer is obvious, Sir. Another way of ensuring Malay presence in Parliament, Sir, is the PKMS way where Malays elect Malays to represent Malays in Parliament. But where do we go from here? Very soon, chauvinistic Chinese political parties will also demand that Chinese elect Chinese to represent Chinese interests in Parliament, and likewise, chauvinistic Indian political parties. Will this do us good in the long term? Will this do Singapore good in the long run? I leave it to the good and rational judgment of my fellow Singaporeans to decide.

Mr Speaker, Sir, let me also say at the outset that I give my full support to this Bill. I am very glad that the First Deputy Prime Minister is referring this Bill to a Select Committee. Our citizens must be given the full opportunity to clearly understand the reasons for this Bill. I believe that in the initial stages of the discussions there might have been some confusion because there was the confusion of the town council concept and the Team MP or the GRC concept. These have clouded their thinking. Because of this, they may not have fully grasped the issues, and the fundamental reasons why we have proposed the GRC concept. The First Deputy Prime Minister in moving this Bill has outlined clearly the development as far back as 1982 and also the exhaustive thinking which has gone into this very important and very critical issue, before this proposal is tabled in Parliament for debate and for acceptance. My colleagues, PAP MPs, and also the Opposition, the Member for Potong Pasir, have given their views. I think the citizens must closely reflect on what has been said yesterday and again today. With the Bill before the the Select Committee, they will have a chance to give their views and also to bring up, if they have, a better solution to this issue or to this problem. The Member for Potong Pasir in opposing this Bill said that this Bill will introduce communalism and racialism in the electoral system, that the Bill will enshrine communalism in our laws. This will, he said, undermine nation building. Is this really so? Will provisions to enable adequate Malay and other minority representation in Parliament lead to more communalism? Will the proposal to ensure that political parties, which want to form the Government and to lead the country, adopt a moderate multi-racial approach lead to more communalism? The First Deputy Prime Minister and the other PAP MPs have given ample examples, both external as well as internal, to show how, in politics, race and religious issues feature prominently.They have drawn examples from countries like Fiji, Sri Lanka and Lebanon, and so on. Can a one-man-one-vote system in a multi-racial society ensure that racial and religious issues will not be used to win votes? We cannot take our present racial harmony for granted. We must therefore, as responsible leaders, take steps as soon as we recognize this danger to institutionalize safeguards and checks in our system to ensure that Parliament will always be multi-racial and that political parties take a moderate, middle-ground multi-racial approach. Without these checks and safeguards in a one-man-one-vote system in a multi-racial society, we will, if we are not careful, allow a situation to develop which can have very disastrous results. I think all right-thinking Singaporeans, all responsible Singaporeans, accept and believe in multi-racialism and that we must practise moderation in politics. Minority races must be given opportunities to have their views represented in Parliament, their aspirations reflected and thought about in legislations and government policies. We should not therefore wait for problems to appear before we start thinking about introducing safeguards to ensure long-term stability and racial harmony. We should face the facts. It is painful but we should face the fact that the practice of democracy in a one-man-one-vote system in a multi-racial society has its dangers. We should not take a chance and later see our children suffer. Their lives, their way of living, these would be affected if we do not make adequate safeguards when we are able to do so. When the twin constituency idea was first discussed in 1982, and this has been mentioned again by Dr Ahmad Mattar, Member for Brickworks, Minister for the Environment, the Malay MPs, rejected the idea. We felt the proposal was an affront. When other constituencies would have only one MP, why was there a need for some constituencies to have two MPs, so that the Malay MP could lean on a bigger brother? However, we recognized that there was this problem of ensuring multi-racial representation in Parliament. And we are glad that the other leaders saw the problem in the same perspective that we did, and began an exhaustive search for a better alternative system. As a Malay MP, it is necessary for me not only to understand the problem on a personal basis but also to take into account the national interest. I have to consider the position on a personal basis: would I like to stand under such a system? After all, when I first stood for election in the 1980 elections, I stood against a Chinese candidate, the General Secretary of the Singapore United Front, and I was returned with a majority of 72% of the valid votes. I understand that perhaps for the time being this problem will not arise. But what about the future? Can future Malay MPs be as successful when developments and voting trends in 1984 have shown that there are real dangers. Must I be that proud, be that egoistic, to say that since I can win, why have this new system and in the process bring abouta problem for future Malay candidates who want to stand for elections to Parliament? After considerable thinking, reviewing, self-examination, soul-searching, I have to accept that we must have a safeguard. And to me, after exhaustive thinking and discussions, the GRC concept, imperfect as it may be, is perhaps the best solution that we have before us today.

Mr Speaker, Sir, can I get a clarification from the Member?

On what? You have not said anything today.

On what he has said.

Can I leave him to ask it when I have finished?

Please sit down, Mr Chiam. He is not giving way.

I am sorry.

No. He can speak later.

No, I want a clarification.

You can speak after I have finished.

After you have spoken?

Yes, after I have spoken, provided you get the permission of Mr Speaker. I am not in a position to allow you to speak. As I said, it may not be a perfect solution and other MPs have pointed out the dangers. But I am prepared to accept that for the time being, as the search continues, we accept the solution of the GRC. The Member for Siglap has mentioned the problems and the arduous task which Malay MPs have of balancing the minority interests with the national interests. We cannot afford to be looked upon as a communal MP. And I agree with him - that it would be political suicide for us to be so identified. So as the Bill provides for these safeguards, I support the Bill and I would urge every Singaporean to carefully consider the reasons for the Bill and to give it their full support. Before I end, I would just like to touch on a technical aspect of the Bill, namely, the definition of "person belonging to the Malay community". I agree with the points made by the Member for Tanah Merah regarding the characteristics of persons who belong to the Malay community. I feel that such persons should consider themselves as Malays, have an interest in the welfare and the wellbeing of the Malays; they should feel Malay and those who fall within this category should be allowed to contest in the elections as a Malay. Reading the definition which mentions certain racial groups like Javanese, Boyanese, Bugis, and Arab, although there is a general clause covering "any other person", some of my Indian Muslim friends have asked me, "Will they be considered as Malays?" After all, they feel that they belong to the Malay community, and they have a genuine interest in the welfare and the wellbeing of the Malay community. Would they, under the definition so provided, be considered as Malays? I think these are issues which are important and which, I think,should be discussed further when the Bill is in Select Committee. Another point which 1DPM mentioned is the small talent pool of Malays and the difficulty in getting good Malay candidates. I believe that if the definition is made flexible, it can help enlarge the pool, and in this process those who feel themselves as Malays, those who consider themselves as Malays, can come out to help serve and look after the interests of the Malay community.

Mr Speaker, Sir, on a point of clarification.

On what point, Mr Chiam?

Clarification from the Member.

You want to clarify his points?

Yes, on what he has said. Just to clarify one point. He has said that for the time being he accepts the solution of the GRC. I want to clarify with him whether or not he is conceding that in future elections, he will not get elected on his own steam.

No. I think I have told the House very clearly that when I first stood for election in a single member constituency against a Chinese candidate, who was then the Secretary-General of the SUF, a political leader who had more political experience at that time than I have (because he had stood unsuccessfully in many other elections), I had managed to defeat him. And I do not think that the incumbents have a problem, and I think 1DPM has said that the incumbent Malay MPs will not have a problem now but new Malay candidates may be vulnerable because of the voting trends as we have seen in 1984. And also there is ample evidence, as I mentioned earlier, to show developmentsof this nature in other countries.

Mr Speaker, Sir, first, I rise to speak in full support of the amendment Bill moved by the First Deputy Prime Minister. I will come straight to the point. I am surprised that the Member for Potong Pasir did not answer the Hon. First Deputy Prime Minister's point when he took part in the debate and delivered his speech yesterday. The point is this. The SDP's constitution does not state that it subscribes to a multi-racial Singapore. Sir, may I ask him whether this is an oversight? If it is, whether he and the SDP intend to amend it accordingly? Because he himself said that he is all for a multi-racial Singapore. Furthermore, he portrays himself as a champion of the Malays. Here I would like to ask him again whether the Presidential Council for Minority Rights has now become redundant. And also according to him, since Article 152 of the Constitution is pernicious, would he move that it be repealed? If not, how can he fallaciously believe and subscribe to a multi-racial Singapore, in his own description, "one people, one race, out of mixed marriages, mixed religions"? I think this House would like to be enlightened on this, and I hope, Mr Speaker, Sir, you will be so kind enough as to enable the Member for Potong Pasir to make his clarifications.

May I, Mr Speaker, Sir, be allowed to make the clarification?

Clarification on Mr Ng's remarks?

Yes.

All right.

Perhaps Mr Ng, a very old member of the PAP, will recall that - An hon. Member: Member for Punggol.

I am saying that he is an old member of the PAP. He will recall that, in fact, the first constitution of the PAP did not include this clause on multi-racialism in Singapore. It was an afterthought. The SDP has no apologies to make in regard to its constitution. We subscribe to democratic socialism. And Mr Ng who, I believe, is also a socialist will understand that the term "socialist" also includes the belief that there must be multi-racialism. That is the reason.

This is a new one!

As regards the Presidential Council for Minority Rights, since he has brought up this point, I shall be pointing out later in the debate on the amendment to the Constitution that there are provisions to exclude this GRC concept from the provisions in the Constitution which relate to the Presidential Council. I do not think Article 152 of the Constitution is pernicious in any way. In fact, the Prime Minister himself has guaranteed the Malays of their special privileges. So is the Member for Punggol saying that the Prime Minister was wrong? As regards mixed marriages, I do not see why Mr Ng is against it. I am all for it. Member for Punggol, what is wrong with mixed marriages? Is he against it? Let me know, please.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I am a bit surprised that once again he has totally digressed, hoping that by his roundabout answers he actually need not answer the questions I posed. First, in the constitution of the SDP, it is not stated that it subscribes to a multi-racial Singapore. That has been pointed out to him. All I am asking is: is that an oversight? If it is, would the Member for Potong Pasir and the SDP amend the constitution of the SDP? He has not fully answered that. Instead he has gone on to describe that I am a socialist and what socialism is all about.

You should know it.

I am a democratic socialist. The Russians call themselves socialists too. So do the Chinese. But I would not allow myself to be drawn aside. So I come straight to the point. Point (1), he has not fully answered the question. Point (2), he portrays himself as the champion of the Malays. Article 152 of the Constitution makes it pernicious according to him, and he has asked me to rebut. No, he has to answer that because he has put it that way. In fact, yesterday, when he had the Floor, he asked all the PAP MPs to come out and speak up on how they feel. He has got it. But in my own way, I would not allow him to take the Floor and have his say, so as to mislead and beguile the people. I do not think I can allow that, Sir. Point (3) Sir, that explanation or by his remarks, make it appear that the Presidential Council on Minority Rights is redundant. Then why would he not move an amendment that it be repealed? On mixed marriages, I have got nothing against it because all these are personal matters. There is such a thing as privacy. But we have to respect people's feelings. I say how can he so fallaciously believe that by entering into mixed marriages we can have one race, one people. Who is he talking to? The people of Singapore are not foolish enough or gullible enough to believe him. He has said it. That is his definition of multi-racialism. That is his interpretation of what a multi-racial Singapore is. Far from it. Sir, I hope he will address himself to the questions that I posed and not try to sidetrack.

May I make two points, Mr Speaker, Sir? When Members address the House, could they please confine themselves to the titles or the constituencies which Members belong to, instead of calling "Mr Chiam" or "Mr Ng"? That is one point. The other point is that when a Member speaks, the whole House should be silent according to the Standing Orders. If Members want to make encouraging and supporting "Hear, Hear" and so on, please do so but do not hold your stomach and laugh too loudly. Otherwise the Member speaking could not be heard clearly enough on the television.

11.40 am

( In Mandarin): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, allow me, first of all, to say that I support this Bill. Pondering over the Bill, I asked myself the following questions. First, whether this Bill is against the spirit and the provisions of the Constitution. There are two points relating to this. First, regarding the proposal for Group Representation Constituency, is it necessary for this GRC proposal to be put to a general referendum? Secondly, whether this proposed Bill will adversely affect the rights and interests of the minority communities. After going through the present Constitution, I found that Article 6 specifically provides that only in assigning the sovereignty of the country or the control of the military and the police that it requires, in addition to a two-thirds majority decision by Parliament, also a two-thirds majority support through a general referendum to decide on any such proposal. According to Article 8 of the Constitution, any amendment to Article 6 of the Constitution requires, besides a two-thirds majority of Parliament, also the support obtained through a referendum. In other words, this Bill does not require the process of a general referendum. On the second point regarding the rights and interests of the minority communities: Articles 68 to 92 of the Constitution provide for the setting up of a Presidential Council for Minority Rights. As we all know, the GRC proposal is to ensure that we have multi-racial representation in the Parliament. That is also to protect the political rights and interests of the minorities. Therefore, this is entirely in accord with the spirit of the Constitution. In fact, the proposal is also providing an added safeguard to the political rights and interests of our minorities. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the second question that I had considered concerns whether this Bill is meeting the interests of our country. Ours is a multi-racial society. Multi-racial politics is the basis for the political stability of our country. But, at present, there is no law requiring all political parties to go along a multi-racial line, including the putting up of multi-racial candidates for elections. The purpose of this Bill is to institutionalize this concept of multi-racialism politics so as to prevent communal politics from endangering our country. Viewed from this angle, therefore, this Bill is in keeping with the interest and the long term interest of our country. Although this Bill may not do away with all communal politics because less than half of the constituencies will be GRCs, nevertheless, the Bill will at least ensure that all future Governments will have to go the line of multi-racialism, because whichever party that wishes to form the government will have to field a state of multi-racial candidates in the GRCs, not just in single-member constituencies. Therefore, I can say that this is a Bill that will continue to consolidate and strengthen the institution and foundation of multi-racialism politics. The third question that I had considered is whether this Bill, according to some people, might bi-polarize the races in their relations or would give prominence to racialism. Between the two, half similar terms of racialism and multi-racialism there is a big difference. Multi-racialism and racialism are entirely different. Some people mix them up as one. That is what the Opposition parties are trying to do, to confuse the people. Perhaps, they are really confused over these two issues, as some people have a very blurred or confused idea about these two terms. About the GRC system we cannot find any precedent anywhere in the world, whereas we can find some instances of institutionalized communalism in some countries. Examples of communalism can be seen in practice in some countries. For instance, voters of a race elect a candidate of their own race. If we Chinese here elect a Chinese candidate, Malays elect a Malay candidate, Indians elect an Indian candidate, then it will be a form of communalism. The GRC system which is meant to implement multi-racialism is entirely different from all this. The fourth question that I had considered is whether this Group Representation constituency system is contrary to the principle of one-man-one-vote. After careful deliberation, I feel that it is not against the one-man-one-vote system. Because every voter will still have only one vote, where his one vote has added on triple weight compared to that before. If it is election of one candidate in a single constituency, his vote will be one vote for one person. Whereas now in the GRC system a voter's vote will be counted as one vote for all the three candidates together. The voters will realize the enhanced responsibility on them in voting in a GRC. However, this one vote for one group of candidates is not really very new. In some in democratic countries there is the system of lists of candidates for election where the political parties taking part in a constituency election will have to nominate, say, five to ten candidates in a list, whereby the voters will vote on them. Those political parties having the highest number of votes can freely allocate seat to those names nominated in the list, perhaps five, or six, or seven of such candidates. Therefore, this idea is not quite new. It is not an innovation. But what I would like to stress is that in this Group Representation Constituency system the voters have an added responsibility. The last question that I have asked myself is whether this Bill is of any disadvantage to the Opposition parties or unfair to them because at the moment all Singaporeans have a sense of fairness and fair play. They want to see that all political parties are given a fair ground to compete fairly. Some of them might feel that it is not fair to the Opposition parties which do not have enough candidates. If so, I feel that if an Opposition party thinks that they do not have enough candidates to contest in a Group Representation Constituency, they can stand in single-member constituencies, as the GRCs will not be more than half of the total constituencies. Therefore,nobody will be deprived of a fair chance. What is more relieving to one's mind is that the only Opposition MP, the Member for Potong Pasir has more than once expressed publicly that this GRC system actually would not be disadvantageous to the Opposition, it might even be advantageous to them because earlier without the GRC the Opposition might only have one candidate elected at a time, but now the Opposition party could have three Members in Parliament. So the argument that the Bill would be of disadvantage to the Opposition parties does not hold water. Sir, I think we do not want to see our own homestead on fire. We would not like to see our own house on fire. To prevent it, we must take precautionary measures. We cannot presume or hope that there will not be any fire breaking out in our homes. If we do not want to see our own homes on fire, and if we want to see Singapore forever in peace and prosperity and all the races living harmoniously together without racial conflicts and if we do not want to see the disastrous consequences of racial conflicts as happened in other countries to happen in Singapore,if we want to avoid all such racial disasters and unfortunate tragedies taking place in multi-racial Singapore, then we must take all the necessary precautionary measures against any unforeseeable fire breaking out in our household. The GRC system is, I believe, a very good system which will prevent any future communalism and racial conflicts from happening. Therefore, I support this Bill.

Sir, I rise in support of the Bill in the name of the First Deputy Prime Minister. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, leaders must lead. They must have answers to every question, issue or problem. Better still, they must anticipate problems before the problems become a burden to society. The GRC is a problem of the future, maybe 15 years or beyond. The Council of Rome, the think-tank in Europe, came to one conclusion which I am in favour - that tomorrow is no more a simple continuity of today. It is the direct consequence of today. The GRC is the direct consequence of today. It is not the most ideal option but to me it is certainly the best option under the circumstances. It is just like asking a person, who is so used to living in a bungalow house, a landed property, to go and live in a flat. He has to adjust himself to his new surroundings, the neighbours, and working together, and finally he has to make certain adjustments which, to me, sometimes can be even better than living in his bungalow house. For instance, bigger and better landscaping, knowing more people, socialising, so on and so forth. Sir, the last time this Government in this very august Chamber discussed the participation of the minority was when, on behalf of the Government of the day, the Minister for Law and National Development, Mr E.W. Barker, mentioned the formation of the Constitutional Commission 1966 headed by the Chief Justice, Mr Wee Chong Jin, with the then Speaker, Mr A.P. Rajah, as the Deputy Chairman, and the following members: Mr C.F.J. Ess, Mr M.J. Namazie, Mr C.C. Tan, Mr S.H.D. Elias, Tan Sri Syed Esa bin Syed Hassan Almenoar, Mr G. Abisheganaden, Mr Starforth Hill, Encik Abdul Manaf Ghows, Mr Kirpal Singh, and Mr S. Narayanaswamy as Secretary. All the minorities were represented in this Commission. A very lengthy discussion was held, suggestions were made such as the Council of State, for instance, with all its powers, suggestions about Ombudsman, translated as "a man of the people", But, of course, at that time they had already about 49 "man of the people" (Members of Parliament) whereas we have about 77 now. Now we hear certain suggestions about the proportionate representation, lower house, bicameral, what-have-you. But still maybe our answer is GRC. It is very difficult to ignore that during the discussion of the Bill from December 1966 to March 1967, it was quite an irony for the Prime Minister, Mr Lee Kuan Yew, and the Minister for Foreign Affairs then, Mr Rajaratnam, cited only two countries as examples, namely, Ceylon and India. I wish to quote what the then Minister for Foreign Affairs said. This is very interesting. Said he, an I quote: 'Another good example is Ceylon. I remember when I was a student the articles that were being written. Ceylon was pointed to as a success story of British colonial policy because in Ceylon the British had deliberately refused to allow a communal Parliament - no communal representation, a high literacy rate, a sound economy. So here was one place where you could really create a united nation out of Tamils, Singhalese, Christians and Buddhists over a period of 10 years. And it looked as if communalism was not a problem in Ceylon and that somehow they had broken through this prejudice based on race, language or religion. But unfortunately, the leaders assumed that the communal problem had been solved because they subscribed to the thesis that communalism was really the creation of the colonial power and that once colonialism was out the problem was solved. So they thought, "Yes, that is true - once the British are out, there would be communal harmony." But we know, Sir, that that is not so and that today the country is torn asunder; that people who have lived together for centuries [and not just 10, 20, 30, 40 years, centuries], and who really are of the same racial group; are now bitter enemies, and their economy is ruined. And it will be a long, long time before the problem, based largely on linguistic differences, is resolved. I do not think that in India or Ceylon, the leaders who fought for freedom really studied the communal problem intensely and in depth. Therefore, Sir, we in Singapore should not delude ourselves into believing that once the imperialists are out,there would be no communal or racial problem, or that because there is harmony now there is no racial problem. Fortunately, the problem is under control. Nevertheless it is necessary for us to bear in mind that if the communal problem is allowed to get out of hand because of ignorance or because we do not understand it or because we do not take adequate measures now to control it, then the consequence must be violence of a most barbaric kind, accompanied by economic chaos and smouldering unrelenting hatreds.' Since then, the same Minister, in his speech at the Hari Raya celebrations in City South, continued the list, no more about Ceylon and India but he was talking in terms of Britain, North-South Ireland's clash between Catholics and Christian protestants, Spain, Middle East, Africa, Ceylon again (of course this time it is Sri Lanka), India again (of course this time you have Bangladesh besides Pakistan) and Fiji. Is it a remarkable coincidence that for the past 20 years, because of the foresight of our Government by discussing this matter, they have come to the conclusion that the formation of the Presidential Council for Minority Rights, in the words of Mr E.W. Barker' "reflects the intention, the purpose and the spirit of the Council of State recommended by the Constitutional Commission. As recommended, it is an advisory body, and leaves untouched the present unicameral legislative. It also does not infringe upon the responsibilities of Parliament" that stability and progress have been made while all those countries, including Sri Lanka and India, ugly incidents, conflict and bloodshed have taken place. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, it is of utmost importance for us to remember that while religious or racial clashes happen in all these countries, the third person like a hungry hyena watches to devour the nations. And the third force happens to be communism. The racial harmony that we Singaporeans have harnessed for the past 22 to 23 years is the result of our leaders' no-nonsense, cautious, not playing to the gallery approach towards this very sensitive, easily destructive issue. The scars of the racial riots in the 1960s would be too painful even to scratch. Nation building in Singapore, to a large extent, means integration of the four ethnic groups. The multi-racial element of the Singapore society has been the dominant feature of Singapore's success since gaining independence 23 years ago. Multi-racialism is considered the best political approach for Singapore as it adopts the democratic process of governing a nation. I cannot understand why the Member for Potong Pasir finds it difficult when he said that there is no need to put multi-racialism in the SDP's constitution because to him socialist means multi-racial. I do not know. I want to ask him this. Hitler described himself as a Nazi socialist. What did Hitler do to the Jews? Is this racial harmony? I do not know why he is so afraid to put this in his constitution. Is he afraid because the First Deputy Prime Minister exposed Ling How Doong's conduct? Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the advocacy of democracy through multi-racialism has created over-riding loyalties among community groups to the claims of the nation state. A consensus on national values as well as cooperation among the communities was also developed. For this, the Government must be commended for delicately balancing and harmonizing conflicting demands and expectations of the minority and majority communities and galvanizing them towards a common goal of excellence for Singapore. This was consciously done by this Party, this Government, from the outset. We believe democracy implies not just according to the majority interest but also the protection of the minority rights. The Member for Kampong Ubi has given an answer aptly yesterday to the question posed by the Member for Potong Pasir and if I were to give one simple word on what the Malay wants, just like any other community wants or any other nation wants in the international community, I would say it is Respect. We know that respect must be earned. It cannot be taken or given. Because of this respect, we are not going to give our Prime Minister or 1DPM something that boils down to GIGO - Garbage In, Garbage Out. We have to give him the real input because we are dealing with the lives of 2.6 million people, 400,000 of whom are Muslims. Is he suggesting that we are under the armpit of our friends, our colleagues? That we are stooges? Our leaders do not conform to that sort of conformity. He says, we are "yes men". Mr Chiam See Tong rose -

Sir, I am not giving way.

He is not giving way, Mr Chiam. Could you sit down?

We are talking about "yes men". Maybe I can go half-way. Would he like to be a "no man". You know why? Because when it comes to the exercise of the mind, our Prime Minister, our 1DPM, our younger leaders say "yes" to us and "no" to you.

There is no mention of Muslims in the Bill. Why are you bringing this up?

The Muslims want to make sure that a good strong society must strengthen five major areas - social, cultural, administration, economic and, of course, politics. We have been working together between the majority and the minority comprising the Malays, Indians, Ceylonese, Eurasians, Arabs, Jews. Although the minority collectively forms only about 25% of the total population, their contributions to Singapore cannot be overlooked. The minority has always played their role in the nation building of Singapore and without doubt will play an increasing role in the future of Singapore. Thus, we accept the GRC scheme. The first sign of "trouble", as I mentioned before,I foresee, is when there is no minority race in Parliament.If that happens we may inherit some, if not all the turbulence or crisis that ravage many countries that are heterogenous. As you must know, an electoral system must satisfy two needs: an accurate reflection of popular will and the capacity for firm and effective government - which to us must be multi-racial. The growing importance of minorities in nation building has been recognized by many nations in the world. Singapore is no different in having the same view. In our endeavour to make ourselves Singaporean, we must never allow a communal syndrome to be cultivated. Phrases like "that Indian", "that Malay" or "that Chinese" must not be permitted to take root in Singapore. Communal politics must be erased from the face of our body politic. Needless to say, Sir, for any minority group to think that its interests can be best safeguarded by racialism is not only foolish but, I would say, disastrous. Sociologists have concluded that political leaders who champion racial politics do not fight for the cause of the community but instead clamour for individual political gains or self-interest. More often than not, these are the people who invite other people into communal politics - minority and the majority alike. Sir, it is maintained that only people who appreciate and understand their own culture and religion tend to show respect to others. The Government has always encouraged the retention of each ethnic group's own distinctive cultural and spiritual heritage. The majority, as well as the minority communities must continue to promote toleration and mutual respect and facilitate the growth of a culturally and spiritually dynamic multi-racial society. We must make sure that our community centres and other social institutions, our mosques, our churches, temples are part and parcel of the social and religious fabric of our society. The major community constitutes about 74% of the population which means that the minority will always remain the minority in Singapore unless, of course, if one were to engineer it in such a way that the number may be comparable. But I think it may take about 300 years. Even then, I suspect there will be a lot of politicking going around at the expense of the nation's progress and interests. According to Bertrand Russell, fanatical belief in democracy makes a democratic institution impossible. What more, fanatically communal. Therefore, in order to provide any meaningful contribution to Singapore, the minority must interact with the majority community. We must spend the greater part of our life with each other in order to participate in Singapore's economy and society. Such participation provides the minority groups with equal opportunity for a stake in the economy and society. Interaction with the major community fosters closer cooperation between all groups. Inevitably, however, I believe continued cooperation may provide sufficient impetus and competition. The competition can be encouraged in Singapore as ultimately the objective is to upgrade the quality of all Singaporeans. When the minority community enters the mainstream of national activities, each community aspires to achieve the highest in excellence in all endeavours. This healthy cooperation and competition must continue. However, any attempt to dissociate from the mainstream of economy and society, however small, will weaken the position of any minority group. The minority group will suffer economically and may find their cultural identity, including the political culture, threatened as a result of the withdrawal. Political culture of today, to me, happens to be the very scheme of GRC. Efforts by the Government to make all sons of Singapore Singaporeans must be welcomed by the minority. It is only through this common identity can the minority groups mobilize their roles more effectively in, what I term, the New Society of Singapore in the 1990s. Come the year 2000, the 21st century, this New Singapore Society should exist. This could be the pinnacle of our values which are inculcated through our education system, especially through our languages, literature, religion, moral education, besides having to undergo national service together, and staying in the same blocks and socializing in the same workplace. The Government leaders have given their assurance of participation by the minority community in the future of Singapore. The minorities are aware that to be Singaporeans, they must identify with the aspirations and goals of the nation. As more and more minorities get into the national mainstream, they can understand why national goals must be promoted in the interest of all communities. The multi-racial approach to nation building is still the best approach as it allows the integration of all minority and majority communities to co-exist and live in harmony. GRC is one of the answers. Much obliged, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir.

( In Mandarin): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I have decided to support this Bill and the concept of GRC. In our situation, we have this political need. After about one year's discussion, most Singaporeans understand that the GRC system aims to institutionalize multi-racialism politics and to ensure Parliament has a balanced multi-racial representation so as to promote racial harmony and political stability. Therefore, the basic principles and spirit of these two Amendment Bills are consistent with the long-term interest of our nation and our society. Of course, there is some opposition to this concept for different reasons. I classify these reasons into three categories: First, some people regard this system as a strategy or even a conspiracy of the PAP to deal with the Opposition. But in actual fact, this Bill provides fair competition between both sides. The Member for Potong Pasir admitted on several occasions that "it cuts both ways". That is to say, this system may also be beneficial or advantageous to the Opposition. It may, according to him, enable three Opposition candidates to be elected into Parliament at one go and as he said, if Potong Pasir, Kim Keat and Kolam Ayer or Boon Teck constituencies were to be grouped together as a GRC, then he would have a chance of defeating our 2DPM! In fact, when this GRC system was first raised, many PAP Members and supporters regarded it disadvantageous to the PAP. They were worried that their MPs who have served many years (some over 20 years) and with whom they have been working loyally together for many years, when standing in a GRC might be dragged down by other candidates in the same team. They used the expression "other lose the election on behalf of our MP." This psychology is understandable and this feeling is only natural. But for the interest of all and the long-term interest of our country,personal feelings should take lower priority. We must be resolute and be pragmatic. The second reason for opposing the concept of GRC is that our political system over the past 20 years has worked very well and, therefore, there is no necessity to change it. If in the past one or two years, we have paid attention to events taking place within and outside our country, we will realize that these Amendment Bills are necessary. They are precautionary and pre-emptive measures against such happenings. Here, I would like to cite certain facts that we cannot afford to ignore. The first is that so far our political system has been working well is precisely because the PAP at every general election has been deliberately putting forward a balanced slate of candidates from all races and these candidates have been accepted by our voters. I notice that in the past two general elections, the candidates put up by Opposition parties - the Singapore Democratic Party and the Socialist Front - were entirely Chinese. But even if all the political parties were to put up candidates from all races, it would still not be adequate because the expectations of the voters are now higher and their mentality has changed. They not only vote for the party but also vote for the candidate of their choice. It does not necessarily mean that the voters vote according to the race of the candidates. They want to select a candidate of higher capability and quality and at the time, a candidate who has the language ability to communicate with them effectively and to channel their feelings to the higher-ups and government. This language ability of the candidate rather than race is more important to the younger voters. I do not think they would vote according to the race of the candidate alone. Here, I would like to elaborate the importance of the language ability of the candidate. According to the 1980 Population Census, more than 65.6% families spoke Mandarin or dialects. In terms of literacy, 37.5% of those literate were bilingual, 36% were literate only in Chinese, 19% only in English, 5.6% only in Malay, and 1.3% only in Tamil. Therefore, candidates who could not command Mandarin or Chinese dialects, whether from a ruling party or opposition, will find the situation disadvantageous to them. This is a fact. The second fact is when Israeli President Herzog visited Singapore and the question of the Malays' position in the Singapore Armed Forces was raised, there were strong opposing sentiments and reactions from some members of a certain race. However, this kind of racial reaction can easily cause other races to react to the reactions or even revulsion. We cannot overlook this kind of undercurrents of mass sentiments which may manifest in elections. The third fact is that in the past three general elections (1976, 1980 and 1984), the election results showed that the PAP Malay candidates, although were all elected, their average percentage of votes was lower than the average percentage of PAP votes. In 1976, the average percentage for PAP Malay candidates was 69.5%, the average for all the PAP candidates was 72.4%, the difference was -2.9%. In 1980, average PAP Malay votes - 70.6%, average PAP votes - 75.5%, the difference was - 4.9%. In 1984, PAP Malay candidates got an average of 60.5% as compared to the PAP average of 62.9%, the difference was -2.4%. These were the differences that occurred in the last three general elections. These differences also occurred among the Opposition candidates in these general election. So I do not think it is a casual or accidental phenomenon. The third reason against the GRC is the argument that this system may perpetuate racial differences and magnify the bi-polarization of the Chinese on the one hand and the Malay or other minority races on the other. Yes, it it true that we are all citizens of Singapore. We have all pledged to unite and build a just and equal society regardless of race, language and religion. We belong to the same country and share the common destiny. But it is also true that we are of different races. It is not necessary for us nor should we compel the various races to give up their own languages, religions, traditions and cultures. In fact, multi-races and multi-cultures are our characteristics and our assets. What we should seek is to build our national consciousness and the sense of national identity. We should promote mutual understanding, mutual respect, mutual tolerance and communication among different races. We should seek unity among diversities. Therefore, the institutionalization of multi-racialism politics is just an extension of the multi-racialism policy. If we accept the principles of the GRC system, then what follows is only a question of form, method and other implementation details. The First Deputy Prime Minister has sent the Bill to a Select Committee for further consideration and representations so that improvements could be made for its smooth implementation and other alternatives could be discussed. Therefore I would not comment on the form and the details of the system here. Thank you.

( In Mandarin): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, after yesterday's day-long debate and also the debate this morning, I can definitely see one salient point, that is, the need to preserve multi-racialism in our Parliament. Why? Because it meets the political reality of Singapore. Of course, it also meets the interests of all the races of Singapore. Even the Member for Potong Pasir agreed to this point. What he disagreed to, is the GRC system. But he did not propose any practicable alternative. It seems that his approach is that since there is a need for multi-racialism, it will come about without any effort. But this attitude of allowing events to take their own course is not the practice of the Government. In tackling a matter, the Government would consider various options and work out a solution that is most suitable for dealing not only with the present situation but also taking into account the future. In the same light, the GRC system has come about under these considerations. In other words, we have good wishes that in our Parliament, there will always be the characteristics of multi-racialism. However, other than good wishes, we must also put in some measures of human efforts to institutionalize it. That is why we have arrived at this GRC system. I feel that the people of Singapore can understand the Government's efforts and good intentions in this respect. Earlier, some Members also mentioned that this measure is aimed at institutionalizing multi-racialism in our Parliament regardless whether PAP is in government or not. This shows that GRC is not based on party politics. Now, I would like to say something about how this system would be in keeping with the interests of all the people of Singapore. In view of the unique characteristics of Singapore society and the geopolitics in the surrounding region, the interest of the minorities also constitutes the indivisible interest of all Singaporeans. In Singapore, if the Chinese majority ignores the interest of the minorities, a situation may arise whereby the interest of the minorities will be protected and looked after only by the minorities themselves. Then, it will be bad for all the people of Singapore. Therefore, we cannot just look after the interest of certain races in Singapore. The GRC system, in my view, will get Chinese support, as it is also in their interest to safeguard the interest of the minorities. I would like to make three points regarding this system. First, under the GRC system, the voters do not just elect one candidate, but three. In the past, if they had wrongly elected a party or a candidate, it would affect only one candidate, whereas in future, in a GRC election, three will be involved. So, the responsibility of the voters will be enhanced and it will match the growing maturity of the political consciousness of our voters. Thus, we also expect the political maturity of our voters to increase. That is to say, the voters must think carefully before they cast their votes. The second point is that the success of this system will depend on the implementation of multi-racialism by all the political parties. In the past three decades, history has shown through general elections that the PAP has been pursuing this line by putting forward candidates from all the races. Whether the proposed system will be successful or not depends, to a certain extent, on whether the opposition parties will also pursue this multi-racial line. The earlier they put this into practice, the faster will be the maturity of multi-racial politics in Singapore. The third point is that among the elected candidates in the GRC system, some candidates will be from the majority race, others from the minority community. Whatever it is, they will have to weigh the interests of the minorities or the majority in the context of the whole nation, to ensure that the candidates elected through the GRC system would not become a hindrance to our social unity but act as a catalyst for communal harmony and social cohesion. Therefore, the responsibilities of such candidates will be heavier. Now that the Bill is sent to the Select Committee for consideration, I hope that any details in the Bill which might not be perfect, will receive further consideration. 12.32 pm

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, before I came to Parliament this morning I asked two of my students their reactions to this Bill. Both were negative. So I asked myself the question why. As I listened to the debate both inside and outside this House, I can discern, I think, at least three problems with this Bill. Firstly, it is a new idea, at least to Singapore. Secondly, it is manifestly political. Thirdly, it has racial implications. The fact that it is a new idea means that we have to sell it in order to get people to accept it. And in spite of very extensive efforts over the past year, suspicions still linger over the intent of the Bill. But the suspicions boil down to one major objection, and that is, we are out to fix the Opposition. That somehow having half the constituencies under the GRCs will benefit the PAP at the expense of the Opposition. I think this gives the Opposition more credit than it is due. The main problem of the Opposition is, first of all, organization, or rather the lack of it. The second major problem with the Opposition is that it has poor leadership. And having poor leadership, they have great difficulty finding candidates of quality and, more importantly, of integrity. So let us not have any excuses that this is a concept that is used to fix the Opposition. There are other ways to fix the Opposition if we wanted to do so. Perhaps we can give the Member for Potong Pasir a choice before the next elections. Have a GRC including Potong Pasir and have the opportunity of beating our Second Deputy Prime Minister, or else face a PAP candidate alone in Potong Pasir and lose the next elections in either case.

You want to bet?

Well, we will see. The second problem with this Bill is that it is manifestly political. Yes, we are changing the electoral process. Yes, it may affect the election outcome. But I think what is more fundamental for us to consider is what is it going to do for the political future of Singapore. To me, whatever will promote and maintain political stability is what I am prepared to support. And I think Singaporeans should think likewise. We live in a very uncertain world, economically, politically and in other respects. And if we can ensure that Singapore will continue to be a stable place at least politically, then we have a good chance of making it economically. The third problem with this Bill is that it has racial implications. It forces us in this House and outside the House to think in racial terms. And we are not comfortable with it, for two reasons. One is that it seems to allow undesirable undercurrents of racism to surface. Maybe not expressed openly but it is there. The other is that we have been educated over the past 30 years to accept multi-racialism, that more Singaporeans are no longer conscious that they are Chinese, Indian or Malay. And suddenly here is this Bill, we have to confront this question of racial representation in Parliament and it is not something that we like because emotions get stirred up in the process. Does it reflect the failure of our educational efforts? I do not think so. We have to face up to realities in the world that we live in. If we see trends in other countries that lead to instability, then I think it behoves the leadership of our country to prepare for eventualities. And I believe that is the real intent of this Bill, preventive medicine for the good of Singapore. But what is encouraging to me out of all this debate is this. There may be opposi- tion to the Bill but I have heard nobody oppose multi-racialism, not even the Member for Potong Pasir. That is good.

I am not mad.

There are other adjectives one could use, but I agree you are not mad. I was shocked to learn for the first time that the SDP does not have multi-racialism in its platform. And perhaps one good thing out of this debate is that he will now change his constitution or his platform to include multi-racialism. I throw this down as a challenge. More fundamentally, Sir, the question is: is this Bill constitutional? Is it in the spirit of the Constitution? It is certainly so. Because multi-racialism is one of the pillars of our Constitution. Secondly, is it a good idea? To me it is because it is going to help us promote stability in Singapore. But more fundamentally, we ought to go beyond this Bill and perhaps ask ourselves questions like what more do we need to do in Singapore to promote multi-racialism? And on this, I have not heard many people contribute in terms of ideas. If we can do so, make people more conscious of the need to integrate Singaporeans of all races, cultures, religions, into one identity, then Singapore will have a future. 12.40 pm

( In Malay): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, since the issue of the Group Representation Constituencies was first raised by the Member for Kebun Baru until the debate yesterday in the House, a lot of views have been heard. In fact, through different forums in the newspapers, television and magazines, the people's understanding of the background, the concept, the aims and mechanism of the GRCs have become clearer. I do not wish to discuss these views in detail. What is clear to us is that Singapore becomes what it is today by learning from the problems of other countries. We always look at the developments in these countries with an open eye and look for the universal elements which are the cause of some of their problems and ask ourselves whether the same problems could occur here and whether there is a possibility that they might occur and, if so, whether we could find a way to resolve them before it is too late. Do racial problems occur in Singapore? If they have not occurred, would they occur? If they have occurred, is there any possibility that they would affect the political stability and harmony in future generations? Actually, the institutionalization of multi- racialism in our society is nothing new. Neither is enshrining it in the Constitution. We have heard yesterday from the First Deputy Prime Minister how Singapore has been able to enjoy prosperity, progress and a high standard of living through political stability and harmonious racial relations that have been created by various means. Through the Constitution, whether as it was first outlined or as subsequently amended, through policies implemented in various aspects of life, through school education and through community education, multi-racialism which is a pillar of the national philosophy of Singapore, has been firmly upheld. In fact, in same cases and in certain situations, the Government has avoided itself from being influenced by the majority voice in order to ensure inter-racial harmony. Such a policy, Sir, is correct and necessary. It should not only be cherised, but should also be permeated to all facets of our life. The motion on the Constitution (Amendment) Bill before us is nothing new and is not something that has never been done before. It is because of the importance of institutionalizing multi-racialism that from the very beginning when the All Party Convention was held 30 years ago, when we first outlined the Singapore Constitution, the issue of participation of the minorities in Singapore has been constitutionalized. In fact, even today we find some ground rules in existence being observed. This is simply to maintain good racial relations in Singapore. It is with the same consciousness and in the same spirit that about 20 years ago, when we established a Constitutional Commission on Minority Rights, this multi-racial character was enhanced by several proposals, among them the creation of the Presidential Council for Minority Rights. That is today a reality. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the motion on the Bill before us today shows clearly that there are signs that racial problems do exist in Singapore, that there is a possibility that these problems will affect the harmonious relations and political stability of this country and that we must do something about it. I think the rationale or reasons behind this measure has been widely discussed. We do not wish to experience the same misfortune that has been plaguing so many countries. The current experiences of Fiji, Sri Lanka, India, Ireland and many other countries,as have been described by the Member for Kolam Ayer and many other members, have taught us not to delay any action to prevent from being preyed upon and destroyed by this disaster. I do not wish to repeat this as it has been touched upon by so many Members of this House. But what I would like to impress upon Members is the fact that racial tension is not limited to Third World countries alone. The more advanced the country, the higher the standard of living of its people, the higher its citizens' education, the greater their political consciousness, the clearer the symptoms of this problem. This has been dealt with at length yesterday by the Member for Jalan Kayu. Countries like Great Britain, Ireland, Fiji, Canada, all give us different pictures and different dimensions to the problem of racial relations. While in some countries the problem occurs as smouldering embers with the existence of undercurrents, in other countries it has begun to show its uglier aspects. In fact, in certain countries it has started to destroy the very social fabric of the society and bring the country into chaos. Mr Deputy Speaker, while a country is fighting for its independence, conflicts arising from differences in race, religion, colour, or language have always been concealed or swept aside. While the society struggles to fulfil its independence by eradicating poverty, starvation and misery, these differences lose their importance. The threat of colonization, starvation and poverty are too big as they determine the survival of the society. But when these threats begin to disappear, problems arising from racial, communal, linguistic, religious and colour differences would start appearing. Yesterday we heard that such a problem is now threatening the United States. The fact that there are Japanese mayors or Black senators or Hispanic congressmen are all part of a new malady that is spreading through the country we call the Father of Democracy. That the minorities, whether in terms of population or economy or religion, are being taken into the centre stage at the national level in the United States shows why it is necessary that these various interest groups be represented at the policy- making level. They are elected at the national level because the majority feels that the minority leaders have a role and contribution to the society. But when the situation arises that only Welsh candidates could win in Wales, only Irish candidates could win in Boston, when only a native candidate can win in a certain district in South Korea and someone from the Nagoya Prefecture alone can win in Nagoya, Japan, then I think, Sir, Singapore must examine this problem. Singapore has managed to achieve its position of all-round success and stability today because we always use our foresight while learning from the universal problems of others. And it is through this foresight that we anticipate as correctly as possible the problems that would occur 5, 10 or 20 years later and come up with the right measures to resolve these problems and implement them with open eyes. So when somebody says that the trend of voting along racial lines is non-existent in Singapore, that the perception that it does exist is an insult to the people of Singapore, that PAP Malay minority candidates have never lost because the people vote for PAP and the party and that the success of the PAP candidate depends on whether the candidate fielded is a grassroots leader or, I quote, a "cut-and-plant" kind of leader, I think there is something really wrong here. There is a Malay proverb which says "Lain hulu, lain parang, Lain dahulu, lain sekarang". It means that something of the past does not necessarily equally apply today. The future might be even more different. We must look ahead with our eyes wide open. If we wait until the grass burns before we rush to dig a well and find a pail to draw water, then I think that will be the end of our village. For Singapore, a fast-changing country and being so fragile, I think this problem is even more dangerous. If the United States which has been firmly upholding the principles and philosophy of democracy faces problems of voting along racial lines, then it is no longer a question of a 'big mistake' in our policy of integrated schools or the practice of reciting the pledge before classes begin - a practice which was introduced in the 60s - but, Sir, it is a universal fact of life. Neither it is a problem of justice, ie, of whether there is justice or injustice, but of how justice, and especially injustice, goes along racial lines. I do not think either the fall in number or percentage of votes for a PAP candidate is simply due to the selection of professionals as our candidates for Parliament. I do not think our Malay colleagues in this House are, I quote, the "cut-and-plant" "supported for five or six years till he grows some roots; come an unlucky day, the wind blows and he falls kind of leader". I do not think we are of that type. Mr Deputy Speaker, some people have said that if we introduce this GRC concept, let us not have a half-sweet or a half-sour orange. But if we fully understand the true aims of this exercise, it seeks to ensure the presence of minority representation in Parliament. So if we want the fruit to be completely sweet or completely sour, this would mean having GRCs in all the 79 constituencies. Divide the number by 3, we have 26 minority representatives. In other words, 33%. What logic is that? Does it really mean that with the GRCs it would be more difficult for Opposition candidates to get into Parliament, particularly Opposition candidates from the minorities? The implementation of the GRC, I think, Mr Deputy Speaker, would not reduce the chances of the Opposition or Independent candidates to win seats in future elections so long as they are capable, they are of high calibre and they use the right strategies. The Member for Potong Pasir knows this and has recognized this as a fact. Mr Deputy Speaker, many of the questions raised on the GRC issue seem to revolve around whether its introduction would, firstly, reduce the proportion of Malay representation in Parliament; secondly, limit the election of Malay candidates to only through the GRCs;and thirdly, erode the effectiveness of Malay MPs in their role inside and outside the House. The first two questions arise out of the conception that there will be only 13 GRCs. I think the answer to the two questions clearly is "No". This is because not all Malay candidates would be standing in the GRCs, and I am sure the number of Malay Muslim/Members of Parliament, which is nine, now would not remain the same all the time. I hope so. But, out of the three questions, the third question is the most important because it has given rise to prejudices and very serious misconceptions. It is serious because it questions the effectiveness and at the same time the integrity and self-respect of our Members of Parliament. Mr Deputy Speaker, in fact, I consider this problem even more serious when I heard people saying, and I quote, "What is the use of being there only to be a stump? You might as well not be there", and added: "If there are to be three, ie, three in the GRCs, I do not think I can see this role being played for the one who will be there will be the "Yes-Sir man." This I quote fully from words uttered. I am even more saddened when I heard some people said that being elected through the GRCs, the Malay candidate would not be effective because he would be elected under the "arm pits" of two other candidates. Some say the implementation of the GRCs would make the Malays complacent to such an extent that efforts towards upgrading their socio-economic status would slacken. I have also heard words to the effect that the GRCs would erode the special position of the Malays under Article 152 of the Constitution because they say the GRCs will bring the Malay MPs to the same status as the other minorities. I do not understand, Sir, how such a conclusion could be made when, as far as we know, Article 152 of the Constitution is still intact and has not been tampered with, and is now slowly being appreciated. Efforts to uplift socio-economic standard of the Malays are gathering momentum and it will continue to progress. I must answer the question on the self-respect and effectiveness of Malay MPs in relation to Malay participation in the Singapore political life today. I am aware of the the advantages offered by the 'politics of accommodation' in contrast to the disadvantages that might later arise from the 'politics of confrontation'. So far it is clear that through this philosophy we have been able to nurture the spirit of compromise that we have practised in the interests of Singapore through consultations and discussions, seeking solutions behind the scene free from the limelight of publicity. But as a result of this the people have become ignorant and are driven to the conclusion that such an approach has made the Malay MPs ineffective. Worse still, we Malay MPs are branded as stumps to be stepped upon by others. The parties to this process, including the top level leaders of the country, know this and are aware of the stand of the Malay Muslim MPs today on the issue of GRCs and, before that, the twin constituency representation mentioned by the First Deputy Prime Minister yesterday and recapitulated this morning by the Minister for the Environment, Dr Ahmad Mattar. Our stand and our feelings are well understood by them.

Order. It is 1.00 pm. I suspend the Sitting now and will take the Chair again at 2.00 pm. Sitting accordingly suspended at 1.00 pm until 2.00 pm Sitting resumed at 2.00 pm

Debate resumed.

( In Malay): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, before the recess, I was mentioning the various reservations of the Malay MPs on the Bill. They have been told how the long-term effects of this Bill need to be studied in detail. I have also replied to allegations that if we Malay MPs are already considered stumps and ineffective now, with the implementation of the GRC we would be in an even worse position. I and, I am sure, my colleagues, the other Malay Muslim MPs believe that this approach politics of accommodation can provide us with a "meaningful participation" towards building a better future for the Malays and Muslims in the context of a multi-racial Singapore. The roles of the Malay Muslim MPs are indeed difficult and challenging. We are faced with twin roles and challenges - as Members of Parliament in multi-racial constituencies with the majority voters being non-Malays and, secondly, as a group committed to the well-being and the interests of the Malay Muslim community in Singapore. But in branding us as passengers, the Member for Potong Pasir and his like-minded people seem to think that we are working for a narrow interest and not the national interest. In fact, they are wrong. They are wrong because they seem to conclude that Malay interests and Malay well-being are always at odds or in conflict with the national well-being and the national interest. Realities, past and present, have shown that it is not so. Granted, there are indeed differences of opinion, aspiration and intention but it does not always mean direct conflict. This is because there is already acceptance that the problems of the Malays in Singapore are national problems. Otherwise, this House and the Cabinet would not have introduced the GRC concept, if there indeed were views that the issue of Malay representation is not a national problem. To those who consider us stumps, living under the arm pits of two other Members or that the GRC would turn us into "yes men", I would like to offer the following reply. If ever such a meaningful involvement and participation is eroded and destroyed by acts of dishonesty, fraud and majority pressure taken based purely on popular cue, then I think we would not allow a sell-out of our self-respect and our honour. If this happens under the GRC system before us, not only will the nine existing constituencies be not represented by Malays, certainly more will be, because our resolve and our position as Malay Muslim MPs will be one. We have emphasized that although we are basically in agreement with the GRC proposal, we have our own reservations but, in the national interest - I emphasize "in the national interest" - since we have no better alternatives to offer, we have accepted this proposal after lengthy discussions. Mr Deputy Speaker, the most important element of this Bill and the necessary constitutional amendments, to me, lies not in its wording. The phrases are important but it is not as important as the spirit and the intention behind it. Even if everything is well-written and perfect, if it is sterile and is not accompanied by the right spirit and honest, sincere intentions, it would lose all meaning altogether. So, Mr Deputy Speaker, in implementing this Bill, the right spirit and sincere intentions must be there and must always be reflected for all times till it stands proven by reality in the eyes of the people. The light that it shines will eliminate any dark prejudices and dispel any doubts that might exist. Mr Deputy Speaker, I am sure that the spirit and good intentions that I mentioned are there in the hearts of our leaders, in particular the Prime Minister and the First Deputy Prime Minister. And it is because of this tenuous belief in this spirit and sincerity that I support this Bill. 2.07 pm

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I would like to join in this very important debate. It is an important debate because the Bill proposes to change the fundamental approach to the election process. I believe everyone of us, every Singaporean, should give careful thought to this Bill and to consider the merits and pitfalls of the introduction of this Bill. I think the key consideration here is to ask whether the Bill will bring forth more stability in our political system. As the Bill is a change to add more stability in Singapore, I think it is a worthwhile Bill to support. As we know, Singapore is a multi-racial society. We cannot run away from the fact that there are always racial undertones in many national issues, especially those affecting the people. This is particularly true in the case when the people are asked to choose the person whom they want to represent them in Parliament. It is only natural that many will choose somebody whom they can relate to, someone whose background, religion, race or interests fit in with their own interests. We should look at the experience of other countries. Many other Members have quoted developing countries. But if we look at the more developed countries which have more than 200-300 years of history like the UK, Canada, India or the US, it is obvious that in these countries; up to the present day, they still have racial and minority community problems. It is quite expected that even in these so-called advanced countries, candidates from minority groups will command a better chance of gaining support from their own minority community. Similarly, candidates from the majority races will also command more votes, and a higher percentage of winning will come from candidates of the majority races. In comparison, we in Singapore have only about 23 years of history since our independence. We have a much larger and more complex race of people. As Singapore progresses, as time goes on, we hope that our people will become more harmonious, more cohesive and united. But why not at this point in time now to introduce a system that can ensure more stability so that there will be minority representation in our Parliament? In terms of the geopolitics in this region, it will also help to add to the comfort of our neighbouring countries if we have a system in place that can guarantee the Malay and other minority races' representation in our Parliament, irrespective of whichever party is in power. This situation, I believe, will contribute to some extent to the stability of Singapore as a nation in this region. We may surely be in a very awkward situation if one day, not by choice or by design, we find that Singapore has a Parliament that is mostly represented by the majority race, and very few or none from the minority races. The surrounding region may treat Singapore in a very different light. Much has been said that the Team MPs concept will lead to racial polarization. In fact, I feel the opposite could be the case. It could be more likely that with the Team MPs concept in place, it will help to eliminate the racial element during elections. That means contesting GRCs will actually have equal profile of representation of candidates, ie, two Chinese and one from the minority group. Therefore, it would be difficult for them to put forth racial issues during the campaigning process. Thus, in contrast, in the single constituencies we may have candidates coming from different races and therefore some candidates may exploit the racial issue and bring forth racial dissatisfaction. The Member for Potong Pasir said that our Malay MPs should, in fact, reject the GRC concept as they will become second-class MPs because they will not enter this Parliament on their own steam. I would say that our Malay colleagues should walk into this Parliament with their heads held high in future under the GRC concept, because they would be entering Parliament linked arm-in-arm with two other Chinese MPs. Together they foster, embrace and symbolize the concept of racial harmony in Singapore. In fact, a Malay candidate will have to work as hard as their Chinese comrades during the campaigning process. In addition, when they become MPs they will have a much heavier role to play because, besides being an MP covering normal MP duties, they will have to attend to Malay issues. I would not agree with the Member for Potong Pasir who said that our Malay MPs are second-class MPs. In fact, given the heavier load, they are super-class MPs. Lastly, I would like to touch on one point in the Bill which states that the GRC will continue to function until all the three MPs are no longer holding office. In a situation where only one MP is left, I believe the burden on him to soldier on is rather heavy. In addition, as the majority of the MPs, ie, two out of three, are no longer in office, it can actually argue that this one single MP can no longer represent the GRC in which he is voted. In this case, I suggest perhaps we should consider whether we should allow a by-election to take place automatically in the case where two out of three MPs are not holding office. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, this Bill before us, I believe, is a very bold and innovative one. It will also require a very bold and innovative nation to accept the reality that Singapore is a multi-racial country, that it is in our interest, in fact, the interest of all races, to have in our Parliament a multi-racial representation. With this principle in mind, I would like to support this Bill.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the large number of Members of this House who have spoken in this debate testify to both the importance of the subject and the attention it has attracted in Singapore. Undoubtedly, the electoral process is a vital link in the political framework of any country for it determines the manner in which people choose their parliamentary representatives from whom the government is formed. Underlying the GRC proposal is the concern for the long-term future of our country. That concern is over the possibility that the political stability and harmony we have today will not be sustained over time. And without political stability, there will be confusion and chaos. Worse, it may bring about racial conflicts, a common occurrence in a number of countries today. Before the debate in this House took place, many grassroots leaders and other residents have discussed the GRC proposal. Many views have been expressed and it seems that some have not truly grasped the essence of the proposal. Perhaps it was because the Team MP concept was first raised together with the town council which has been set up. The town council concept is different and, as the 1DPM pointed out yesterday, is not an incompatible objective, allowing residents a greater role in managing their estates. It was, therefore, helpful to have this point clarified yesterday. I think more detailed explanations would be useful in removing any doubts. We cannot alter the fact that Singapore is a multi-racial and multi-religious society. As we seek to extend the common ground, that is the use of the English language, national service, the education system in order to forge a stronger sense of national identity, it is nevertheless rosy idealism to think that our population will become homogeneous with time. As the Member for Changkat pointed out yesterday, it is a plus point to have a rich and diverse cultural heritage and this is one of the cornerstones of our nation building. Even in developed countries, linguistic and religious differences still give rise to tension and conflicts from time to time. Yesterday, the Member for Potong Pasir referred to the USA as a melting pot and he wanted us to emulate the example set in the States. But we know that the United States is a vast country. The various minority groups can be found in different parts of the country. You have the Irish in Boston, the Jews in Brooklyn, the Scandinavians in Minnesota, Hispanics in California and Texas, and Asians in Hawaii. Have they truly integrated as one society, as one people? The Irish in Boston are known to be the strong supporters of the IRA Movement in Ireland. And, of course, the Jewish lobby is the most powerful group, the pressure group, in the United States because of their financial power and presence in the financial sector. The black caucus is found in all the big cities and there are a large number of black mayors in the cities. And each of these minority groups sends their favourite sons to Congress. Do we want to emulate their example where Little India in Singapore would elect an Indian MP, Chinatown would elect a Cantonese MP and Telok Ayer a Hokkien-speaking MP? Do we want to go back to the Singapore of 30 or 40 years ago? So it is putting the clock back when he made reference to the melting pot of the United States. What the United States' example has shown us is that there is no simple solution in spite of the many affirmative actions taken to promote the interests of the minority groups. Sir, delegates to the conferences organized by the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association will recognize that in many countries in the Commonwealth the parliamentary system is based on the Westminster model. However, many variations in parliamentary institutions, procedures and practices have evolved in these countries. In some instances, their parliamentary institutions and procedures have been similar to those developed at Westminister. In other cases, new practices have evolved in response to the challenges and problems of the time. Britain after all has had 300 years of fairly stable political history and a relatively long period of industrialization and economic development. It is not difficult to see why some of these institutions and practices may not be the most appropriate in other settings. For example, the British bicameral system developed because of the social and economic class systems from the 1200s to the 1700s. One Chamber represented the powerful land-holding elite while the other Chamber the commoners. But in a number of countries, a second Chamber has not been instituted because the population is too small or because there is no strong class- based society or they feel that there is no need for what they call "sober second thoughts" on any legislation. Another example is the Legislative-Executive relations. In the British model, the Executive comes from and is responsible to the Legislature. However, Cyprus, Sri Lanka, Tanzania and Zambia opted for an Executive led by a directly elected President who is not an MP. And, except for Cyprus, the other cabinet members of the three countries must be MPs. Although single-member constituencies are the rule in many countries, there are quite a few examples of multiple MP systems. In the case of Falkland Islands, two-member district elections are held for the legislative council. And in the Tasmanian Parliament, several members represent the same constituency. It can therefore be seen that the multiple member constituency is not a new concept and it is up to each country to define and fine-tune the electoral process best suited to its circumstances. It has been said that the PAP wants to ensure complete domination of Parliament because one strong candidate in a GRC may pull up the overall number of votes and allow the other two candidates to get in. However, this could work for both sides, whether it is the PAP or the other parties. The system itself is perfectly neutral and there is no inherent reason for the PAP to enjoy an unfair advantage in this way. It is up to the voters to decide which team can best represent them and articulate their interest in Parliament and look after their constituency. Another criticism of the GRC is that the Team MPs may be less effective than one single MP. In the case of a single-Member constituency, there is a one-to-one relationship. The constituents can identify with him more readily. The Member of Parliament is many things to many people - a counsellor, advisor, consultant and perhaps the head of the local feedback channel. And it is said that the links between the residents and MPs may be diffused or weakened if there are three in each case. However, what is needed is proper coordination and sharing of the workload and with it a team of three MPs can provide a strong link to all aspects of constituency activities, and collectively and separately articulate the interests of the people they represent. There are at the same time other compensating benefits. The collective wisdom, capability and experience of the team must surpass that of a single MP and, given the multi-racial composition of each constituency, the understanding of and insight into any problem will be greater. Some people have called for a referendum before implementing the change. Besides the cost factor, the nature and implications of a referendum may not be perfectly understood by all. Therefore, there is a need for the Government to explain why the referendum is not necessary in this case. It is noteworthy that the system is still first- past-the-post and the party that wins the majority of the seats will form the government. There is no change in this respect. Each voter is given one vote. And this is in line with the concept of one-man-one-vote. In every general election, constituency boundaries have been re-demarcated following movements and shifts in population. Changes in the electoral boundary are nothing new. In essence, the voter is given the choice of two teams instead of two individuals. Nothing has been taken away from him. Some have suggested proportional representation to ensure a multi-racial Parliament. The fact is that proportional representation will give rise to divisive and disruptive activities. Candidates will tend to emphasize sectional interest at the expense of national interest, making extreme demands to gain popular support. Debate will become more emotionally charged and there is a very real risk that political stability would be undermined and not protected. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, in order to gain cohesion and strength in Singapore, a multi-racial Parliament and a multi-racial candidature should be guaranteed. The GRC can do this without adverse consequences. Let us take an objective and long-term view and recognize the special constraints of a multi-racial society and ensure Singapore will continue to make steady progress into the 1990s and beyond.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I rise to support the Bill before us. Sir, the high level of inter-racial harmony which we enjoy in Singapore today is not due to chance or to an act of providence. I am sure we all remember the horrors that we went through during the racial violence in 1964 and remember the many innocent lives that were sacrificed. Since then, 24 years ago, the PAP Government has been resolute and very cautious not to let racial violence break out again. With multi-racial policy and practice, we have succeeded for 24 years. Can we succeed for another 24 years? The answer is yes we can, if we continue to vote for multi-racialism and we do not take multi-racial harmony for granted or slip into complacency. Sir, I regard inter-racial harmony as essentially a fragile balance of the positive and negative forces that exist in a multi-racial community. There is a threshold to this balance which can be triggered off when put to the test. Yesterday and this morning many speakers referred to several countries such as Sri Lanka, Fiji, Cyprus where we saw the consequences of such a test. Even in the country like the United States which has 200 years of nationhood, there is a threshold to their inter-racial relationship. This was triggered off in the 1960s by the civil rights activities resulting in racial clashes. In Singapore, President Herzog's visit was such a test of the fragility of our multi-racial harmony. We went through an open and soul-searching examination of the sensitive issues involving our Malay citizens. In summary, our threshold was high. We passed the test but at the same time it also revealed cracks, albeit hairline cracks in our racial harmony. I was interested to learn from several speakers yesterday that there are countries with already existing communal representation in Parliament or legislative assembly and yet affected by racial strife, eg, Cyprus, Sri Lanka and Fiji. This shows that you have to do very much more than just having minority representation in Parliament to bring about lasting racial harmony. Having representation in Parliament is only the first basic step but it must not stop there. In Singapore, our experience is different. We have multi-racial representation in Parliament for more than a quarter of a century and we do not have the legislative mechanism to ensure this. We were able to do this because the PAP has been a dominant party for more than a quarter of a century and because the PAP practises multi-racial policy. And today the PAP Government, through this Act, is enshrining in the Constitution what has been in practice for more than a quarter of a century. It is putting a basic step that should have been put in the first place much earlier on, perhaps after the racial riots in 1964. Sir, yesterday the Member for Potong Pasir stated that he is against the GRC because it will promote racialism and communalism. And he went on to say that although he felt the system did not disadvantage him, he would nonetheless totally reject it for the sake of nation- building and to prevent racialism. This is a serious statement indeed. But is he really sincere about it? If he is, then I would really like to know whether he would stand as a candidate for Potong Pasir in the next general elections if Potong Pasir is designated as a GRC. If he does, will he not, according to what he said yesterday, be promoting racialism? In this respect, may I ask the First Deputy Prime Minister what is the criteria for selecting GRCs, in particular GRCs with Malay candidates? Will this selection be reviewed if there is a shift in the population composition and, if so, the regularity of such a review? In conclusion, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the Government and the PAP, by institutionalizing multi-racial harmony is taking only one step to guarantee such harmony is maintained. We must still continue with our existing policies and practices which also ensure and promote such harmony, eg, meritocracy as a pillar of our society, the promotion of the cultures and linguistic values of our racial and ethnic groups, the promotion and the encouragement of religious tolerance and the continuing policies of HDB and SAF to achieve racial integration in the housing estates and national servicemen respectively. In addition, we should continue to encourage open discussion of sensitive issues. This will serve to strengten rather than weaken our multi-racial harmony, promote racial integration and tolerance in schools and perhaps having exchange programmes amongst students of different ethnic groups during the school vacation. Finally, at grassroots level, we must promote activities that can achieve more racial integration. We should strive for multi-racial harmony, a very noble objective which we cannot afford to overlook or to be complacent about.

( In Malay): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the Government has introduced the GRC concept to ensure multi-racialism in politics in Singapore. We all know that the Government and the PAP have always been aware of the importance of this and several measures have been launched and policies enunciated to ensure that multi-racial politics exist in Singapore and that harmonious inter-racial relationship will always remain. Yesterday, the First Deputy Prime Minister explained in detail the Government's intention to ensure that Parliament will always have multi-racial representation. Whoever has any doubts about his explanation should read and examine in depth the real objectives that he has expounded. I think this is a good proposal and should be supported by all parties in the interest of our society, our nation, not only for the present but also for the future. Many arguments have been put forward yesterday and today and I do not wish to repeat them and bore Members by doing so. But I would like to seek clarification on, firstly, how the constituencies would be selected. Would the Government base its choice on existing constituencies where the Members of Parliament are from the minorities or take into consideration the distribution of residents after a resettlement, for instance, in the northern districts like Ang Mo Kio, Yishun and also districts in the West like Jurong, Jurong East, Jurong West and so on? This is necessary because some have raised questions and think that there will only be 13 GRCs in the existing constituencies with minority MPs. I think clarification is necessary so that all involved, particularly the voters, will understand and will be able to consider it and provide the necessary feedback to the relevant people before the implementation. I wish to call upon, in particular, the Malay community to support this proposal. So far we have been able to work together with all communities, with all sectors of the community. This proposal is to guarantee Malay representation, the objective being to ensure that the interests of minority communities will be duly looked after by the Government. I think this proposal is one that is rarely implemented in other countries; and when the majority community, besides looking after national interests, consider the interests of the other communities as well. We have seen evidence of the advantages, of the sincerity of the Government in providing facilities for the benefit of our community, whether in terms of education, collection through CPF of contributions for the construction of mosques or other matters which involve the interests of our community in Singapore. Therefore, I wish once again to assure those who have lingering doubts about GRC but who still want multi- racialism. How should we effect it, if the GRC is unsatisfactory? What are the other, better alternatives? To me, in the absence of credible alternatives, I think this is the best and we should support it. 2.40 pm

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I rise to support the Bill standing in the name of the First Deputy Prime Minister. Sir, since independence, the representation in this Chamber has always reflected the various segments of our society. First and foremost, its numbers reflect the composition of the various races in our society. It reflects the views of business and represents the interest of unions. It has a mix of academics as well as professionals. The numbers also reflect the age structure in our society. More recently, it is beginning to make attempts to represent a very important half of our population. This attempt is being reflected by our honourable colleagues from Ulu Pandan, Changkat and Yuhua. This continuing objective of constituting a Parliament to reflect all segments of our society did not come by chance. It came as a result of a conscious effort of the ruling party - a point sorely missed by the Member for Potong Pasir and critics alike. Sir, the legislation before this House represents the most profound change to our Constitution and election process since our independence. The core of it is that we should not continue to leave this to chance, but to institutionalize minority race representation in this Chamber. Critics may scoff with derision at what is popularly known as the Team MP concept but, as the Member for Whampoa has pointed out this morning, none has criticized the imperative of a multi-racial Parliament. With external influences and world trends indicating increasing polarization of the electoral process, this Bill is a very realistic attempt to nip the problem in the bud. It is naive to think that such a sensitive problem can be easily resolved once the majority race has gained absolute control of Parliament. In addition to the several arguments raised by my colleagues in support of this Bill, I would like to look at GRCs from a slightly different angle. In a one-man-one-vote system, and where the majority votes prevail, the minority groups must view this as a serious attempt by the government to curb or curtail the rights of the majority so as to safeguard minority interests. It is a curb of majority rights as it sets the maximum number of seats to be gained by the majority race. The number is actually the total number of seats less the number of GRCs. In an election, minority race candidates can contest in all constituencies and in any number. A Chinese candidate coming from the majority race cannot do so. In fact, if Opposition parties field successful candidates from the minority races in single-seat constituencies, it may be argued that it will lead to an under-representation of the majority in Parliament. To the majority, they must come round to the view that such a sacrifice on their part will lead to the enhancement of their overall interests. Only a stable and harmonious society will lead to our improved well-being. This balancing legislation hence seeks to enhance an overall improvement, and mathematicians like to call this a non-zero sum situation. The overall effect is a positive gain with some sacrifice from all parties. This aim of moving forward together is, in fact, the cornerstone of the philosophy of this Government, be it in education, economic or social fields. In my view, this Bill actually emphasizes the importance of the minority races. It imposes on the majority to take them into consideration. No serious political party can afford to field a group of three candidates with token representation by anyone other than a serious candidate from the minority race. With education and increasing electoral awareness, such a grouping with token representation must fail. In fact, we can go further to say that once minority representation in Parliament is assured, it must lead to less rather than more polarization of the races as some critics have charged. Nevertheless, the introduction of this Bill has offended the sensitivities of some in the minority races. It has also offended a large segment of the population who sees this as nothing more than an attempt by the Government to hamper the Opposition parties. The public's sense of fair play dictates that the system must be left as it stands. Despite the excellent presentation of the First Deputy Prime Minister in moving this Bill yesterday, we must make concerted efforts to educate the public on the motivations and objectives of this Bill. I therefore welcome the fact that this Bill will be referred to a Select Committee. This Bill, when passed, will have wide ramifications and during its implementation, we must not only be fair but seen to be fair. There are a number of possibilities. We can limit the number of GRCs to a very small number in the first election after the passage of this Bill. Secondly, early and advance knowledge of the electoral boundaries of the GRCs will give the electorate time to digest the practical effects. This will also give all political parties time to organize. Lastly, as this goes towards solving a long-term problem, I think there is no urgency to include a constituency with an incumbent Opposition member in any GRC. I refer to the Potong Pasir Constituency. In this, I support a similar view raised by the Member for Whampoa. All these measures will go a long way towards countering the popular view that this is not just another machination of the PAP. The public's sense of fair play may tilt the balance in favour of opposing views if not properly countered. We can ill afford the backlash as a result of a well-intentioned but much maligned piece of legislation. 2.45 pm

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I thank all Members of Parliament for their constructive criticisms and contributions and also for their overwhelming support for the Bill. Twenty-eight MPs have spoken, 14 yesterday and 14 today. Twenty-seven hon. Members fully support the Bill, one opposes. Some of those who supported the Bill have expressed certain reservations over certain areas or raised certain questions. I shall answer them later. All non-Chinese MPs who have spoken supported the Bill. This is very significant. They reflect the sentiments of the minority communities. They tell us that they want their rights of equality under the Constitution to be reflected in a multi-racial Parliament. They recognize that although under the Constitution they are equal, the vagaries of the electoral system may result in their being under-represented or in some circumstances not represented in Parliament. This Bill and the Constitution (Amendment) Bill will rectify this flaw in the present electoral system, ie, remove any possibility of the system resulting in one community either grossly under-represented or not represented in Parliament. The Member for Potong Pasir, who unfortunately is not here this afternoon, quoted history to show that Malays have always been elected into Parliament. I was going to suggest to him that he should borrow a crystal ball because we are not talking about history. We are trying to anticipate a problem in the future: will there or will there not be a problem in the future? Every election brings about some 200,000 first-time voters onto the electoral register. By the next election, every one in two voters would be those who were either not born in 1965 or were under 10 years old in 1965. These voters have no experience whatsoever of how Singapore had come about, the difficulties that we faced, the communal riots, the tensions in the country in the early years of Singapore. It is a matter of political judgment whether these voters would vote a party slate of candidates that is racially balanced or pick candidates on their personal attributes. It is a matter of political judgment - reading of trends and how we see the trend will evolve in the future. On matters of political judgment I would back the Prime Minister anytime as against the judgment of the Member for Potong Pasir. In a sense the problem we are discussing is a result of our own successful policy of multi-racialism. In the 1960s there were several constituencies which could be called Malay constituencies because they had a sizeable Malay population, constituencies like Kampong Ubi, Kampong Kembangan and Geylang Serai. The Malays there were dominant in numbers and the Government had a choice of either preserving these constituencies or resettle them into six or seven constituencies where Malays would again be dominant, or to spread them over Singapore where the Malays could be integrated with the population in the country. The problem was discussed with the then Malay MPs, former MPs like Othman Wok, Haji Ya'acob, and Rahim Ishak. After some years of deliberations, the Government decided, with the support of the then Malay MPs, that it is in the interest of the Malay community and the interest of the country that the Malay population in these areas should be integrated with the larger population. In other words, no separate enclaves for each community but spread them out all over Singapore where they can be integrated into the mainstream of life. The consequence of this is, no single constituency in Singapore today can boast of a sizeable proportion of Malay constituents that can guarantee them election of a Malay representative into Parliament. We have therefore to recognize this and make right the result of a successful multi-racial policy, and that is the purpose of the Bill - to ensure that there would always be a multi-racial representation in Parliament. Although many points have been brought up by Members, in essence there are only two issues facing us. One is the principle, the other the mechanism or the details. On principle, the question is whether or not we should make provision in our Constitution and in our Parliamentary Elections Act to ensure that Parliament would always be multi-racial. That is a question of principle. On this there is total agreement, even from the Member for Potong Pasir. The agreement is unanimous. We are a multi-racial society and all Members of Parliament here support this principle that there should be multi-racial representation in Parliament. The question is how? So we narrow our debate down to one issue, how to do it? We suggest that Group Representation is the best way to do it. If you do not agree, then you suggest a better alternative. That is the issue which we are now discussing, not the principle of multi-racialism because we are all agreed on that, but whether GRCs or Group Representation Constituencies offer the best way of doing it. We think so. We have gone through several models practised by other countries. We have spent several years thinking about this problem. We think Team MPs elected by Group Representation Constituencies is the best way for us to solve this problem. The Member for Potong Pasir does not think so.But has he offered a single suggestion on how we can entrench the right of the minority communities to be represented in Parliament? Not a single suggestion from him. Not a single suggestion to improve on the details of the workings of the formula which we have offered. Since some Members of Parliament, like the Member for Kebun Baru, have weighed several models or alternatives against GRCs, I do not propose to examine them in detail over here. I will go through very quickly the reasons why we have rejected some of these proposals. First, we can always nominate Malays or Indians if they are under-represented in Parliament after an election into Parliament. We rejected it. Not democratic because they are not elected by the people. It is against the principle of democracy. Next, we can reserve certain constituencies for Malay candidates. Problem: we accentuate communalism. The Malays will always appeal to Malays and their sentiments for support. They would be living in separate enclaves. They would not be integrated into the mainstream of life in Singapore. So again, we rejected this idea. Communal representatives to be elected by members of the community, as suggested by PKMS. Again rejected, because that is communal-based voting. Each community elects members of its own community. If we do this for the Malays, we have to do it for the Indians, and others. We have to do it for the Chinese. Then we slip into the Cyprus model where the Greeks elect Greeks, the Turks elect Turks. What is the result? The result is eventual partition of the country because, in order to be elected into Parliament, the candidates will have to appeal to the emotions, to the gut feelings of the people within their own community. If you are a Greek and you want to be elected by the Greek community, you have to be more Greek than other Greeks. You try and show accommodation to the Turks, you will not win any election. If you are a Muslim and a Turk and you want to be elected to represent the Turkish community, you have got to be more Muslim, more Turk, than any other Turkish candidates, otherwise you will not be elected. Again, this solution was quickly rejected by us. In fact, the PKMS, or the Singapore Malay National Organization (that is the English name for PKMS), went one step further. They suggest that the Malay community should have two votes, one to vote a national MP (who can be a Chinese, Indian or Malay) and another vote to elect Members from the Malay community to represent them. Is that fair? One community two votes? And again, the second vote will result in the Malay MPs taking a communal line because to represent the community they have got to prove that they are more Malay than other Malays. All MPs in Singapore will have to represent all constituents, not constituents belonging to one community alone. So the PKMS suggestion is not applicable to a multi-racial society. Proportional representation. It has the same effect as voting along communal line. Very quickly you will have a Malay-based party, an Indian-based party and a Chinese-based party, because each party can get a certain number of votes and they would enter Parliament through proportional representation. In essence there are two approaches to our problem. One is to have communal-based parties or communal-based elections to ensure multi-racial representation in Parliament, and the other, which is our proposal, to have a multi-racial team of candidates voted in by a multi-racial electorate. That is our proposal, a multi-racial team of candidates to be voted by the electorate comprising Chinese, Malays, Indians and other communities, a multi-racial approach. We know that the GRC, whilst it is the most appropriate solution to our problem, is not ideal. It is still not perfect. We do not claim that it is a perfect solution. Hence, I can understand the reservations raised by Members of Parliament and I shall now deal with the major reservations raised by Members. How would GRCs work in practice? What is the status of Members of Parliament? All candidates on the team in the GRC will be elected as a group. So all of them will be Members of Parliament for the entire GRC. Their status will be Members of Parliament for that GRC. There will be three Members of Parliament. They are expected to serve all constituents in the large constituency. In practice, however, after a general election, if the GRC is won by the PAP, we will divide the GRC which is about the size of three constituencies into three separate areas. Each of the three MPs can be appointed as an advisor to the grassroots organization in an area. For example, if Marine Parade, Joo Chiat and Kampong Kembangan were to be grouped as a GRC called Katong GRC, I, Dr Yeoh Ghim Seng and Yatiman Yusof will have to serve the Katong GRC. I can be appointed as Advisor to Marine Parade, Yatiman to Kampong Kembangan area because it is no more a constituency, and Dr Yeoh Ghim Seng to Joo Chiat. We will rotate the appointment after 18 months so that while I am the Advisor to Marine Parade in the first 18 months, in the next 18 months I will move over to Joo Chiat. Somebody else will move over to my place. This way you will not end up in a situation where there are too many cooks spoiling the soup, and you can pinpoint responsibility on a particular MP, because for those 18 months he is the Member of Parliament with primary responsibility for that area. Of course, he has secondary responsibility elsewhere. He cannot not serve the constituents from the other areas. He is their Member of Parliament but he has primary responsibility for one area. That is how I see the GRCs working in practice. How will the GRCs be selected? This is a question of detail which, I think, we should leave it to the Elections Department or the Electoral Boundaries Delineation Committee that will be set up to see how GRCs would be selected from existing constituencies. I would expect that GRCs will come from areas where the Malay community would be sizeable in numbers. That is one criterion. But I think it is also possible that you do not just look for the top 13 constituencies with the highest number of Malays in them because you do want to spread the GRCs all over Singapore. You may have GRCs in Ang Mo Kio, GRCs in Sembawang, GRCs in Tampines, Bedok and Jurong. That is my expectation. But that is a matter of detail which we can leave to the appropriate committee later on. There was a comment that whilst a team is selected on a multi-racial slate, after the election, should the minority Member vacate his seat for whatever reason and we are not providing for by-election, that team would not have a multi-racial team. Should we have a by-election or should we not have a by-election to fill that post? Bear in mind that GRCs are meant to ensure a multi-racial Parliament, not a multi-racial team in the constituency. I do not expect in practice that all 13 - should we opt for 13 in number - MPs from the minorities would vacate the seat for one reason or other. I think it is unlikely. We will not want to provide for by-election to replace somebody who has vacated his office and there is a reason for this. If you provide for compulsory by-election to fill that vacancy, you are introducing the possibility that one MP can hold the other two to ransom. The minority candidate, for example, can hold the other two to ransom because if he resigns both the other MPs would have to resign with him. I do not think you want to allow that to happen. All three MPs were elected by the people. If one resigns, so be it, or even if two retire, for whatever reason. If both MPs were to vacate office, the other one who has been duly elected by the people, should remain. Otherwise you introduce the possibility of an MP using his position on the GRC or on the team to extract concessions from the other Members. This is to be discouraged. The Member for Bo Wen noted that some Indians were a little unhappy that their community has not been mentioned in the definition. We can provide for that, not here, but at the Select Committee. We can look at the definition and if it makes the Indians happier - it is a sizeable community in Singapore, about 6% - I think we can still recognize that. The Malay Members of Parliament who were primarily concerned with the definition of members of the Malay community were in full support of the move to provide for multi-racial representation in Parliament. I have noted that each and every MP from the Malay community who spoke supported the scheme. Even Dr Ahmad Mattar who had his reservations - and these are reservations of an honest man, honestly spoken - came round to supporting the concept of GRC because he recognizes that there is no other way if you want first-time Malay candidates to be elected in the 1990s and the years beyond. Should we include in our definition that a member of the Malay community must profess the religion of Islam? We can understand the desire of the Malays to have Islam included in the definition. To them, to be a Malay you must be a Muslim. The two must go together. That is how the community feels. But this is not a new issue. It was settled in 1966 by the Constitutional Commission established to formulate constitutional safeguards for the minority groups. At that point of time, in 1966, many political organizations urged the Commission to define Malays as in the Constitution of Malaysia which basically means to include Islam in the definition. The Commission rejected this, and I quote: 'It would be inappropriate and indeed inconsistent that there should be any provision in the Constitution of a democratic secular state such as Singapore expressly singling out a particular religion for special treatment of this nature.' For this reason, Article 152 of the Constitution of Singapore which relates to minorities in Singapore and the special position of the Malays does not equate Malays with Islam. If you look up the Constitution there is no reference to Islam or for that matter any other religion in the Constitution. The aim of this Bill before the House is to ensure multi-racial and not multi-religious representation. Hence, we use the term "Malay community", not "Muslim community". Under the definition, whether a person belongs to the Malay community or not will be left to members of the Malay community, out of which a Committee will be set up to decide. If the Committee feels strongly that to be a member of the Malay community you must be a Muslim, that Committee can so decide. We leave it to the Committee and the Committee's decision will be final. Anyway, the Bill has been referred to Select Committee and we can see how we can improve on the definition of Malays or members of the Malay community in the Bill. We look forward to to suggestions by Members over here as well as members of the public on this particular point. Although the Member for Potong Pasir is not here, I think I should still meet some of his criticisms head on. First, we all know that he supports the principle of multi- racialism. The question then is whether he has a better alternative for us to ensure that Parliament will always be multi-racial. That is the question. Has he or has he not got a better alternative? It is not whether he rejects GRCs or not but whether he has or has not got a better alternative than GRCs. I was going to ask him: if he supports multi-racialism, would he pledge to field a multi-racial slate of candidates in the next election? That is the test. There is no use saying, "I support multi-racialism." The test is in the deeds. Would you change your constitution to reflect this point in the party's objectives? Would you field a multi-racial slate of candidates in the next election? Yes, we recognize that this Bill will disadvantage the Opposition. It will, because the Opposition in the present state would not be able to field a multi-racial or a credible multi-racial team in more than one or two Group Representation Constituencies. They are going to be disadvantaged. But is it our fault that they are so weak, that they cannot get together? It is not our job to nurture an Opposition. It is their job to build themselves up and the way for them to build themselves up is to merge if each party is weak. I can see the effect of this Bill already. Maybe not so good for the PAP but certainly good for the country. The newspapers reported the Singapore United Front as having merged with the Workers' Party. Maybe the Party has become stronger. Maybe some MPs here are unhappy that that Party has become stronger because now it is a combined force - the Workers' Party and the Singapore United Front. But for the country that is a positive movement. You force two parties to merge in order to meet a new situation and I would urge the Member for Potong Pasir to negotiate with the Singapore Malay National Organisation to see whether or not they can merge. Then in the next election they would have candidates from the Malay community standing on a new party ticket, perhaps on SDP ticket or on a PKMS ticket. That is for them to sort out. What is the advantage for us if they do merge? It forces PKMS to take a non-communal line. At the moment, that Party takes a communal line. Its job is to represent Malay interests only. If this Bill has the effect of forcing them to merge with a non-Malay Party, I think it is a positive step even though the SDP may become stronger and take one whole GRC or several GRCs from the PAP. That is not our primary concern. Our concern is to ensure that there will be long-term political stability where parties fight, contend on moderate multi-racial ground. And if Opposition parties can so merge and become a stronger Opposition as a result, we may see the beginning of a two-party system in Singapore or if not a two-party system, at least a PAP and a more credible Opposition party. Then the level of debate in this House will be raised. We will not be talking about silly proposals or silly issues but real issues, real exchanges in debate and solutions offered if the Opposition thinks that the policy of the Government is wrong. I know that the public thinks that this scheme is to fix the Opposition so that the PAP can win all seats in the next election. I can disabuse them of this very easily. There are still going to be at least 40 single-member constituencies at the next elections. So there will be plenty of seats, even for those parties that cannot merge to field a GRC team to stand for election at the next general elections. 40 single-member constituencies can include Potong Pasir and it can also include Anson, had the Member for Potong Pasir not chickened out of Anson in October 1981. We allow the Opposition the choice of retaining Potong Pasir as a single-member constituency. The Opposition Member also advanced, in my view, the rather silly argument that this scheme is to ensure that we win all the seats the next time so that we will be in an overwhelming position to pass through the proposal to have an elected President. There is no need to do so. We now have more than two-thirds the number in this House to pass this particular Bill. Anyway, election is not due until 1989, plenty of time for us to have a proper discussion on the question of an elected President before an election is called. Several Members of Parliament urged upon me to answer the question of a felt need for referendum. Whilst the Bill has been referred to Select Committee, they urged me that I should answer this question to convince the public why we do not need a referendum. I think we should think a little deeper on this question before we freely call for referendum. Maybe by way of illustration, I can look at the Sri Lankan example. The Sri Lankan Parliament on November 12th approved the constitutional amendment to grant the Tamil minority limited autonomy in the North and Eastern provinces or districts, setting up provincial councils, and elevating Tamil to a second official language. The opposition demanded that such an important issue must be put to referendum. The government wisely did not put this issue to referendum. The Sinhalese form 74% of the population, Tamils 18%. To put this issue to referendum, what is the likely outcome? I think the likely outcome would be that the government would have been defeated. And how does that solve the problem of bringing peace to Sri Lanka? How does that improve upon the accord that has been reached between the Indian government and the Sri Lankan government? The purpose of going to referendum is to get a "yes" or "no" answer. Let us say we put the GRC concept or Team MP concept to a referendum, to be decided by the people. If the outcome is going to be a "yes", why do it? Incurring unnecessary costs just to get a "yes" for it. If the outcome is "no" which, in my view, is unlikely, but let us assume the outcome is "no", what are we telling members of the minority communities in Singapore? We are telling them that as a majority community in Singapore - because I think the Chinese will swing the votes - we do not have to make provision for the fears, the sentiments, the interests of the minority communities. The Chinese in Singapore form 76%. If the referendum is a "no", it must be because the Chinese in Singapore vote against the GRC system. And any way, all of us are agreed that we should look for ways to enhance multi-racialism. So the question is, how does a referendum help you to look for a better solution? It tells you "no", it tells you "yes", to go ahead or not to go ahead. But how does it improve upon the scheme that we have? It does not. The way forward is as we have done - refer the Bill to Select Committee. In a Select Committee, members of the public can through the Select Committee examine the Bill, the details of the Bill, the clauses, under a microscope. In Select Committee there is still a chance, a possibility for changes, for a better alternative to be suggested to the GRC. That is the way forward, and that is the way we have taken, referring the Bill to a Select Committee and not putting it to referendum which serves no useful purpose in this case. The Chairman of the Feedback Committee, the Member for Ayer Rajah, told this House that some members of the public felt that we were tinkering with the parliamentary system. Now, I object quite strongly to the word "tinkering" because that has got negative suggestion. I do not think we are "tinkering" with the system. We are making improvements to a system based on 22 years of experience working it. We are trying to remove a weakness in our system to ensure that Parliament never ends up with one community under-represented, or worse, that Parliament never ends up with only one community in this House. So we are making improvements to the system. We are making changes to enhance multi-racialism which is in our long-term political interests. I do not have to go into a critique of the weakness of the Westminster model of democracy for us because some Members of Parliament have adequately dealt with this question. But again, by way of illustration as to what can happen with this system, let me cite Sri Lanka again. I know it might not be 100% fair to use Sri Lanka as an example because our two societies are different. The Tamils and Sinhalese in Sri Lanka have centuries of rivalry, even enmity, between them. We do not have that between the Malays, the Indians and Chinese in Singapore. But nevertheless, what has happened in Sri Lanka provides useful lessons for us. The crux of the problem is in Sri Lanka the system has resulted in the majority community, which is a Sinhalese community, ending up lording it over a minority community, which is a Tamil community. Sri Lanka gained its independence in 1948. At elections thereafter, the Sinhalese captured more than two-thirds the number of seats in Parliament. With that kind of majority, the Tamil minority could do nothing to stop any policy that the government wanted to implement. So the government made Sinhala the only official language. It introduced a quota system whereby access to higher education was controlled. Before that, there were far too many Tamils entering university, so Parliament allowed the government to restrict the number - standardization as they called it - so that you had more Sinhalese entering university as compared to Tamils, not necessarily on the basis of merit. Could the Tamil minority do anything? They could not because they had less than one-third the number of seats in Parliament. And estate Tamils had their votes taken away from them. There are two kinds of Tamils in Sri Lanka - Jaffna Tamils, that is Tamils who had settled in Sri Lanka long, long ago; and estate Tamils, those who came from India to work at the tea plantations. The estate Tamils were disenfranchised. Their votes were taken away from them. So the Tamil minority never had a chance to make their views felt in Parliament. They could say what they liked, but they had no power in Parliament to change the course of events dictated by the majority community. Sri Lanka gained its independence in 1948. The first major outbreak of communal violence took place 10 years later, in 1958. The next major outbreak occurred in August 1977. In 1983, a violent war broke out between Tamil separatists and government forces. In 1987, Indian troops intervened. So on 12th November 1987, a new Bill was passed in Parliament. An amendment was made to the Constitution to make Tamil an official language, to set up provincial councils in a unified North and Eastern Tamil area. President Jayewardene wrote to our Prime Minister on 26th November 1987. Our Prime Minister circulated the letter to other Cabinet colleagues. I thought it was a touching letter. I thought the sentiments expressed in that letter contained a lesson for us. So I wrote to the Prime Minister asking him whether he could ask President Jayewardene to give me permission to quote extracts of his letter. I have the permission of President Jayewardene to do so. And I quote from his letter of 26th November 1987 to our Prime Minister: 'All our earlier constitutions had assumed homogeneity and uniformity in the society when the realities were otherwise and hardly warranted the assumption. As might be expected, the realities asserted themselves and did so in a manner that communally diverted key postulates of a democratic society. Majority vote became the voting power of communal majorities, driving minorities increasingly outside mainstream politics into politics aimed increasingly at their own communal electorates. Not only did the country become entrapped in the divisiveness of such politics but also the party system, one-man-one-vote, representative institutions, the principle of the greatest happiness of the greatest number, all cherished features of democratic systems recording centuries of evolution and maturation, became norms subverted in the reality, virtually keys turning the wrong side in the lock. It is a pity, of course, that the realism and pragmatism that contributed to this evolution of the constitutional setting for national political life in a plural society did not come earlier. But my sorrow is tempered by the realisation that the very bitterness of the fruit has taught us the lesson. Most important, it has helped us to give effect to measures of constitutional reform which, I believe, strengthen our unitary system by enhancing its responsiveness to the realities of our society and by expanding the frontiers of democracy through the mechanisms created for more participatory politics.' So wrote President Jayewardene to our Prime Minister. The President has lived for a long time. He was born in 1906. He is about 81 years old now. He first entered politics in 1940 when he became a member of the Colombo Municipal Council. After so many years in politics, after so many years embroiled in the politics of his country, he is doing for Sri Lanka what our Prime Minister did for Singapore years ago, 1965 for example when we became independent, four official languages, not one. After the signing of the Indo-Sri Lanka agreement on July 29th, when the President was asked for the reasons for his failure to avoid four years' of escalating violence, he replied in sadness and humility, "My own lack of intelligence, lack of foresight and courage were the reasons." This Government had the intelligence to establish the Constitutional Commission in December 1965, soon after independence, to consider representations to safeguard the rights of the racial, linguistic and religious minorities in the Constitution. It had the intelligence and foresight to set up the Presidential Council for Minority Rights. It had the intelligence, foresight and courage to have four official languages when the political ground was dominated by the Chinese educated. That was 22 years ago. Today, do we, the Parliamentarians, have the intelligence, the foresight and the courage to take affirmative action to avoid a situation where Parliament may end up where one community is not adequately represented? The amendment to the Constitution and Parliamentary Elections Act will ensure that the interests of the minority communities will always be represented in Parliament. But we are under no illusion whatsoever that these two Bills are all that we need to do to preserve multi-racialism in our society. It must be followed up by greater involvement and participation of the Malay community in the mainstream of decision-making, whether it is in Cabinet, the Public Service Commission or the Armed Forces Council. This way, every community knows that there is someone from his community to safeguard his interests. Then policies which concern everyone no matter how sensitive the policies are can be properly considered, debated, and decided, without each community feeling that its interests have not been adequately safeguarded. This is not to say that every level of Government, every service, must be racially balanced and mathematically correct. It is not possible. And neither is it desirable because it will lead to tokenism. That is not possible because there are just not enough qualified and suitable Malay candidates. But in the main bodies where key national policies are decided, they should there, understanding and contributing to the formulation of policies which concern all of us. Sir, this Bill will be referred to Select Committee. I look forward to representations from members of the public. [Applause].

Question put, and agreed to. Bill accordingly read a Second time. Resolved, That the Parliamentary Elections (Amendment) Bill be committed to a Select Committee consisting of Mr Deputy Speaker as Chairman and the following Members: Mr Lee Kuan Yew Mr Goh Chok Tong Dr Ahmad Mattar Encik Sidek bin Saniff Mr Tang Guan Seng Mr S. Chandra Das Mr Lim Boon Heng Mr Chiam See Tong. - [Mr Goh Chok Tong].

Order for Second Reading read. 3.36 pm

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, 'That the Bill be now read a Second time. This Bill, the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore (Amendment No. 2) Bill, seeks to amend the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore, firstly, to ensure the representation in Parliament of members of the Malay and other minority communities and, secondly, to increase the number of Deputy Speakers from one to two. Clause 4 of the Bill is to amend the Constitution to enable the Legislature to make law to ensure that the Malay and other minority communities will always be represented in Parliament. The Legislature will be empowered to make law for: (a) any constituency having regard to the number of electors in that constituency to be declared a Group Representation Constituency (GRC) to enable any election in that constituecy to be held on a group basis of three candidates; (b) the requirement that every group of candidates for any election in Group Representation Constituencies shall consist of at least one person belonging to the Malay community or at least one person belonging to any other minority community; (c) the establishment of two committees, one to determine whether a person who desires to be a candidate in a Group Representation Constituency belongs to the Malay community and another to determine whether such a person belongs to any other minority community; and (d) the requirement that all the candidates in any every group for any election in Group Representation Constituencies shall either be members of the same political party standing for election for that party or be independent candidates standing as a group. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I do not propose to speak at length. All the points in this Constitution (Amendment) Bill are also found in the Parliamentary Elections (Amendment) Bill which Parliament has just debated. The two Bills should be read together. As we have had a full debate running over two days on the concept of Group Representation Constituencies, we need not and we should not repeat the arguments. Let me just reiterate three points: (1) The objectives of having GRCs are, firstly, to ensure that Parliament will always have multi-racial representation to reflect the multi-racial character of our society and, secondly, to compel political parties to take a non-communal, multi-racial, approach when they contend for the right to form the government. (2) My second point. Singapore is a multi-racial society and it should take all precautionary steps to ensure that Parliament will always remain multi-racial with representatives from the Malay, Chinese, Indian and other communities. It costs us nothing to take precautions. It will cost us dearly if we do not, and end up with the problem of Parliament being under-represented by the Malay MPs. (3) Finally, which is my third point, the Westminster model of one-man-one-vote, one-constituency-one-member, does not by itself protect the interests of the minority communities. It does not guarantee that Parliament will always have adequate representation from members of the Malay or other minority communities. In the worst case scenario, it can lead to the tyranny of the majority community over the minority communities. This is what happened in Sri Lanka which is a plural society. The Westminster model for parliamentary democracy has not worked there. There is a lesson there for us. That Singapore does not have a problem now does not mean that we will not have one later. That is why for the sake of future generations of Singaporeans we are entrenching in our Constitution the right of the three main communities to be represented in Parliament through Group Representation Constituencies. Then we can have free elections and parliamentary democracy and yet not fear that any minority community will ever be left out of Parliament. Now, let me move on to explain the need for two Deputy Speakers. The Constitution now provides for only one Deputy Speaker. Under clause 5 of the Bill, it is proposed to increase the number of Deputy Speakers to two. Having two Deputy Speakers will ensure that there will be an additional person well versed in parliamentary proceedings and Standing Orders to preside at the sittings of Parliament should both the Speaker and the Deputy Speaker be unavoidably absent. The Second Deputy Speaker will have to acquaint himself with parliamentary proceedings and Standin Orders. It is in the interest of Members of the House to have two Deputy Speakers. Sir, this Bill, like the Parliamentary Elections (Amendment) Bill, will be referred to Select Committee because of its political significance. Sir, I beg to move.

The Question is, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." A Division will be taken to ascertain that the Second Reading of the Bill is supported by the votes of not less than two-thirds of the total number of Members of Parliament, which is 53 Members, pursuant to Article 5(2) of the Constitution. Ring the Division Bells. Question put, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." Division taken: Ayes, 72; No, Nil; Abstention, Nil. Ayes Ayes (cont.) Abbas Abu Amin Lee Yiok Seng Abdullah Tarmugi Lee Yock Suan Ahmad Mattar Leong Horn Kee Ang Kok Peng Lim Boon Heng Barker, E.W. Lim Chee Onn Beng Kian Lam, Arthur Ng Kah Ting Chai Chong Yii Ong Pang Boon Chandra Das, S. Ong Teng Cheong Chen, Bernard Othman bin Haron Eusofe Cheong Yuen Chee, Eric Ow Chin Hock Chew Heng Ching Phua Bah Lee Chin Harn Tong Rajaratnam, S. Chng Hee Kok Sia Khoon Seong Ch'ng Jit Koon Sidek bin Saniff Chua Sian Chin Tan Cheng Bock Dhanabalan, S. Tan, Dixie Goh Chee Wee Tan, Augustine H.H. Goh Chok Tong Tan Keng Yam, Tony Goh Choon Kang Tan Soo Khoon Heng Chiang Meng Tan Tee Yong, Philip Ho Kah Leong Tang Guan Seng Ho Tat Kin Tang See Chim Hu Tsu Tau, Richard Tay Eng Soon Ibrahim Othman Toh Chin Chye Jayakumar, S. Vasoo, S. Jek Yeun Thong Wan Hussin bin Hj Zoohri Koh Lam Son Wan Soon Bee Koh Lip Lin Wang Kai Yuen Lai Tha Chai Wong, Aline K. Lau Ping Sum Wong Kan Seng Lee Boon Yang Wong Kwei Cheong Lee Hsien Loong Yap Giau Cheng, Eugene Lee Kuan Yew Yatiman Yusof Ayes (cont.) No Yeo Cheow Tong Yeo Choo Kok Nil Yeo Ning Hong Yeo Toon Chia Abstention Yu-Foo Yee Shoon Zulkifli bin Mohammed Nil

The Second Reading of the Bill has been carried by the votes of not less than two-thirds of the total number of Members of Parliament. Bill accordingly read a Second time. Resolved, That the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore (Amendment No. 2) Bill be committed to the Select Committee appointed to consider the Parliamentary Elections (Amendment) Bill. - [Mr Goh Chok Tong].

Order for Second Reading read. 3.51 pm

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." This is a simple Bill which seeks to amend section 33 of the Land Acquisition Act on the amount of compensation payable to owners of land compulsorily acquired under the Act. The new basis of compensation will apply to any land acquired on or after 30th November last year. The position as the law stands prior to this Amendment is that compensation for acquired land is based on its market value as at 30th November 1973, or its market value as at the date of notice of acquisition whichever is the lower. Sir, values of land in Singapore have changed considerably since 1973 when the present provision was introduced. The Government has therefore decided to change the basis of compensation payable by pegging it to the value of the acquired land as at the lst January 1986 or as at the date of notice of acquisition, whichever is the lower. Sir, I beg to move. Question proposed.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I shall be brief. This Amendment Bill is a long awaited piece of legislation which makes the amount of compensation paid for properties acquired more equitable. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, my GPC met and discussed this Bill together with members of our Resource Panel. We are in support of this Bill and welcome Government's move to amend the Land Acquisition Act (Chapter 152 of the 1985 Revised Edition) as has been explained just now by the Hon. Minister for Law. However, Sir, we would like to ask of the Hon. Minister first to explain why it is necessary to provide in the Bill for compensation payable for any property acquired after 30th November 1987 to be pegged at the market value as at 1st January 1986 if the market value of the property at the date of acquisition is higher than the market value as at lst January 1986. Then why is 1st January 1986 taken for valuation purposes? Would it not be more equitable if the compensation is based on the market value as at the date of notice of acquisition? Sir, we discussed the question which concerns owners of only one residential property. They may continue to face hardship if their residences are acquired and compensations are paid to them according to the provisions in the Bill, especially if the property values of residential properties are escalating. They would feel even more aggrieved if they had purchased their residences after 30th November 1973 or more recently and at prices higher than that of 1st January 1986. The price or prices they paid for their properties would have been included in the cost of the development of the land in the vicinity of their property. So in a rising property market they would not be able to secure an equivalent residential property. Therefore, Sir, in our view, we would like to ask whether the Hon. Minister would consider continuing to assist such property owners whose only residential property is acquired. I hope, Sir, that he would be forthcoming in his reply. Finally, Sir, there are various occasions in the past when properties were acquired for public development purposes but were left to waste for many years before they were eventually developed. We would like to urge that great care be taken to ensure that land acquired for public development is taken off for development as soon as possible after the acquisition. In making this observation, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, we note that some lands acquired have not been fully developed, as had been indicated in the various replies given in this House to the Questions for Oral Answer. Sir, we support the Bill.

Sir, the current section 33(1)(a) in the Act, as everybody knows, is inherently unfair as it freezes land value for the purpose of compensation at the value on 30th November 1973. As the Prime Minister had once said, the Government is playing Robin Hood. So therefore in the same vein I would like to ask the Minister whether the increase in compensation to land value on lst January 1986 would mean increases in the prices of HDB flats?

Sir, we chose the 1st January 1986 because in the last few years the price of land was the lowest on that date. We are conscious that we must save your money. But the difference is not much. The difference between 1st January 1986 and 1st January 1987 is probably about 5%. It is really not much. But the difference between the 30th November 1973 and the 1st January 1986 is substantial. So this is a good move. As for ex-gratia payments, this is not provided for in the Bill. But it is done administratively. In the past, even now, where a person owns just one house or residential property and it is acquired and if he gets, say, $200,000, today it is not enough to buy a comparable piece of property. So we top it up by giving him an ex-gratia payment of, say, $400,000 to give him about $600,000. This practice will continue, though it is not part of the legislation. I could not get the point of the Member for Jalan Kayu, but the price of HDB flat is no concern of mine.

Question put, and agreed to. Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House. The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. - [Mr E.W. Barker]. Bill considered in Committee.

Clause 1:

The citation year will be altered from "1987" to "1988". Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Bill reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed.

Resolved, "That Parliament do now adjourn." - [Mr Wong Kan Seng]. Adjourned accordingly at 4.00 o'clock pm.