Hansard, 1989-11-29

Under the provisions of clause 2(d) of Article 46 of the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore, the following Members have been granted permission to be or to remain absent from sittings of Parliament (or any Committee of Parliament to which they have been appointed) for the periods stated:- Mr Loh Meng See (Kampong Glam) - from 8th to 14th October and from 18th to 26th November, 1989. Dr Ong Chit Chung (Bukit Batok) - from 13th to 23rd October, 1989. Mr Lim Chee Onn (Bukit Merah) - from 16th to 20th October and from 1st to 2nd November, 1989. Mr Wong Kan Seng (Toa Payoh GRC), Minister for Foreign Affairs and Minister for Community Development and Leader of the House - from 17th to 20th October, from 18th to 21st November and from 5th to 12th December, 1989. Mr Peter Sung (Buona Vista), Minister of State, Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Ministry of National Development - from 17th to 24th October, 1989. Mr Goh Chok Tong (Marine Parade GRC), First Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Defence - from 17th to 19th October, 1989. Dr Ow Chin Hock (Leng Kee) - from 22nd to 26th October, 1989. Mr Chng Hee Kok (Tiong Bahru GRC) - from 23rd to 29th October and from 17th November to 8th December, 1989. Mr Mah Bow Tan (Tampines GRC), Minister of State, Ministry of Communications and Information and Ministry of Trade and Industry - from 23rd to 25th October, from 19th to 23rd November, from 29th November to 2nd December and from 4th to 7th December, 1989. Encik Sidek bin Saniff (Jalan Besar GRC), Senior Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Education - from 23rd to 25th October and from 16th to 22nd November, 1989. Mr Chay Wai Chuen (Brickworks GRC) - from 25th to 26th October, 1989. Dr Ahmad Mattar (Brickworks GRC), Minister for the Environment - from 27th to 29th October, 1989. Mr S. Chandra Das (Cheng San GRC) - from 30th October to 1st November and from 4th to 17th November, 1989. Dr Wong Kwei Cheong (Cairnhill) - from 30th October to 7th November, 1989. Dr Aline K. Wong (Tampines GRC) - from 1st to 10th November, 1989. BG Lee Hsien Loong (Teck Ghee), Minister for Trade and Industry and Second Minister for Defence (Services) - from 3rd to 8th November and from 29th November to 1st December, 1989. BG George Yong-Boon Yeo (Aljunied GRC), Minister of State, Ministry of Finance and Ministry of Foreign Affairs - from 3rd to 15th November, 1989. Dr Augustine H.H. Tan (Whampoa) - from 5th to 19th November and from 4th to 8th December, 1989. Mr Teo Chong Tee (Changi) - from 6th to 13th November, from 25th to 28th November and from 1st to 15th December, 1989. Mr Tan Soo Khoon (Brickworks GRC), Speaker - from 7th to 11th November, from 4th to 6th December and from 9th to 17th December, 1989. Mr Yeo Cheow Tong (Hong Kah GRC), Acting Minister for Health - from 11th to 17th November and from 6th to 16th December, 1989. Dr Lau Teik Soon (Serangoon Gardens) - from 11th to 17th November, 1989. Mr Choo Wee Khiang (Marine Parade GRC) - from 14th to 16th November, 1989. Dr Dixie Tan (Ulu Pandan) - from 17th to 23rd November, 1989. Mr Davinder Singh (Toa Payoh GRC) - from 18th to 27th November, 1989. Encik Abbas Abu Amin (Pasir Panjang GRC) - from 19th to 24th November, 1989. Mr Lim Boon Heng (Kebun Baru), Deputy Speaker - from 19th to 22nd November and from 10th to 16th December, 1989. Mr Tang Guan Seng (Hougang), Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Education and the Minister for Home Affairs - from 23rd November to 8th December, 1989. Mr Philip Tan Tee Yong (Paya Lebar) - from 24th to 26th November, 1989. Mr Sia Khoon Seong (Moulmein) - from 27th November to 15th December, 1989. Mr Goh Chee Wee (Boon Lay) - from 27th November to 2nd December, 1989. Dr Ho Tat Kin (Toa Payoh) - from 27th to 29th November and from 1st to 2nd December, 1989. Mr Leong Horn Kee (Thomson) - from 1st to 6th December, 1989. Encik Yatiman Yusof (Tampines GRC), Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Foreign Affairs - from 2nd to 14th December, 1989. Prof. S. Jayakumar (Bedok GRC), Minister for Home Affairs and Minister for Law - from 3rd to 24th December, 1989. Dr Hu Tsu Tau, Richard (Kreta Ayer), Minister for Finance - from 3rd to 19th December, 1989. Dr Yeo Ning Hong (Kim Seng), Minister for Communications and Information and Second Minister for Defence (Policy) - from 3rd to 17th December, 1989. Dr Tony Tan Keng Yam (Sembawang GRC), Minister for Education - from 4th to 22nd December, 1989. Mr Ch'ng Jit Koon (Tiong Bahru GRC), Minister of State, Ministry of Community Development - from 4th to 6th December, 1989. Encik Zulkifli bin Mohammed (Eunos GRC) - from 4th to 6th December and from 9th to 26th December, 1989. Dr Lee Boon Yang (Jalan Besar GRC), Senior Minister of State, Ministry of National Development and Ministry of Home Affairs and Government Whip - from 7th to 11th December and from 18th to 30th December, 1989. Mrs Yu-Foo Yee Shoon (Yuhua) - on 7th December, from 11th to 15th December and from 26th to 29th December, 1989. Mr Heng Chiang Meng (Cheng San GRC) - from 9th to 30th December, 1989. Dr Seet Ai Mee (Bukit Gombak), Minister of State, Ministry of Community Development and Ministry of Education - from 10th to 31st December, 1989. Mr Peh Chin Hua (Jalan Besar GRC) - from 12th to 23rd December, 1989. TAN SOO KHOON Speaker Parliament of Singapore

The following Bill was assented to by the President of the Republic of Singapore on the date stated: 7th November, 1989 Smoking (Prohibition on Advertisements) (Amendment) Bill. TAN SOO KHOON Speaker Parliament of Singapore

asked the Minister for National Development whether the Government will extend its proposal to refurbish old Housing and Development Board estates on a cost- sharing basis, to include old market places and two-storey shophouses.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Government's first priority in the upgrading programme is to upgrade the old HDB flats. The upgrading of commercial premises, including markets/shops, is a separate matter. HDB will consider such upgrading if it is necessary to raise the quality of the total environment. Since these are commercial premises, HDB must recover the cost of upgrading from the tenants or purchasers.

Can I ask the Minister how this proposal will affect the privatization plan which was announced earlier by the Minister for the Environment?

As I have mentioned, Sir, if we do upgrade commercial premises, we will recover the additional cost by increased rentals until such time as the shops are sold. When they are sold they will be sold by tender, and I assume the tender will reflect the higher quality of the commercial premises.

The following Question stood in the name of Mr Chng Hee Kok - 2. To ask the Minister for National Development if he will explain the basis on which certain old Housing and Development Board flats are considered suitable for rebuilding while others are being demolished.

Question No. 2, Sir.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the issue of whether old HDB flats should be rebuilt or demolished concerns primarily 1-room and 2-room rental blocks. In the past, some 1- and 2-room rental flats were converted if they met certain criteria such as structural soundness and good location. Buyers now expect much higher housing standards. It is difficult to convert rental flats to meet new standards. Other than the current programme to convert five 2-room blocks in Ang Mo Kio, very few blocks are likely to be converted in the future. Rental flats with high vacancies will be cleared and demolished for redevelopment.

asked the Minister for Education whether there is any measure to check fee increases in independent schools.

asked the Minister for Education if he will implement a financial scheme to assist those students who are adversely affected by the new independent school fees.

asked the Minister for Education whether his Ministry had given approval formally or informally for independent schools to raise their fees to $100 per pupil per month.

Mr Speaker, Sir, with your permission, my answer to this question will also cover the points in the next two questions because the three questions essentially deal with the same subject, ie, the increase in fees next year by the five independent schools and Raffles Institution. Sir, the announcement on 2nd November by the five independent schools and Raffles Institution (RI) of their increase in fees from January next year has drawn a number of responses from Members of Parliament and members of the public. Some have been supportive of the fee increase. Others have been critical. One MP commented that the reasons given for the increase in fees are, I quote him, "too weak and difficult to accept". Another MP felt that the fee increases are way out of proportion in comparison to those of tertiary institutions. And to avoid large fee increases, a third MP suggested that the independent schools should adopt a more moderate pace in improving the quality of education in their schools, ie, they should, in effect, slow down and seek to do less for their pupils. Sir, these reactions are understandable but, in my view, they do not address the nub of the issue. The nub of the issue is not the size of the fee increase. The nub of the issue is: what are parents willing to pay for the more varied and comprehensive education programmes which independent schools want to implement and which parents desire for their children? This is the question which we should address. Sir, the independent schools and RI are committed to raising the quality of education for the pupils in their schools. They are doing this because parents want it. To raise the quality of education, the schools need well-qualified staff, better facilities and a more favourable teacher/pupil ratio so that they can reduce class size to give pupils more individual attention. All this means that their operating costs must rise. Sir, it is not the business of the Government to hold back the independent schools and RI from improving their educational programmes. Indeed, we should encourage them to take advantage of their autonomy to try out new and innovative educational programmes. Their success in achieving their educational aims will help the Ministry of Education to assess what is desirable and effective to raise the quality of education in schools in Singapore. In this way, all children in Singapore will eventually benefit from the establishment of independent schools within our education system. Neither is it the Government's responsibility to tell the independent schools and RI how they should finance their increased costs or what fees they should charge. The Government gives to each of these schools a per capita grant equivalent to what it would cost to educate a child in a Government or a Government-aided school. If the independent schools and RI improve their educational programmes to meet the expectations of parents who want a more comprehensive and varied education for their children, it is surely only fair that the burden of the increase in costs should be borne by the parents who send their children to these schools. The fixing of fees is the responsibility of the schools. The responsibility of the Government is to ensure that there are adequate financial assistance schemes in place so that every pupil who qualifies for admission to the independent schools and RI will not be denied a place in the schools simply because his or her parents cannot afford to pay the fees. Pupils who are unable to pay the fees can apply for assistance under the Government's financial assistance scheme. If further financial assistance is needed, the schools have established their own scholarship funds which can provide financial assistance, where necessary, over and above that provided by the Government. Clan associations, Old Boys' Associations, Old Girls' Associations and private foundations can also assist. No child, if he is academically qualified and deserves a place in an independent school, will be denied admission to an independent school simply because he or she is unable to pay the fees.

Sir, since the independent schools are still receiving per capita grants from the Government, is it not reasonable to expect that the Government should exercise some checks so that fees in these schools will not be increased and become so exorbitant?

Sir, the schools are independent. If we tell them what fees to charge, how can they have flexibility and autonomy in their operations? The admission of pupils, the recruitment of teachers, the fixing of fees, is the responsibility of the independent schools. We give them a per capita grant. They determine their own educational programmes. They determine how they would raise the finance to meet the additional costs that are incurred.

Is the Minister advocating a laissez-faire situation where the schools can fix whatever fees they want? If that is the case, I would say that we stop subsidizing the independent schools.

Sir, I do not follow the reasoning of the Member at all. The parents of the children who go to these independent schools pay taxes, just like you and me. When they pay taxes, their children are entitled to the same per capita grant which will cost the Government to educate the child in a Government or a Government-aided school. Why should we deny these children the per capita grant which they should have because their parents have contributed to the same tax pool?

The Minister has said something about the desirability of a higher quality of education and the wish of parents. Does he imply that the parents of other schools are not desirous of a higher quality of education?

Sir, I do not imply any such thing. All parents want to have high quality education for their children. As I said, we will give a per capita grant to the independent schools. If the parents who send their children to these schools want a more varied education, the additional costs should be borne by them. But of course we will learn from the independent schools what are the programmes which are desirable, which are effective, to raise the quality of education in Singapore. Then we can spread these programmes to the other schools in Singapore and, in that way, as I have mentioned in my reply, all children in Singapore will eventually benefit from the establishment of the independent schools in Singapore.

Sir, if the independent schools are allowed to escalate their fees, then would these schools not become elite schools and only cater for the rich in time to come?

I have said, Sir, that the responsibility of the Government is to ensure that there are enough financial assistance schemes in place so that no child who is academically qualified and deserves a place in an independent school will be denied a place in those schools, simply because his or her parents cannot afford to pay the fees. Sir, the independent schools in a joint statement issued last week have made a commitment that the ability of parents to pay will not be a criterion for admission to their schools. The schools have a tradition of accepting pupils from all strata of society. The schools intend to continue their policy of admitting pupils on the basis of merit. I think this shows that the schools have a responsible attitude towards the admission of pupils and they will conduct themselves responsibly.

Would it not benefit all the children in all the schools if the Government should raise the standard and quality of all the schools?

Yes, of course, Sir. It will certainly benefit all pupils in every school in Singapore if we were to raise the standard of education. And surely this is what we all want. This is what all parents want. But what standard, what quality, what costs should we incur in raising the standard? I think Members should not afflict themselves with a cargo-cult mentality with the Government being the cargo plane. Just ask and we are expected to come out with an endless supply of goodies from a bottomless package. Every improvement, Sir, incurs a cost. Every benefit that we implement, every standard that we raise must incur a drain on the public purse. It is not that the Government does not want to raise the quality of education in schools. It is that we have to do this in a responsible way. Sir, effectively, the Member is asking that since parents want a high quality of education for their children, should the Government not meet the expectations of parents for high quality education? If I were to answer this question, first of all, we have to deal with it in a larger perspective and consider how our schools are funded and managed today. Because of the need to expand school places rapidly when we gained our independence in 1965, less than two-thirds of children were in schools. Today, almost every child has a place in school. And as a consequence of some of the political problems which we had in the 1950s, which the Member will be aware of, we have today evolved a highly centralised system of educational control in Singapore. By and large, schools in Singapore are almost entirely dependent on Government for their financing. The schools cannot make any significant decision without reference to and getting permission from the Ministry of Education which in turn has to consider the financial implications and discuss with the Ministry of Finance before communicating their decision to the schools. The Government, therefore, decides for each school in Singapore how much money should be spent on the physical facilities, how many teachers the school should have, how many pupils should be enrolled in the school, what fees the school should charge and how much the teacher should be paid. The school must obtain the permission of the Ministry of Education before it introduces any variations from the norms which have been established. The result of all this, Sir, is a slowdown in decision making and a stifling of initiative. Because almost every improvement in educational programmes requires money at some stage or other, effectively no school in Singapore can embark on any improvement without getting the approval of the Ministry of Education. Hence, the many complaints about excessive bureaucratization of the education system in Singapore and the lack of initiative among our principals and teachers which Members have voiced time and again. When we were faced with simply providing more school places and ensuring minimal standards, such bureaucratic control of education may be tolerated. There was no choice. The alternative was simply that very little would have been achieved and even that would have been achieved at a very much slower rate. Sir, there are undoubtedly many aspects which all parents would like to see in the education of their children - good academic development, preparation for future employment, building up strong and healthy bodies, building of character and building of strong moral values. All parents want to see these in their children. But more and more parents will not be satisfied with simply achieving minimum basic requirements. All parents will want to have educational programmes that are tailored more closely to the abilities and talents of their children. They will want to see more individual attention given to children so that every child can be developed to his or her fullest potential. Yes, Sir, there are gaps in education and there are areas in education which Government should properly attend to. We have to upgrade our primary school education. We need to have more and better designed secondary schools so that all secondary schools can go single session by the 1990s. In particular, I would say we need to provide more opportunities for training at the post-secondary and at the tertiary levels, especially in the technical and vocational fields. This means that Government must incur more expenditure on education. Provided that our economy continues to grow at a healthy rate and there are no extraordinary demands on Government expenditure, it is right that we should be prepared to allocate sufficient funds, even ample funds, to sustain our drive for excellence in education. While we are committed to upgrading the quality of education and meeting the aspirations of parents, the question which is pertinent which Members should ask themselves is: whether by relying on Government alone to provide all the funds, will we be able to provide the varied and comprehensive educational programmes which, as the Member says, more and more Singaporeans will want for their children? If I were to give an answer to this question, Members really need to know how much it will cost to provide a really good education which will fully satisfy the expectations of parents. Parents differ in what they would like to see in their children's education. They want the minimum, but after that each parent will have his own aspirations. The cost will differ accordingly. There is therefore no definitive answer. It costs us at the present time about $3,000 per annum in recurrent expenditure on the average to educate a child in each of our secondary schools. At this level of expenditure, with variations for primary education and tertiary education, total Government expenditure on education amounts to slightly under 4% of our GDP or between 11-12% of total Government expenditure. If we reduce class size to give more individual attention to students, if we provide a wider variety of enrichment and elective subjects, if we improve our school facilities, then of course Government expenditure must rise and this is right. But to what extent? Instead of $3,000, should it be $6,000, $7,000, $8,000? Where will the limit be? That is a subjective question. But, Sir, we can get a very rough idea about what it would cost to provide very good quality education in Singapore if we use very roughly as a guide some of the fees charged by some of the foreign schools in Singapore, because these schools have to charge their pupils economic rates of fees. They do not receive any subsidy. And it may interest Members to know some of the fees which are charged by some of these schools. Let me just take three of them. For example, the American School. For students from Grades 9 to 12, which I think is equivalent to our Secondary 3, Secondary 4, Pre-U 1 and Pre-U 2 (the last four years of high school), the cost in fees alone, excluding registration fee and so on, is $11,400 per annum. United World College of Southeast Asia, for their secondary school and pre-university classes, $10,950 per annum. The ISS International School for Grades 9 to 12 again, $10,000 per annum. These schools are not profit-making enterprises. All of the revenue which they get from their fees is used to fund their operations. And even with these fees, the schools run at a deficit, not large, but they have a deficit every year which has to be covered and made up by gifts and donations. If we want to give a very good education to every child in Singapore, which I am sure all of us want, and if we were to ignore all economic considerations altogether and very roughly as a guide, say, we take a figure of $12,000 per annum as the cost required to finance the cost of a very good education for every child in our schools and compare this with the $3,000 which we are now spending at the present time - it does not require mathematical genius to work out - roughly speaking, if all of these additional costs were to come from the Government, we should raise our educational expenditure by roughly four times. What this means is that we should devote 15-16% of our GDP on education or roughly 40-50% of total Government expenditure. Obviously, this cannot be done without cutting down on other vital programmes, such as defence, internal security, housing and health. We therefore have to consider whether there is a means whereby we can allow those parents who want good education for their children to have it within Singapore and at the same time keeping Government expenditure on education to reasonable limits and to allow variations so that Government provides a good basic education. Anything above that should be paid for by the parents. In addition to increasing Government expenditure, Sir, I think the key is to change the system of financing schools. Effectively, the system which we are now using is called line by line financing, which means we approve every item of expenditure. It may be worthwhile to switch over to a system of block financing which is the system we are using to fund the newly established independent schools in Singapore. For the independent schools, instead of funding them on a line by line basis and determining the number of teachers, the number of pupils the schools should enrol, the programmes that they should run, we give each of these schools a block grant which on a per capita basis is equivalent to the cost required to educate a child in a Government or Government-aided school. In return for this block grant, the schools agree to follow basic Government educational policies, of which the most important is our bilingual policy, the teaching of English and the mother tongue. The schools also prepare children for our national examinations and teach the Civics/Moral Education Programme which is available in all our other schools. The crucial difference is that the independent schools have the flexibility to determine their own programmes, recruit their own teachers and charge their own fees. In this way, they have been able to raise the finance to fund new educational programmes without reference to the Ministry of Education. They have introduced smaller classes for better teacher-pupil interaction. They have introduced new elective subjects and enrichment programmes to cater for pupils with different talents and abilities. To attract good teachers to join them, the independent schools have introduced innovative compensation packages such as merit increments, responsibility allowances and year-end performance bonuses. As the schools are not tied down to simply being funded by the Government or through donations, they are able to respond more quickly and effectively to the different aspirations of parents. If the schools have to obtain the permission of the Ministry before they initiated any programme, I believe that many of their initiatives would not have got off the ground. To sum up, Sir, the thrust of my remarks this afternoon is that we want to raise the quality of education for all children in Singapore and we will do this. But to improve the quality of education to meet the aspirations of parents, it is not sufficient merely for Government to spend more money, although this is necessary, and the Government has never stinted on its allocation of funds for education. But, Sir, we have to take a wider perspective and consider not only spending more money but also giving schools more control over their finances and educational programmes so that they can meet what parents want and change the system of funding schools. If you like, Sir, this is in a sense introducing a degree of market diversity within the general framework of centralised Government educational policy. Our overall educational policy will ensure that all schools in Singapore adhere to common goals which are consonant with our national and social objectives. But freeing the schools and giving them greater flexibility in operations and funding will, I believe, in the end, enable the schools to respond more effectively to the needs and aspirations of parents. In this way, we will at the end of the day have a more responsive, a more flexible education system which will more fully meet the needs and aspirations of parents in Singapore. Much obliged, Sir, for this long answer.

Sir, the Minister has mentioned that the average recurrent expenditure per pupil is about $3,000 a month. Is this the amount the Government gives in per capita grant to the secondary schools? That is the first question. The Minister said that the per capita grant to the secondary and independent schools are the same. Is this the amount of the per capita grant given by the Government for the average child in secondary schools? What is the average recurrent expenditure per child per year in the independent schools?

$3,000. It is not per month. It is per year, Sir. It is the average cost incurred by the Government in educating a child in one of our Government or Government-aided schools. Using this as the basis, this is the amount which we give to each of the independent schools for each child who is enrolled in the independent schools. But of course the amount varies from year to year. I have used $3,000 as the average. Next year, I think the amount will be increased to $3,100. It depends, because costs increase every year. As for the average cost of educating a child in one of the independent schools, it varies from school to school. It depends on what the school provides. [Mr Chiam See Tong interrupted] I do not know. It is up to the schools, as I said. The school has more programmes, it has got more facilities, it has music lessons, dance lessons, it has got smaller classes, the cost must rise. My point is that it is right and fair that the additional cost should be borne by the parents.

Mr Speaker, Sir, will the Ministry assist the independent schools which want to start scholarship and welfare funds to obtain IPC status quickly, so that these funds can be available by the time the new term starts?

Sir, the Ministry has always assisted the independent schools and any schools which want to start their scholarship funds. The independent schools already have their own endowment funds. And I think the public should read the statement by the independent schools which was issued last week. It was stated that any pupil who requires financial assistance is requested to get in touch with the schools as soon as possible. And I would urge any pupil who needs assistance to get in touch with his school.

The Minister is aware that Asians are reluctant to go and ask for assistance. I think most parents, if they can afford it, will send their children to independent schools, and if they cannot afford it they will send their children to the ordinary Government schools. My point is eventually if there is a runaway in fees ---

Mr Chiam, what is your question?

If there is a runaway in fees, eventually these independent schools will become the herald in Eden of Singapore. Is it not correct?

Sir, I am glad the Member has raised this question. I read in the press of some parents who said that they would not want to enrol their children in independent schools because they would not want to ask for assistance, because they will lose face and so on, which the Member has just said. Sir, I think this is a very wrong attitude. Any parent who does not give his child, if he is of the right quality, the opportunity to enrol and get a place in the best school that the child can get in, is doing his child a great disservice. We have said that, get your child in, then see the school and we will ensure that he has the means to pay the fees. But if you do not simply because you do not want to ask for assistance and you deny the child the chance of going to a school which he wants to go and which is good for him, I cannot think of any greater disservice which any parent can render to his child. My advice is to repeat what the independent schools have stated in their joint statement. They have encouraged all children who are able, who are of high quality, apply for admission to the independent schools. Once you are in, we will see what assistance which you will need in order to pay the fees. But not even to apply for admission simply because you do not want to ask for assistance, I think this is an attitude of mind which we should correct, and as soon as possible.

Sir, I suspect that people who say that they are shy in asking for assistance are not really giving the true reason. I think it is economic reason. The fees probably are so high that they are afraid to ask for assistance and they are afraid they might not be able to repay them back. Assuming the fees escalate to as high as $12,000 a year, how can a working taxi-driver or a hawker dare even to go and ask for assistance when the fees are so high?

I am not sure what is the question. But, never mind, it is all right. [Mr Chiam See Tong interrupted] No. I have never said the fees will be as high as $12,000 a year. This is a yardstick which I used in order to get some testing. But the schools have said that if the pupils need help, come and ask, and we will ensure that they will get help. Why assume from the start that they will not get the assistance?

If it is the intention of the Government to get the better qualified students to go into the better quality schools, wouldn't it be better, to save the spectacle of causing inconvenience and loss of face to parents, for the Government to select a group of students who should be in the better schools rather than asking them to go by themselves?

Sir, the Government has a responsibility to educate all children, not only bright children or children of above average quality. What we are doing by this system is to allow variations. I also do not believe that all wisdom in education resides within the Ministry of Education. Parents have different expectations, different aspirations. The people who should decide what is best for students are the principals and the teachers. They are the ones who are closest to the ground. They are the ones who know their pupils best. They are the ones who should decide what programmes are most suitable for the children who are in their charge. We should devise a system which will enable them to do this. And if the progress of the independent schools is any indication, it may be that the system of funding which we are using to fund these independent schools may provide the path which we will need in the future.

Sir, would the Ministry be monitoring the impact of the implementation of this independent school programme, and at the same time to ensure that children who are able to get in but who are from poor families still will be able to get into these schools?

Yes, of course, the Ministry will be monitoring these programmes not only to ensure that children from poor families are able to get in but also to see what these schools do because they have introduced innovative programmes. One example which Members will know is that we have just introduced responsibility allowances for heads of departments in our secondary schools and junior colleges. The reason why we have done so is because this was introduced by the independent schools first and we have found that it has worked in getting teachers who want to assume positions of responsibility. So we will monitor the schools not only with regard to the admission of pupils but also with regard to what these schools do and what we can adopt and apply to other schools in Singapore. The final results, Sir, must be that we want to upgrade the quality of education for all children in Singapore. That must be the aim of the Government.

asked the Minister for Communications and Information when will the proposed bus interchange beside the Bukit Timah Plaza/Sherwood Tower complex at Upper Bukit Timah Road be built.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I am answering on behalf of my Minister. Sir, the proposed Bukit Timah Bus Interchange was intended to replace the former Upper Bukit Timah road side bus terminal near Ewart Circus to serve as a regional bus interchange for services from less populated or rural areas in the northern and western sectors of Singapore and services to the CBD. Sir, in recent years, HDB new towns in the vicinity such as Bukit Panjang, Choa Chu Kang, Jurong East and Bukit Batok have undergone rapid developments. To better serve residents, instead of a single regional interchange, an interchange or bus terminal was built in each of these new towns with trunk routes, taking residents directly to the CBD and to other parts of Singapore. There is therefore no need for the proposed regional bus interchange at Upper Bukit Timah.

asked the Minister for Home Affairs whether the Government will consider abolishing the Internal Security Act now that the Communist Party of Malaya, whose jurisdiction also includes Singapore, has agreed to end its armed rebellion.

Mr Speaker, Sir, it would be most unwise to abolish the Internal Security Act just becase the CPM has reportedly agreed to terminate hostilities. First, if the CPM in fact terminates hostilities, it still remains to be seen whether this necessarily means the end of all forms of communist subversion. Secondly, the problems posed by the CPM are not our only security threat. There are also other security threats such as communalism, religious extremism, inter- national terrorism, espionage and subversion from sources other than the communists. For instance, in the early 1970s, we detained chauvinists who attempted to whip up communal feelings on gut issues of race, language and culture. In 1979, five persons were detained under the ISA for attempting to establish an Islamic State by armed means, if necessary. In 1985, two Singaporeans were detained for facilitating the supply of arms to a terrorist group in Sri Lanka. More recently, in April 1987, we detained four persons who were spreading rumours of impending racial clashes and making active preparations for racial disturbances. And in 1987, the Marxist arrests also highlighted the security problems posed by the exploitation and manipulation of religious organisations and religious publications. Thirdly, Sir, we can abolish the ISA only when the security situation in Malaysia has enabled them to abolish their ISA. The internal security of Singapore and Malaysia are closely interlinked. Mr Lee Kuan Yew stated this way back in October 1958, more than 30 years ago, in the run-up to the May 1959 elections and before he became Prime Minister. He made this an election issue and the PAP won the elections. He reiterated this most recently in May last year before the September 1988 general elections. This inter-relatedness endures because both countries face common security problems - communism and communalism. Although the threat posed by the communists has receded, the problems posed by the communalists have not. Any instability and turmoil in Malaysia will affect Singapore and vice versa. The hon. Member for Potong Pasir could not have forgotten May 13, 1969, when racial riots in Kuala Lumpur spilled over to Singapore. Therefore, Sir, the announcement of CPM's cessation of hostilities does not render the ISA unnecessary. It is still needed to effectively deal with internal security problems.

Will the Minister tell the House whether or not there is a threat of communist subversion in Singapore today?

Sir, communist subversion may have receded but it has not disappeared.

Even if the Government should not repeal the ISA today, would the Government consider relaxing the conditions on political detainees and release them unconditionally and immediately? I refer in particular to Chia Thye Poh who has been in prison for more than 23 years. The Minister should know that.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the conditions which are imposed on any detainee upon his release are guided solely on security considerations and with a view to ensuring that they do not return to the subversive activities for which they were in the very first place detained. When the assessment of the Internal Security Department is that the conditions need no longer apply, they will be removed.

The Minister has said that communist subversion in Singapore today has receded but has not completely disappeared. At this stage, does it justify having the Internal Security Act, which is really aimed at communist subversion?

Sir, in my reply, I thought I have outlined that the problem posed by the communists and the CPM is not the only security threat which we have in Singapore. And even if it completely disappears, there are other threats to our security which I have outlined and I do not want to repeat them.

Sir, the Minister is saying that there is really no need for the Internal Security Act to contain communist subversion. He is saying that there are in fact other threats like communalism. I take the Minister's point. But this House will soon be passing laws to restrict people from mixing their religious activities with politics. Why can the Government not pass specific laws to also contain a problem with regard to communalism in Singapore? What people are objecting ---

Mr Chiam, please ask your question.

Why is the Government not willing to pass laws to contain communalism and other specific problems instead of wanting to maintain the Internal Security Act?

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Member should read the Internal Security Act. It is a law designed to deal with any threat, any problem, which is prejudicial to the security of Singapore. And from the few examples that I recited, it must be clear to Members that the types of security threats which have arisen and which can arise are innumerable. For that reason, as I said, it will be unwise to abolish the ISA. As for the legislation on religion and politics which has not been tabled yet in this House, let me say that even if we have separate legislation on religion and politics, there will still be a need for the ISA. I would suggest that the Member await for the Bill on religion and politics, then he can make his point at the appropriate time.

asked the Minister for Finance (a) whether, in the spirit of Asean solidarity, the Malaysian Government informed the Singapore Government of its decision to sever the linkage between the Kuala Lumpur Stock Exchange and the Stock Exchange of Singapore prior to the Malaysian Finance Minister's announcement in the Malaysian Parliament; (b) what will be the short-term and long-term impact of the split on the Stock Exchange of Singapore; and (c) what are the implications for the investors in the Stock Exchange of Singapore.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the question is in three parts. I will answer them in order. The Malaysian Minister for Finance did inform me of his Government's decision to sever the linkage between the Kuala Lumpur Stock Exchange and the Stock Exchange of Singapore (SES) prior to his announcement in the Malaysian Parliament. At the moment, there are 182 Malaysian companies out of the 329 companies listed on the Singapore Stock Exchange. In the short term, the immediate impact of the delisting of Malaysian stocks from the SES is likely to be a decline in the turnover of the SES. Longer term, this setback should drive the Stock Exchange of Singapore to respond in two ways. Firstly, it will have to sharpen its competitive edge and upgrade the quality of services provided by stockbrokers in Singapore. Secondly, the SES will have to give greater emphasis to the trading of foreign stocks. Plans are being finalised to trade Hong Kong, Thai and Australian stocks in the over-the-counter (OTC) market through the SES electronic trading or CLOB system. With the present technology and international interest by investors, there has been an increasing trend in the trading of stocks outside home exchanges with business going to the most competitive and efficient centres. In 1988, over S$14 billion worth of non-Singapore and non-Malaysian dollar shares were traded in Singapore, more than the S$12.8 billion turnover of the Singapore and Malaysian shares on the Stock Exchange of Singapore. In the first half of this year, the volume of non-Singapore and non-Malaysian dollar shares traded in Singapore increased to S$12 billion. Investors in the Stock Exchange of Singapore would initially have fewer stocks to invest in. Over time, the range of stocks would be increased as more companies, both local and foreign, list on the SES. As the SES broadens its activities in the trading of foreign stocks, investors would have a wider range of stocks to invest in.

What is the future outlook for Sesdaq, the secondary stock market?

Sir, I am not quite sure of the question?

With the split of the stock markets, what is the implication on Sesdaq?

Sesdaq will remain as part of the Stock Exchange of Singapore. So I do not see any need to make any fundamental changes.

The following question stood in the name of Mr Chng Hee Kok - 9. To ask the Minister for Finance if he will speed up the privatisation of Government-owned companies in view of the delisting of Malaysian companies from the Stock Exchange of Singapore.

Question No. 9, Sir.

Mr Speaker, Sir, one of the objectives of privatisation in Singapore is indeed to enlarge and deepen the stock exchange by listing new counters and by increasing the volume of shares of existing counters. This process, however, should not be artificially speeded up. First, the companies to be privatised through a listing in the stock exchange must be ready for listing. They must not only meet all the listing requirements of the stock exchange but also must be free of major problems that might raise a doubt as to their future viability or profitability. Second, the timing of the listing or secondary offer of shares in the market must be opportune in relation to market conditions and other factors. Since 1986, six Government-owned companies have been introduced to the stock exchange and shares of seven Government-linked listed companies have been sold through public offer or placement. Temasek Holdings has privatised almost all of its privatisable companies. MND Holdings has only two companies which it is contemplating to privatise. At lower levels, there are more companies which may be privatisable but their parent companies will have to make the commercial judgment as to the actual timing of their flotation. However, I expect that the delisting of Malaysian companies from the SES will create a healthy appetite in the market for new issues and this will encourage good quality companies, including Government-linked companies, to seek listings earlier rather than later. In addition, the Telecommunications Authority of Singapore and the Public Utilities Board have both announced plans to privatise parts of their operations and other statutory boards are also studying their positions.

asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs whether he will say what is the Government's policy on Cambodia.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Government's policy on Cambodia has been fully conveyed in many forums. The Prime Minister has given several press interviews on this subject only very recently. When I was in New York in October, I addressed both the Council on Foreign Relations and the United Nations General Assembly on the issue of Cambodia. I believe the Member has not read my speeches as they were published in the Straits Times, but I would be very pleased to give him two copies of my speeches afterwards. Singapore has a national interest in the satisfactory solution of the Cambodian problem. As a small state, Singapore has to stand up and vigorously defend any small state, including Cambodia, when it is invaded in violation of the principles of the UN Charter and international law. At the same time, we also firmly believe in the right of self-determination for the Cambodian people. These are the fundamental premises upon which our Cambodian policy is based. Let me briefly state the key elements of Singapore's policy on Cambodia. Singapore firmly believes that the only way to bring about a durable peace to Cambodia and end the long suffering of the Cambodian people is through a comprehensive political settlement. Such a settlement should include, among others, the following elements: (a) the creation of an international control mechanism under the UN auspices to verify the total withdrawal of Vietnamese forces from Cambodia; (b) the formation of an interim quadripartite government in Phnom Penh under Prince Norodom Sihanouk's effective leadership pending free and fair elections; (c) the holding of UN supervised elections to enable the Cambodian people to decide who should rule them. These elements have been endorsed by an overwhelming majority of the international community at the United Nations. An international conference on Cambodia was held in Paris in August - September 1989. It failed only because Vietnam refused to accept two essential elements of a comprehensive political settlement: (a) effective power-sharing among the four Cambodian factions in an interim government; and (b) the participation of the UN in a comprehensive political settlement. The Cambodian problem was debated for the 11th time in the UN General Assembly this year from 15-16 November 1989. The ASEAN-sponsored Resolution on Cambodia calling for a comprehensive political settlement was co-sponsored by a record high of 79 member countries, half of the UN's membership. For the 10th year in a row, it received increased support, 124 votes in favour compared to 122 votes last year. The support for the ASEAN Resolution was a clear signal from the international community that it still holds Vietnam responsible for a satisfactory solution of the Cambodian problem. As I said earlier, after the adoption of the UN resolution, Singapore sincerely hopes that Vietnam will accept this decision of the UN in the right spirit. We have not set out to humiliate Vietnam. Instead, we have always tried to encourage it to heed the overwhelming voice of the international community. The time has now come for Vietnam to sit down and negotiate seriously with the Cambodian parties and other members of the Paris Conference for a compromise settlement that takes into account the interests of all parties, including Vietnam's. 1.30 pm

Order. End of Question time. Ministerial Statement. Pursuant to Standing Order 21(2), Written Answers to Questions Nos. 11 to 16 remaining on the Order Paper are reproduced at the section, 'Oral Answers to Questions Not Reached'(Cols. 769 - 772).

1.30 pm

Mr Speaker, Sir, I have a short statement to make. Members will recall that at our last sitting on 6th October, during the debate on the Minister for Education's statement on teaching of Religious Knowledge in schools, several Members asked me when the Government intended to implement the ground rules on religion and politics which was set out in the Address by the President. I replied that the Government has decided to introduce legislation to give effect to these ground rules and that I expected the Bill to be ready for introduction at today's sitting of Parliament. Mr Speaker, Sir, the Government has considered the matter further and has decided to publish a White Paper first before tabling the proposed legislation. The White Paper will set out proposals for the legislation to maintain religious tolerance and harmony, including the separation of religion and politics. It will spell out the problems which we face in our multi-racial and multi-religious society, the reasons why we need legislation and it will also outline the main features of the proposed legislation. I expect the White Paper to be published within the next two weeks. Following its publication, the Government intends to introduce a Bill in this House intituled "Religions (Maintenance of Harmony) Bill". That Bill will be referred to a Select Committee so that the details of its provisions can be carefully scrutinised and views of all interested parties can be received.

"to amend the Income Tax Act (Chapter 134 of the 1985 Revised Edition)", recommendation of President signified; presented by the Minister for Finance (Dr Richard Hu Tsu Tau); read the First time; to be read a Second time on the next available sitting of Parliament, and to be printed.

Order for Second Reading read.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." The aim of this Bill is to further strengthen our political system by offering Singaporeans more opportunities for political participation and to evolve a more consensual style of government where alternative views are heard and constructive dissent accommodated. It is part of a broader vision which we in the PAP Government painted in 1984, and which led to the introduction of Non-Constituency MPs, and the establishment of GRCs and Town Councils. It should therefore be seen in this wider context. The Government's programme to achieve this was spelt out by the President when he opened the Seventh Parliament on 9th January 1989. On "Building Consensus", he said, (and I quote from Hansard, Vol. 52, No. 1, Col. 14): 'The Government will systematically create more opportunities for Singaporeans to participate actively in shaping their own future.' On "Encouraging Participation" and "Accommodating Dissent", the President said: 'Singaporeans have shown that while they value good government, they also increasingly want alternative views to be expressed and dissenting voices to be heard. The Government will listen to alternative views and dissenting voices, and accommodate them where they are constructive. The first step towards this accommodation was the Non-Constituency Member of Parliament scheme.... Such non-government MPs can question Government policies and argue for alternative courses of action. The Government will review the NCMP scheme and increase the number of non-government MPs to achieve this.' (Hansard, Vol. 52, No. 1, Col. 15) When the President's Address was debated, not a single Member of Parliament objected to this political vision. They all supported it, including the opposition MPs. Note that the President used the words "non-government MPs" advisedly, and not "opposition MPs". We can increase the number of non-government MPs, including opposition MPs, in a number of ways. The simplest is to increase the number of Non-Constituency MPs. A more radical way is to change the rules and have proportional representation. But I do not recommend this. It will quickly lead to politicking on racial and even religious grounds, and weakened social structures. We could also have a second round election for opposition MPs if opposition parties fail to secure a minimum number of seats in a general election. This could be an alternative to the NCMP scheme. We could also have an Upper House, with all the Senators elected, or some Senators elected and some appointed, or all Senators appointed. All these methods will either alter radically the present electoral processes or change drastically the basic structure of our legislature which consists of a single Chamber. They should not be embarked upon without the most compelling reasons. Our present system is basically sound and there is no need to consider such radical changes. However, we can improve the present system simply by Parliament itself, ie, we, the elected representatives, nominating a number of politically non-partisan Singaporeans who can contribute to good government as MPs. Parliament can consider itself as an 'electoral college' vested with the powers to nominate a number of politically non-partisan Singaporeans to help it in its work. Parliament does not have to, but it is a special privilege it can extend to those Singaporeans who can contribute, but who for good reasons, have no desire to go into politics or to look after a constituency, to enter Parliament. These MPs appointed by Parliament can be people who have distinguished themselves or have special knowledge and practical experience in the professions, commerce, industry, cultural activities, social service, or people from an under-represented group of the population, eg, women. Bill The Bill before the House seeks to amend the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore to provide for the appointment of a maximum number of six Nominated Members of Parliament. The appointment will be made by the President on the nomination of a Special Select Committee appointed by Parliament. The Special Select Committee, in preparing the list of nominees to be appointed by the President, will invite the general public to submit the names of suitable persons. The procedure for doing so is spelt out in the proposed Fourth Schedule to the Constitution on the "Appointment of Nominated Members of Parliament" (clause 5 of the Bill). Persons to be Nominated Members must have the same qualifications as those who stand for election to Parliament and are subject to the same disqualifications. The Bill requires Nominated Members to be appointed within six months after the first meeting of Parliament following a general election. For the purposes of the present Parliament , such appointments will be made as soon as practicable after this Bill takes effect as law. All six Nominated MPs need not be appointed at the same time. Their appointments can be staggered. The term for each Nominated MP is two years unless before then Parliament is dissolved or he resigns or his seat becomes vacant in accordance with Article 46 of the Constitution. A Nominated MP can be re-appointed after the expiry of his term. He can also stand for any election to Parliament. But if he is elected, his seat will become vacant, ie, he cannot be a Nominated Member and an elected Member at the same time. This will also apply to a Non-Constituency Member. If the seat of a Nominated MP becomes vacant, on the expiry of his term, it will be filled as soon as practicable. If the seat becomes vacant for other reasons, it may be filled at the discretion of the Special Select Committee. A Nominated MP will have the same voting rights in Parliament as a Non-Constituency Member, ie, he can vote on all Bills and motions, except money and Constitutional Bills, and motions of no confidence in the Government. He is, however, free to participate in the debate on such Bills and motions. Sir, let me add here that it is not the intention of Government that Nominated MPs should be eligible to become Ministers or other office holders. The principle that office holders must come from the ranks of elected MPs will remain. If the provisions of the Bill are not specific on this point, suitable amendments can be made. Why the Bill is introduced now It is timely to introduce the Bill now and have some Nominated MPs in this House before the middle of next year. As I have said on another occasion, I intend to let this Parliament run its full term, ie, until end 1993. This means that, unless we do something, there will be only two Opposition MPs for the next four years. After nearly one year's experience, the feedback is that the two of them, ie, the two Opposition MPs, do not adequately express significant alternative views held outside this Chamber. Indeed, we have encouraged the PAP MPs to play the role of a constructive Opposition to ventilate alternative and even contrary solutions to our problems. They have done this well, but no matter how vigorously they speak on an issue, the point is that they are Government MPs. Moreover, on important issues like this one, they are not allowed to vote against the Government unless the Whip is lifted. And we do not intend to do so, except in matters of conscience, because of the system of collective responsibility. PAP MPs often vote on issues, but this is done in closed-door party meetings. Once a vote is taken and the decision made, they are expected to abide by the majority decision. Therefore, some members of the public have felt that non-government viewpoints have not been adequately aired and pressed. This is a misconception which it is in our interest to remove. We are not afraid of dissent. In fact, we welcome alternative solutions to our problems, and want to be seen doing so. If we add six Nominated MPs to the two Opposition MPs, there will be eight non-government MPs. This is a sizable presence. It is 10% of the number of Government MPs. Even if more Opposition MPs are returned at the next General Election, it is still to Singapore's interest and advantage to have six Nominated MPs. Although the PAP has done its best to persuade the best to serve the country, there are always Singaporeans who can contribute but who are not able, or prepared, to take part in elections and look after a constituency. For example, many foreign companies, in particular multi-national companies, do not allow their staff to take part in elections because they want to retain a neutral position in their host country. Oil companies practise this policy. For the same reason, some local companies do not allow their staff to stand for elections. The Straits Times, for example, does not allow their journalists to do so. I hope that these companies will allow their staff to become Nominated MPs because such MPs will not be politically partisan. Then we can have a group of Singaporeans hitherto not available, who can make a significant contribution from their wider experience, expertise and insights into our economic and social problems. Women are another category of Singaporeans who can contribute to public service but who are under-represented in Parliament. There are only four of them. Most women who can contribute are immersed in their careers and with families to look after. Few women will want to handle three full-time jobs - elections and a constituency, plus a career, and family. They may be willing to become a Nomi- nated MP if they do not have to look after a constituency. And that way, we can have more women in Parliament. Nominated MPs Note that Nominated MPs are not Opposition MPs. Those who want Opposition MPs to represent them can still vote for them. The Nominated MPs proposal does not take away their freedom to vote for the candidate they want, whether PAP or Opposition. Nominated MPs are not Government MPs either. They should and will be people who will vote as they think right. The PAP, with 80 out of 81 seats in Parliament, does not need six more pro-government MPs to strengthen it. The Nominated MPs are politically non-partisan. They should not belong to any political party. Then they can give voice in Parliament to the views of the protest-voters, those who are unhappy with the Government over certain policies but want the PAP to form the Government. Many such voters do not identify themselves with the Opposition even though they do not think that PAP MPs can speak out convincingly enough on their behalf. They can now turn to the Nominated MPs. Nominated MPs can fulfil a constructive role which the Opposition is not providing. Indeed, they will say things which no Opposition Member will. The reason is simple. The objective or aim of the Opposition MPs has been not to help find the right solution or settle correct policies, but to embarrass the Government and trip it up in order to discredit the Government so that they can win office for themselves. Nominated MPs, unlike Opposition MPs, can concentrate on the substance of the debate rather than form and rhetoric. They do not have to play to the gallery. They can be constructive while dissenting, thus contributing to good government. The New Parliament In Singapore, the Parliament should represent the views of the people. At the same time, individual MPs should speak their convictions, as PAP MPs do, rather than echo what they hear others saying outside the House, seeking popularity by following the crowd. The PAP sets out to represent the mainstream of political opinion in Singapore, and to field as representative a range of candidates as possible during General Elections - unionists, professionals, academics, grassroots leaders, different races, sexes, and so on. Still PAP MPs are unlikely to succeed completely in representing every legitimate viewpoint. Furthermore, not all its candidates may get elected. For example, the women candidates, who despite the PAP's best efforts are relatively few, may by chance all be defeated, leaving this an all male House. The Opposition parties do not set out to field candidates to complement the PAP candidates. People who stand as Opposition candidates usually feel strongly that the PAP government is bad for Singapore, and should be thrown out of power. This in itself limits the range of people likely to be elected to Parliament as Opposition MPs. There will be an intermediate range of opinions, people who may disagree with the PAP on certain issues, and therefore do not wish to stand as a PAP candidate, but who despite this do not believe that throwing out the PAP is necessarily the best solution. There will also be people who for legitimate reasons are not able to stand for election as MPs, but who can make valuable contributions in public policy debates. They should not be shut out of the political process, as to a certain extent they are now. Neither the PAP nor Opposition MPs (nor NCMPs who are also partisan) can adequately represent the views of these people. Not necessarily from lack of ability, but because they hold a different set of convictions. Nominated MPs can make our political process more representative and policy debate more thorough by reflecting such strands of opinion. With Nominated MPs, Parliament will have three distinct groups of MPs to represent all interests: (1) the ruling party representing the large middle-ground; (2) the Opposition, whether directly elected or NCMPs, representing the anti-establishment voters; and (3) Nominated MPs who are independent of political parties and speaking for those who feel that their interests are not adequately represented by the ruling or Opposition parties. For the next election, if we decide to increase the number of NCMPs to six, ie, from three to six, there will be at least 12 non-government MPs. This is 15% of the number of Government MPs, a good balance. Such a Parliament will be more broad-based than the present Parliament. Nominated MPs in other countries We will not be the first to have Nominated MPs in Parliament. At least 20 other countries have them in their House of Representatives. Fourteen of these countries belong to the Commonwealth. For Members' information, I shall ask the Clerk of Parliament to circulate a list (Cols. 773 - 780) of these 20 countries. [Copies of list circulated to hon. Members.] Each of them has some special circumstances. list - SOME COUNTRIES WITH APPOINTED MPs IN LOWER HOUSES (Cols. 773 - 780) Let us take the case of Botswana. Botswana is a member of the Commonwealth. The President of Botswana, Dr Q K J Masire, was in Singapore recently to attend the Commonwealth Heads of Governments meeting in Kuala Lumpur. He told the Minister for Trade and Industry who escorted him that Botswana has a system of "Specially Elected MPs", almost identical to the Nominated MPs scheme we have in mind. Botswana has a multi-party parliamentary system. The country is divided into 34 single-member constituencies, but the Parliament has 40 members, including 4 Specially Elected Members of Parliament. After general elections, when Parliament meets, the first order of the 34 MPs is to elect the 4 additional Specially Elected MPs. This system, introduced by the Botswanians themselves, has been in existence since their independence in 1966. The rationale is two-fold: (1) in a newly independent country, one cannot be certain that all the able people with relevant experience and abilities will contest elections; and (2) it was considered desirable that the Parliament always contain a clear majority of the ruling party, and to avoid a hung Parliament. I am not saying that these two reasons for Botswana are applicable to Singapore. These four Specially Elected MPs can vote in Parliament and can hold office in government. The other MPs in Botswana naturally did not welcome the addition of these four MPs. Hence the term "Specially Elected MPs", to reassure them that the four are not superior to them. The President was quite proud of his country's innovations. He told BG Lee that I could quote him. Now, look at Pakistan and Bangladesh. These are Muslim countries where traditionally women do not stand for election. So their Parliaments elect a number of women MPs to represent the women. In other words, Parliament functions like an electoral college and elects the required number of women MPs to represent the women in Pakistan or Bangladesh. Singapore's Special Circumstance Our special circumstance is the similarity of our constituencies and the dominance of the PAP. Although Singapore is divided into 55 constituencies comprising 13 GRCs and 42 single-member constituencies, each constituency is electorally similar to another. With the possible exception of Tanglin, there are no distinctly conservative or liberal wards because each constituency's demographic, economic and social profile is typical of the national profile. We have spread out, as a matter of public policy, Singaporeans of different social and racial backgrounds over all the public housing estate. Each estate has its fair share of rental blocks, 3-room flats, 4-room, and so on, and Malays, Indians and Chinese. Whether it is Toa Payoh, Marine Parade or Yishun, the voter profile is about the same. Singapore is, therefore, like one big constituency, not 55 different constituencies, with election results affected more by national mood and Government policies than by local problems. With the first-past-the-post electoral system, a dominant party like the PAP will win decisively leaving very few seats to the opposition. To illustrate my point, let us look at the election results of the last two general elections, 1984 and 1988. In 1984, despite a sharp drop in national support for the PAP, a drop of 13%, the PAP lost only two seats. In 1988, though the support level went down by 1% from 1984, the PAP lost only one seat. In fact, it recovered one from the two opposition seats which it lost in 1984. I believe that what the people really want is, one, a strong, capable Government which can deliver what it promises -a high standard of living, a peaceful society, and a secure future - and, two, a sizable number of non-government MPs who can present alternative views from time to time on specific issues and policies. We have the first but we do not have the second. For many years, from 1966 to 1981, the people were happy with the total dominance of the PAP in Parliament. But they have shown in recent years that they want alternatives to the Government views to be aired, whilst wanting the PAP to continue as the Government. We must take cognizance of this. The PAP has no desire to shut out sensible, constructive criticism, or prevent alternative and dissenting views from being expressed in Parliament. Parliament is the supreme law-making body in Singapore. Since the normal electoral process does not result in such views from being represented, we take steps to ensure that they are represented. We have already introduced the NCMP scheme to ensure that there will always be some Opposition Members in Parliament. The Nominated MP scheme is an extension of the NCMP scheme. It broadens our political system and makes for a better Parliament. We have to evolve a system which meets the special needs of Singapore. The Westminster parliamentary system we have inherited is flexible enough to be the basic framework on which to gradually evolve a system suited to our own needs and arising from our own political experience. Our constitutional position has to evolve with our social, economic and political circumstances. It cannot be static, because a society is dynamic, not static. We must make changes to meet changing circumstances and expectations. For example, we introduced provisions for Non-Constituency MPs in 1984, and for Group Representation Constituencies in 1988. Such changes represent different facets of an evolving Constituton. They are constitutional improvements to meet our special circumstances. I intend to refer this Bill to a Select Committee. The mechanics of how the MPs are to be nominated and other technical details can be taken care of by the Select Committee. At this point, concentrate on the purpose of the Bill. The principle underlying this Bill is simple. First, to build consensus. Second, to encourage political participation and contribution, to get those who can contribute to good government to serve. And, third, to accommodate constructive dissent and alternative views. The challenges and problems which Singapore will face are formidable. The solutions open to us are not many. Whichever party is in charge of Singapore faces these same challenges and problems. It is in our national interest to get our people to rally around a common cause, to work together, because after all the discussion and arguments are fully aired in Parliament, we have to choose between alternative solutions and to make the solution we have decided upon work. We have to get our people behind it and to make it succeed. Hence this Bill to enable Parliament, through its special Select Committee, to bring in 6 nominated MPs. Sir, I beg to move. Question proposed. 2.05 pm

Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to support the Bill moved by the First Deputy Prime Minister. Before we get into the details of the Bill, we have to ask ourselves one fundamental question, and that is whether the proposals contained in the Bill will result in an improvement in, firstly, the deliberations in this House and, in general, to Singapore. We have 81 Members in this House. The question to ask is whether these 81 people represent all the views, constructive or otherwise, that we can garner, or whether we could benefit from having more views expressed in this Chamber. The proposal of Nominated MPs will result in the injection of additional views and opinions which will complement the present elected and Non-Constituency MPs. If there is an improvement to the discussion and debate, then we should not, as elected MPs in this House, object to any improvement that may be brought into this House by these MPs. With due respect to my colleagues, I do not think that we in this House can claim to represent to know everything there is need to know in Singapore and that we cannot benefit from views, especially from specialists, professionals, in their own fields and endeavours. We in Singapore are also faced with rather reluctant politicians. I think in the past 20 - 25 years, I am quite sure that my fellow colleagues will agree with me that a running topic is always, "Why should we become politicians? Why should we invite trouble on to ourselves?" And many MPs, past and present, have at one time or other expressed that they are actually reluctant MPs, because the demands made on elected MPs are tremendous. The sacrifices made by elected MPs are also very substantial. There are people in Singapore who have the ability to contribute constructive views, specialist views, but are constrained in one form or another from participating in the elected process. This constraint could be business, family, and a whole host of other reasons. It will be a pity if we were to let this pass by without having an opportunity to tap their expertise and their contributions. As we progress into the 1990s, our problems are going to be more complex, more involved, and the more views we have in contributing to effective solutions, the more important it is for us to have these views expressed publicly. I think at the moment, as the First DPM pointed out, there are certain perceived disadvantages of Government MPs - I refer specifically to PAP MPs - for being unable to take issues with the Government. In the last year, in particular, there have been a few major Bills coming before this House where PAP MPs expressed their views rather vehemently, strongly, against the Government. But in the end they all have to eat humble pie. Because of Party discipline, they are forced to vote in line with the Government. In fact, some constituents have complained to me. It seems a rather difficult situation, is it not? You can breathe fire and brimstone, but at the end of the day you go quietly and cast your vote the right way. I think the credibility gap is there and given the Westminster system that we are running, it will be very difficult for Government MPs, whether they are PAP or otherwise, to go too strongly against the Government in terms of making constructive views known, as long as they remain members of the Party. It can be argued, of course, that NCMPs, and indeed opposition MPs can fill the role. But as the First DPM pointed out just now, opposition MPs by virtue of their positions are constrained to be anti-government, anti-establishment, for it is their prime responsibility to bring down the Government so that they can be the Government themselves. But what we look forward in this House is a situation where we can have constructive and alternative opinions which will then enable the Government to go along and arrive at a consensus in terms of policy implementation. Perhaps at this stage I can make a suggestion that instead of defining the number of Nominated MPs to be six, we could conceivably consider whether it is possible to follow the same system as the NCMPs, in the sense that if there are more opposition Members elected during the elections, there can be a corresponding reduction in the number of Nominated MPs. Because I do not think we can rule out a situation where in the years to come there could be people among the Opposition bench who have the kind of intelligence and calibre that Singaporeans look for. I believe one issue that is bugging a lot of MPs at the moment, especially Government MPs, is that the Nominated MPs would appear to come in rather freely and without any problem. In other words, they can come in and express their views. They do not have to do all the donkey work that the elected MPs have to do, to look after the constituency and to go into the hustings every now and then. Are they therefore in a privileged position? Are they first-class and elected MPs second-class? I think the elected MPs come into Parliament for different reasons. If we had been afraid of doing the constituency work, serving the people, we would not be volunteering ourselves. For most of us who are elected, we should and must derive a different sense of satisfaction from being an elected MP, the satisfaction of being of service to the people, something which the Nominated MPs would not be able to claim. At the same time, the role of Nominated MPs is also restricted and they would not have the same kind of influence and prestige that the elected MPs would have. As elected MPs, I think we should not grudge the presence of Nominated MPs if they can contribute to improving the quality of debate in this House. Ultimately, whether the Nominated MPs are better than the elected MPs or vice versa depends, firstly, on ourselves, the elected MPs, whether we do our jobs properly, whether we serve our constituents to the extent that they know that we have done a job effectively and are worthy of being re-elected. And, more important, on the Nominated MPs themselves. Are they men of integrity known to be leaders in their particular fields, whether they are capable of independence of views, whether they are prepared to take on the Government and offer alternative or constructive views, whether they can remain non-partisan? The implementation, the shape of the administration and the procedures will be debated in the Select Committee. Overall, if the proposal can result in improvements, I think we owe it to us and owe it to Singapore that we give it a try, for nothing harmful can come out of this proposal. There could be improvements. It may not be to the extent that we wish in the initial years, but we can make corrections and adjustments as we go along. On this note, I would like to support the First Deputy Prime Minister although I know there will be many others whose support may not be so forthcoming.

Mr Speaker, Sir, our parliamentary system has an established tradition and appears to be working well for us all these years. People who fill this House are elected by the respective constituencies. Even NCMPs, although not elected into this Parliament, can claim to some support for them in the general elections. Before this House now, Sir, is a proposal to modify all this. It is a significant modification and one which we should not take lightly. And I am glad to hear the First Deputy Prime Minister promise that the Bill will be committed to a Select Committee. Sir, I can appreciate the arguments for having more diverse views and contributions in Parliament. Such diversity is after all one of the hallmarks of democracy. If this is the principle that prompts the proposal for Nominated MPs, then in clear conscience I am comfortable in supporting this principle. Indeed, I think nobody can quarrel with it. But, be that as it may, I am still filled with doubts whether this is the best and only way to put the principle into play in this country and I doubt whether, according to the speaker before me, that this is the only way to improve the standard of debate in this House. Sir, the method proposed to select people into this House as Nominated MPs would challenge the very basis for the proposal. The principle presupposes that the House would be better off with more diverse and expert views than have already been made available through the normal electoral process that we now have. The presumption and expectation therefore are that these views should be independent ones, though not necessarily, but frequently offering alternatives from those that are already prevailing in this House. Unless this premise is present, the purpose of having these additional numbers would be lost and their presence superfluous. But those nominated to the House, Sir, whether we like it or not, will be often perceived as being partial towards the Government, if not already in Government. This will happen if the selection process is deemed to be partial to the induction of these kinds of men and women into this Parliament. The method of selection itself will become a contentious issue. I would therefore appreciate it if the First Deputy Prime Minister can elucidate the ways we can avoid these contentions and perceptions. The other perception, Sir, is that the proposal is tantamount to an indictment of the existing system and of the elected MPs we now have, especially the Backbenchers in the House. This perception has been alluded to by several MPs in our private conversations and some from those outside this House. Are we not creating the impression that MPs are not really bringing up enough solid and diverse views in this Parliament that we need to bring in others to this Chamber to provide such views? Then, Sir, there are real problems in the implementation of this scheme. Whose or what sectors of interests will be picked to be represented in this House? On what grounds are these interests to be chosen and why not others? What about the nomination process itself? As the Bill now stands, it needs only a handful of people to put up nominations for the MP-ship. Their mandate therefore to Parliament is a small one, maybe even smaller than the NCMPs which we have in this House, unless the person so nominated is of such stature that thousands would be willing to nominate him for candidateship. But mostly, Sir, will we not be inundated with nominations which are frivolous or nominations from the public which are unreasonable? While I agree that this can be handled administratively, are we not creating unnecessary workload for ourselves? Sir, it is important that we avail ourselves of more views and people participating in the process of government. But for this to work, we will have to seek out men and women who are indeed knowledgeable, men and women who are indeed moral and not merely out to destroy us but to contribute. And if we can find these men and women, what is to stop us from getting to them and seek out their views without getting them into Parliament? Why not a think-tank, for example, comprising these informed and expert persons? The outfit can be attached to Parliament and they can be non-partisan. We can always ask for reports from them to be made available to Parliament. This way, Sir, they can contribute without being involved in the political process and without us having to change our parliamentary system. But, Sir, I am willing to hear out reasons for preferring the NMP system over the think-tank concept and keep an open mind about it. It is important that we keep an open mind without prejudging the issues at hand. The speaker before me mentioned that we need to try it out and see whether it would work or whether it would not. The proposal before us is an important one not only for the goals it hopes to achieve but also for the changes it will make to our parliamentary process. We will need to separate principle from scheme, principle from proposal and while the principle is a sound one I hope the Government can do more to convince us and the people that the scheme proposed is the best one possible and that we need not rush to go into it. 2.27 pm

Mr Speaker, Sir, this Bill before us is a very important one indeed. The House has heard earlier the rationale for its introduction by the Hon. First Deputy Prime Minister. Two other Members have spoken earlier and expressed their views. I would also like to similarly put forth my views. This Bill marks a significant change in the structure of Parliament. Previously, Members can only enter Parliament by being elected. Now, Members can also be recruited into our ranks purely by being nominated. On the surface, it appears to be an easier way to enter Parliament. Some might even say that it is the "back-door" way to enter Parliament. However, I would not wish to denigrate these Nominated MPs just because they enter Parliament by a different process. I would say that they are as legitimate an MP as anyone else as they are MPs selected by a lawful constitutional process. There are many people, MPs included, who have much reservation about the concept of Nominated MPs. However, I feel that there are certain advantages on the idea to make it worth serious consideration. I agree that there are persons whom all of us know outside Parliament who are not affiliated to any political party but who could articulate useful and constructive views or even criticisms of Government policies here in Parliament. These people could be brought into Parliament to add a new angle or a new dimension to the debates we have here. This new breed of MPs do not in any way affect the standing or the status of the elected MPs we have here in the House. Provided that the Nominated MPs can "add value" or enhance the image of the House, I feel that we can, as elected MPs, adopt a positive approach towards them. Sir, I feel that the proposed Nominated MP scheme can be supported if the following three main principles can be abided by. First, there should be a limited number of Nominated MPs. The number of Nominated MPs should be kept very small. The present proposal is to have six Members. I strongly feel that the number should not be increased further in future. The reason is that the basic structure of Parliament that it should consist predominantly of elected MPs should always prevail. The elected MPs rightfully represent the people and they could speak for the people in Parliament. Hence, the substantial number in Parliament should always be elected MPs. Second, as the First Deputy Prime Minister has said, Nominated MPs should be non-partisan. I think this is a very fundamental tenet that all Nominated MPs should be non-partisan. If selected, these MPs should sever all their party links, if any. The rationale for this requirement is very obvious. If a person is affiliated to any political party, he should rightfully seek to enter Parliament through the election process by offering himself to be a candidate for election in a general election. In fact, I would venture to suggest that any person who had stood as a candidate in any previous elections should not be eligible for selection as a Nominated MP. These persons have failed to get elected by the populace; it is difficult to justify their selection by the Select Committee as it would then truly be a back door way for them to enter Parliament. Should they wish to be MPs representing a political party, they should continue to fight in elections and hopefully win a seat in this Parliament as elected MPs. Third, Sir, there should be an objective and neutral process for the selection of Nominated MPs. In my discussions and sounding out of the grassroots members on this scheme, the general feedback I got is that they are not too adverse to the idea of Nominated MPs. They generally feel that if we can attract some worthwhile independent persons to come into Parliament and assist in watching over Government policies, this is a plus factor. However, one common thread that strings through their reactions at the grassroots level is that it is very crucial that the selection process must be seen to be neutral and objective. They are concerned whether the Special Select Committee comprising only eight persons can be objective. Unlike elected MPs whose credibility is based upon being elected by their constituents, the Nominated MPs do not have such ground support. The credibility of the Nominated MPs therefore rests fundamentally on the selection process. And this process should be accepted by the people. In this regard, I wish to propose some changes to the Special Select Committee. I know the nitty-gritty details can be discussed further in the Select Committee but let me just put forth a few comments. First, I feel that the Special Select Committee should comprise all elected Members instead of just only eight Members. Secondly, I think at the point when the voting for the Nominated Members comes, the political Whip should be lifted so that all Members in this House can vote freely on their conscience and not along party lines. These people who are being nominated are actually non-partisan members in the first place. Thirdly, only candidates who can obtain the votes of more than 50% of the Members present in the House should be accepted as Nominated MPs. Then it will be shown that these people have the majority support of the Members in the House and they therefore indirectly represent the people because we, the elected Members here, are the people's representatives. Sir, I believe the above few changes will give a higher degree of objectivity to the selection process which that is what the people want to see. The Nominated MPs will have some standing in the eyes of the people as they are voted in by a majority of the Members in this House. On the point about people whom we would like to bring into the House here, I support the First Deputy Prime Minister's idea that we should bring in more woman Members. I think we would like to see more of the fairer sex in this House to articulate views pertaining to their interests. I would also like to suggest that we should not just simply look at professionals as people whom we would like to bring into this House. In fact, there are many professionals in this House who could speak on the views of professionals. What we should do is try to look for more grassroots leaders who could speak for various grassroots organisations. As there is a need for us to further study the scheme and to further refine it, I support the intention to commit the Bill to a Select Committee. Sir, I wish to conclude by saying that given the advantages of the proposed Bill, and if it is modified along the principles that I have suggested, I am prepared to support the Bill.

( In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the Bill to amend our Constitution. Ever since independence, the Opposition parties have been able to win only one or two seats in the Parliament. In the past, the governing party Backbenchers have played the role of the Opposition and taken up the task of supervising over the policies and work of the Government. In the past few years, there has been a new trend. Many voters would like the PAP to continue to govern the country but at the same time they also wish to hear more non-PAP members speaking or voicing their views in the House. As the Opposition parties have not been able to enter Parliament through the one-man-one-vote process, there has been the system of Non-Constituency MP for such voice to be heard in Parliament . This has inadvertently strengthened the voice of the Opposition parties in the Parliament. If we can also have Nominated MPs adding neutral and non-PAP voices in the House, it will enhance parliamentary democracy a step further while providing more channels for expressing the voices and aspirations of the people in the House. Therefore, in principle, I support this motion. However, I feel that Nominated MPs are different in nature from ordinary elected MPs. Their duties and rights in the House and their treatment should therefore be different from those of the ordinary MPs. In nature, Nominated MPs are not given the mandate by the people. They need not be responsible to the voters. For this reason, they should not have the right to vote on any Bill in the House. Otherwise, it would be running counter to the spirit of parliamentary democracy. If it is intended to let the Nominated MPs air neutral views in the debate of the House, there should be some limitations on their functions. Firstly, they should not represent any political party. In the past five years, they should not have belonged to any political party or taken part in any politics of any political party. Second, although they can be re-nominated for a further term at the end of their two-year term, however their total term of office should not exceed the 5-year term of the existing Parliament. Third, I agree to the First Deputy Prime Minister's view that their role is to be that of the Backbench MPs and should not be appointed to any government office. Another point, although the allowance for ordinary MPs is not a very big sum, however in order to differentiate the NMPs from the elected MPs because of big differences between their duties and responsibilities, the NMPs should not be getting the same treatment. As regards the criterion for the selection of an NMP, I feel that a Nominated MP should not be a representative of any kind of organisation or society, be it commercial, religious, or racial of any clan or guild organisation. I hope my views will be taken into consideration by the Select Committee. I support this Bill. 2.38 pm

Mr Speaker, Sir, ever since the proposal for Nominated MP was mooted by the First Deputy Prime Minister in this House in October, there have been many diverse views on the proposal by members of the public. There were people who supported and people who did not support the Bill. Sir, let me elaborate on these varied views. First of all, the ordinary man-in-the-street neither supports nor rejects the proposal. Understandably, they are more concerned with daily living and prefer to leave such sophisticated developments to the Government. The proposal, however, appears to have the enthusiastic support of many professionals and academics. They agree with the rationale for the Bill, which is to provide for a wider cross-section of views to be heard in this House. It will allow people who have the qualities of MPs, who have useful views to contribute, but who do not want to go into politics or sacrifice their personal life style to run a constituency or even town councils, to enter Parliament. It will also enable certain professional groups to be represented in Parliament. The presence of these MPs would thus further enhance the quality of debate in this House. On the other hand, Sir, the more educated non-academics and non-professionals who have an interest in this proposal, have strong reservations about the proposal. Many, amongst them, do not see the need to change our present system. They feel that the present system is working satisfactorily and the Government should not tinker with a system which has worked and served us well for the last 25 years. The objective of having greater representation could still be achieved by other means, for example, by having more Select Committees, or occasionally lifting the Party Whip. Besides, candidates appointed may not be credible since they were not chosen by the people. They would not have enough political clout to have any significant influence in Parliament. Some also felt that the proposal could be a political tactic on the part of the PAP to perpetuate its dominance in this House; by offering up to six Nominated MPs, the PAP is hoping that the electorates' desire for Opposition MPs will be satisfied. Sir, whether they supported or did not support the proposal, the majority felt and agreed on the importance of having a fair and independent selection process. It is crucial that this Special Parliamentary Select Committee should be seen to be fair when appointing candidates. Given that the PAP is currently the dominant party, Members of the Select Committee will invariably come from the ruling Party and may end up appointing only like-minded people as Nominated MPs. Many felt this could be prevented by having even Opposition MPs in this Committee or allow prominent leaders of professional organisations to be automatically appointed. Many did not object that the Nominated MPs can vote on all motions except those on constitutional amendments and money Bills. They agree that since the Nominated MPs are not elected by the people, they should not enjoy all the privileges that elected MPs enjoy. A minority, however, feel that this would make Nominated MPs toothless tigers or a group of second-class MPs. Sir, since this proposal would be significant and make major changes to our Constitution, many expressed the view that it should be discussed quite widely and preferably committed to a Select Committee. And I was pleased to listen to the First Deputy Prime Minister when he said that this Bill would be committed to a Select Committee and possibly with public hearings. Sir, the views which I stated just now, I stated them in my capacity as Chairman of the Feedback Unit. As for me personally, I am not in favour of introducing Nominated MPs in this House. I believe that the proposal is a major step backwards in the development of our political system in Singapore. After 25 years of independence, I believe we are moving towards appointees in the Legislature. Sir, universal franchise has given every adult Singaporean the constitutional right to elect his or her political representative. Once every five years or even less, Singaporeans decide who should represent them in Parliament. And for most Singaporeans, casting the ballot is about the most concrete and direct form of participation in our democracy. Through the ballot box, each Singaporean decides whether or not he or she wants an Opposition MP. The question is: do we want this change now? One popular and persuasive argument being cited to support the proposal is the "hypothesis" that there are in fact a number of talented Singaporeans who are able to contribute but are unwilling or unable to make the necessary sacrifices. This hypothesis, I am convinced, is dangerous from the point of view of nation-building. Any Singaporean, especially talented Singaporeans who have obviously benefitted from 25 years of PAP rule, should be prepared to make the necessary sacrifices. To suggest that a talented Singaporean might want to contribute but not to sacrifice is not acceptable to me. Very soon, we will have some Singaporeans in this House, if this Bill is passed, who are able to contribute but are not willing to be inconvenienced and not willing to be subject to public scrutiny. Sir, do we need such people in this House? Like the saying goes, "If you cannot take the heat, why stay in the kitchen?" Sir, if talented Singaporeans are at all able to contribute, I believe they should be able to do battle for what they believe in. If they are not prepared to do so, then this House will be better off without them. Alternatively, such talented Singaporeans should stay outside this House and pontificate in their relative safety and security. Mr Speaker, Sir, many Singaporeans also believe that the introduction of 6 Nominated MPs is another manifestation which can be described as a "Government overload". Singaporeans, some critics would say, are already under the weight of over-government. Today, what Singaporeans want is less government. To suggest that people want to have "Nominated MPs as a proxy for the opposition" is a little testing the electorate. It is my contention that Singaporeans are mature enough to make rational political choices. With a per capita income of about $20,000, we enjoy the highest standard of living in Asia outside Japan. To suggest that a people living in an international and open economy are unable to choose their own political leaders, I am afraid, is indefensible. Sir, what, if any, are the alternatives to the Government's proposal? I do not profess to know the answer or have the alternatives. Some solutions, in my view, lie possibly in less Government. People are clamouring for a lessening of what is perceived as "over-regulation", regulations which had served us well in the early years of nation-building, may need to be privatised in the political arena. In the economic field, the Government has reacted to changing circumstances by calling for greater private sector participation. Similarly, some form of privatisation in the political arena may be in order. Sir, if there are few opposition MPs in Parliament, so be it. In my view, Singaporeans might crave for some form of dissent in Parliament, but this craving is unlikely to give way to reckless electoral behaviour. In the final analysis, most Singaporeans would still vote with their heads. For those Singaporeans who are inclined to vote with their hearts are unlikely to be heartless enough as to gamble with their own future or the future of their children. In conclusion, Sir, much as I am not in favour of the Bill, party discipline does not allow me to do anything else but to say "Aye" when the Bill is put to a vote.

Mr Speaker, Sir, since 1964, the success of the PAP Government policies have consistently won the approval of the majority of the Singapore voters. The era of our first generation of PAP Government, now coming to an end, inevitably means a change of style of government. The succeeding generation of PAP leadership has opted for a more consultative style. I believe this Bill was introduced to further encourage wider participation in Government. There are already 80 Members of Parliament in this House to support PAP legislation. So I do not think this Bill is introduced to find more of such people, which is to say, this Bill seeks to co-opt into Parliament people who are likely to have oppositionistic views. It is true that there are a lot of people outside Parliament who can make valuable contributions to our legislative process. The question is: by appointing 6 non-elected Members of Parliament, is it the best way of tapping this pool of knowledge and talent? May I remind this House that the Government has already established many avenues to get views and opinions. The Feedback Unit is the First Deputy Prime Minister's own creation. He himself, I am sure, heads a think tank of intellectuals. There are also the Economic Councils, the Institute of Policy Studies, Government Parliamentary Committees, Presidential Council. If Ministers desire more opinions, they can also tap the professional bodies, trade organisations, NTUC, employers' federation, University faculty staff. It will be to the Ministers' advantage to reach out to all these multifarious bodies for discussion on proposed legislation rather than be limited to a few appointees who may not even have the particular area of expertise required. It is only expertise we are talking about here. After all, these appointees are not elected, so they represent nobody but themselves. Moreover, I recommend cautious acceptance of their so-called objective analysis. Their lack of grassroots or contact will give their perspective an ivory tower slant. We would do well to remember that this House enacts legislation for the people, not digits, in our society. The important question of whether to have Nominated Members sit in Parliament had been closely examined by Singapore's most eminent persons way back in 1966. In 1966, a Constitutional Commission headed by our Chief Justice Mr Wee Chong Jin examined whether a council of nominated people called the Council of State (which later became the Presidential Council) should be a part of Parliament - and they concluded that this should not be so. I quote paragraph 54, page 15, of the Report of the Constitutional Commission 1966: 'It will be a body separate from Parliament but to which Parliament can look for serious and weighty advice and while having no control over legislation, it will, to the extent of having given its advice, share with Parliament the responsibility for any legislation passed pursuant to such advice. We think the continued practice of a sound democratic system of government in Singapore will best be achieved if our recommendations leave untouched a unicameral legislature which we have at present, where all Members of Parliament are elected by the people by secret vote at elections held at regular intervals of years. In this way the many and grave responsibilities which Members of Parliament take upon as the elected representatives of the people will rest solely on them.' The effectiveness of non-elected and Nominated Members is open to question. Can the Government, if publicly challenged by non-elected Members of Parliament to change certain policies, accept these changes? Listen to what our Prime Minister said, and I quote Hansard, 15th March 1967, Vol. 25, Col. 1290. He was referring to a nominated Council of State. I quote him: 'If anybody challenges the right of the representatives of the people to take a particular course of action, then they must have the courage to come out openly into the political arena and denounce these policies. But if they reserve to themselves the right to advise caution or perhaps to take a middle course,... then this advice should not be given in public, for it is impossible for any elected government to accept a change of its policies once it has been joined in political debate.' Therefore, Mr Speaker, Sir, we must be clear as to what we want. If we want them to advise and caution, then this is not the place to do so. If we want them to act as an opposition, then their efforts are already doomed. We do not have to search so far to know that there are 20 countries which have Nominated Members in their Houses. In the early days of pre-independence, we had a Legislative Assembly of nominated and elected Members of the House. It was understandable and acceptable then because democracy was in its infancy, the educational level low, and educated people few in number. It was spelled out in the Rendel Commission that there should be four Nominated Members to represent and defend the views of any significant minority group whose interest might be in danger of being overlooked. There were concerned, in particular, of trade and economic interests being inadequately represented. Their recommendation was to have such Members for a transition period only. It was not a permanent feature. The above facts were uncovered from the proceedings of the Second Legislative Council, Colony of Singapore, Fourth Session 1954/1955. Sir, since 1954/1955 we have moved ahead in terms of economic development, education, social development and the Legislative Assembly has given way to this House with Members representing the widest diversity of background. I can think of no important sector of our social and economic fabric which is not represented by at least one elected MP here. I ascribe this to the thoroughness of the PAP's selection process. Sir, we have filled that gap which the government of that period was concerned about. We have economists, bankers, businessmen, employers, unionists, Ph.D's and non-graduates, every race, religion, language. In fact, we have already a microcosm of Singapore society. Sir, it will be a retrograde step if we introduce Nominated Members into this House. Peddling self-interest is another concern. One of the most obvious areas of concern is peddling self-interest. The question of interest/functional group was debated at length in this House in 1967. In accepting the Presidential Council, the Prime Minister in his political wisdom cautioned and I quote Hansard, 15th March 1967, Vol. 25, col. 1289: 'A President's Council, which really is what the Council of State will be ... can make a valuable contribution ... provided that there are sufficient safeguards to see that no sectional or functional interest can be peddled.' And he continued: 'In other words, nobody can get on a hobby-horse either for life or for a specific period to pursue a particular sectional interest, whether for gain or for any other reason.' And he went on to say that such a meeting of council of non-elected men should not be in public. And here we have a Bill asking for such nominated representatives to air their views in this august Chamber. As the Prime Minister said, they do not have the standing to tell elected Members what to do and not do. In fact, we must beware of the eager-beavers who are supporting this scheme because they want to get into this House to serve their own ends and not the interest of Singaporeans. These opportunists are out to exploit this. What better place to articulate their views without fear of punishment? Moreover, we are inviting communalistic and religious groups, etc. to come in by the back-door, either by proxy representation or direct entry. Mr Speaker, Sir, we took so long, so much time in this House and outside arguing for the GRC concept, because we want to prevent racial politics and now we are creating a loophole by allowing these Nominated Members into Parliament. Two years is enough for them to undo what we took so long to build.

A point of clarification, Sir. May I ask the Member how does the proxy work? How do these people who speak for the communalists and the chauvinists get into the House?

Sir, it is very simple. All that you need to do is to nominate a person who has got a very strong belief, say, in a particular faith and get him selected. What is going to happen then?

There is a Special Select Committee.

Select Committee, there is always a way in. Mr Goh Chok Tong rose ---

Mr Speaker, Sir, I am not giving way.

All right.

I worry that the NMP scheme will result in the unexpected polarisation of racial, religious and interest groups. Because we are multiracial, we cannot nominate all Chinese MPs. Minority races will have to be included. Representatives of interest groups will invariably fall along racial, religious and even clans. These are the groups which are clamouring to be heard. Those groups which the First Deputy Prime Minister wants in, ie, the professionals, the businessmen, intellectuals, all have the ability and the channels to make their views known to the Government. The racial/religious groups and others like the associations and clans are the groups we do not want to have in Parliament. But this Bill gives them hope and if we dash their hopes, we create more dissatisfaction and unhappiness. In trying to please some, we are going to displease more. Nominated MPs will see the possible creation of two undesirable political situations, one within Parliament and one at the ground level. Under the present circumstances, I do not foresee the Nominated Members being a strong political force. But they could be in the event when this House has a narrow majority. In such a situation, Nominated MPs can play a strong political role in spite of not being able to vote on no-confidence motions and money Bills. The fact that they know that they can hold the Government of the day to ransom is real. There are enough issues to speak and vote on - education, health, social issues - to cast doubts on the Government of the day. How can a group of non-elected MPs be allowed to do that? Similarly, at the ground, there is also the danger of having to compromise Nominated MP seats. If a situation arose where a political party is not sure of a clear-cut majority, there is a real danger that the party may be forced to compromise to any group which holds the balance of power. Thus, you may be forced to concede a seat to a religious group or racial or special interest group which knows that their support can turn the tide in any election. We must avoid such close encounters. Someone has already designated NMPs as third class MPs. I look on them as armchair MPs. Mr Speaker, Sir, shielding them from the rough and tumble of real life politics is most unrealistic. When they talk they do not have to think of how the electorate will be affected by the legislation. If they wish, they can say the most irresponsible things without having to answer to anyone at all. They are protected by parliamentary privilege. They can intellectualise on legislation in a vacuum without minding the messiness of the human factor which is the electorate. Mr Speaker, Sir, how are we to expect these passionless men or women who are too squeamish to take part in real politics to challenge and debate with the Ministers and risk being humiliated publicly? If they do not speak up, then in the public's eye they will certainly become stooges of the Government. To begin with, Nominated MPs are non-starters because our selection of nominees depending on a panel of MPs headed by the Speaker is open to question. I do not doubt the ability and integrity of the Speaker and panel. But people perceive this as an attempt to put our own people into this House through the back-door - those who were not fielded in the last elections, those who were defeated in the elections, those who were associated with us in the statutory boards or Government-owned companies. In other words, the like-minded and the pro-PAP. People see this scheme as an insurance to hold on to the reins of Government or to nurture an "Opposition" which is actually friendly towards us. I honestly think we do not need such assistance to win the next general elections and I also think this is furthest from the First Deputy Prime Minister's mind but this is how the people perceive this plan. Mr Speaker, Sir, I come to the solution. As far back as 1966, we had this problem of getting good people into the political arena. This difficulty will always be there. It is not a new circumstance. And despite this, the past leaders have done very well without nominated Members of Parliament. As I said earlier, there are already sufficient channels of feedback and consultation. The First Deputy Prime Minister, in his speech, said that the people are concerned that we should have a strong Government and they want Nominated MPs so that they can air their views. But I do not agree with him on the second point. What the people of Singapore want is to build in some checks and balances in our system of government. That was the feedback I gave to them when I was the Chairman of the Feedback Unit. Because of the increasing complexities of new legislation which is in line with our rapid development, it may be necessary that Bills passed in this House be further scrutinised before they finally become law. Another area is redress for Singaporeans resulting from wrongdoings of our civil service. Mr Speaker, Sir, these are the two areas which we should take up in the 1990s. In 1966, the Constitutional Commission highlighted these two issues. Those men of vision saw the need and we should re-examine their recommendations to adapt to our times. I am for a body outside of Parliament to vet legislation passed in this House, perhaps an enhanced body of the existing Presidential Council. I quote from the Report of the Constitutional Commission 1966, page 4, paragraph 16: 'The members should be appointed by the President after consultation with the Prime Minister but in the President's discretion from amongst able, mature citizens irrespective of race, colour or creed who have attained eminence or responsible positions in their respective walks of life but who are not members of any political party. Also, it will be able, especially where there is no responsible or effective Opposition in Parliament, to put forward where it considers it necessary in the public interest to do so, constructive and well-informed criticism or amendments of measures proposed in Parliament.' Mr Speaker, Sir, the Council can delay legislation for a specified period, except for money Bills and Bills of urgency. Parliament can heed its advice or reject it. In other words, the Council has no over-riding powers over Parliament. It is far better than having a group of vested interest, non-elected Members of Parliament who have no credibility to speak in this House. Sir, I tried to search for reasons to support this Bill. But my conclusion is that Nominated MPs will not in any way improve our parliamentary system. It is not essential to achieving good government in a modern parliamentary democracy. The First Deputy Prime Minister and the other Ministers have not been able to convince me. Referring this Bill to a Select Committee will mean acceptance of the proposal to nominate MPs to this House. This I will not agree to. Though they will not vote on constitutional and money Bills, to me, Nominated MPs means a dilution of the democratic process, a dilution of the one-man-one-vote parliamentary system. My dilemma, Mr Speaker, Sir, is also faced by some fellow PAP colleagues. Having spoken strongly against the Bill, I am now required to vote for it because the Party Whip is not lifted. Sir, if for only this reason, Singaporeans have to accept NMPs, then it is a sad day for parliamentary democracy. They do not really understand what they have to give up.

Can I just seek a point of clarification, Mr Speaker, Sir? The Member for Ayer Rajah has proposed a solution to my proposal to have Nominated MPs. His solution is that we should set up a body outside Parliament to check and vet the policies of the House. Is he not arguing against himself when he proposed this? Because earlier on he has quoted, I think, from the Prime Minister and from the Chief Justice's Commission and so on that nobody, who is not elected by the people, should be given the power to check the powers of the elected representatives.

Mr Speaker, Sir, when the Prime Minister made that statement, he was saying that these people should not be in Parliament. They can do so outside Parliament. Because in Parliament it is really involved in a political debate which is very different.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I was referring to the principle of people who are not elected to check those who are elected by the people. I do not have the quotations which he has. If I can borrow his papers, I will quote the same thing in his face and say that he has in fact contradicted himself with his proposal.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the proposal that I have suggested is actually not new. It is meant to delay legislation.

We have the power here. We are elected by the people.

But we still have over-riding powers. We can still not believe what that advisory body has said. They can delay legislation, let us say, for a fixed period. But at the end of the day, if we do not accept, it is our own look-out. We have to face it at the polls.

Why hand them the right?

No, we are not handing them the right. We are taking advice from them.

Nobody has the right to advise us, according to the Prime Minister.

Order. I will have to discourage such conversation between Members. 3.15 pm

Mr Speaker, Sir, quite clearly this Bill has not been easy for some of us to accept. One of the views of the democratic process is that anyone who wishes to speak in Parliament should have the mandate of the people. And if one does not have the people's mandate, then on what authority does he seek to influence and shape public policy? I have had to address this question when I considered the Bill. As the First Deputy Prime Minister said, there are basically two forms of election of the people's representatives - the first-past-the-post system and the proportional representation system. And some Parliaments adopt a hybrid of the two, or may have two Houses. The first-past-the-post system has often been criticised because it would amount to a tyranny of the majority. So it is not a perfect system. We have also seen in some countries that when there is multi-party support, it can also be a tyranny of the minority. But its advantage is the ability to allow effective government. The proportional representation system, whilst giving different sections of the people representative weight in Parliament, leads quite often to hung Parliaments and, therefore, ineffective governments more often than the first-past-the-post system. And in our context, it will lead to ethnic politics and polarisation among the people. So how do we evolve our system to cater for the greater desire of the people for participation in national politics? Different countries have evolved different variations of the two models. So it is quite legitimate for us to evolve our own variations and to consider those models that would suit our purpose. The nature of party politics inevitably means an adversarial relationship. Any opposition worth its salt aims one day to win a majority to form the government. Parliamentary debate then has the tendency to become more theatre than discussions on the merits of a policy measure. And the word "theatre" is not my own, but one which I have heard in the British House of Commons. An Opposition would exploit the unpopularity of a policy, even if it privately recognises the merit of that policy and knows that it is good for the country. It has happened and it will happen again. I have had opportunities to exchange views with Parliamentarians from other countries and they acknowledge that indeed this is the case. Parlia- mentary debate tends to serve the goal of the political parties for winning power, rather than for serious discussion for the long-term good of the people when we have such a system. I feel the greatest merit of the Nominated MPs proposal, therefore, is in the non-partisan stance that we can expect such MPs to take. Without doubt, non-partisan voices in Parliament would give the people a reference point to judge the merit or demerit of the arguments put forward by contending political parties in Parliament. They can then form a more objective view on the correctness and soundness of Government policy. When they, being independent and non-partisan, support an unpopular policy, then the people will know that the Government is in fact right, even if the policy is unpopular. This will help them to accept correct policies for the country's good. If the Nominated MPs have serious objections to Government policy, then the Government would have to rethink and re-examine its position even if, as we are proposing, the numbers are small. And this, I feel, the Government must consider seriously. If Nominated MPs can play this role, then they help to provide a stabiliser in our democratic system. There is therefore merit in the proposal. However, how should one distinguish between MPs, NCMPs, and Nominated MPs? Should they have the right to vote? Giving them the right to vote would mean that they have real influence in Parliament. They do make a difference even if they are in the minority. The problem is they have real influence without having gone to the people for a mandate. But if we regard them as a stabilising force and their number is limited, perhaps we can accept it. I would be happier, however, if we can have more discussion on this before we come to a conclusion. And depending on our final conclusion, we may even rename Nominated MPs and call them Parliamentary Councillors. I disagree with the Member for Ayer Rajah on having a Parliamentary Council to override or delay the decision-making process in this Parliament.

A point of clarification. I did not say "override".

"Delay". I accept his clarification - to delay the decision-making process in this House. I would accept them in this House. Let them have their say together with Government, Government Backbenchers, Opposition together. And after all the views are duly considered, then we take a vote. Whether the Parliamentary Councillors or Nominated MPs have the right to vote, I think that is something we should consider. Then there is also the question on how these MPs are to be nominated and selected. Using a Select Committee of Parliament is one way. But are there no other ways? And how do we prevent, as the Member for Ayer Rajah pointed out, a communalist from entering Parliament? Perhaps the suggestion made by the Member for Thomson on having the whole House vote on the list of nominees would be a check. I feel that the collective wisdom of the House, of the duly elected Members, those who have gone through the elections, would act as a check against the emergence of a communalist in this House. But that is only one possibility. Are there no other possibilities? It is possible that members of the public may have other ideas on how this can be done. I think we should encourage this public discussion. As the Member for Ayer Rajah said, presently there are many channels of feedback. There are also channels through which members of the public can put forward proposals to the Government. We should not ignore those who have been practising participatory democracy using existing legitimate channels and should not merely be concerned with having academics, lawyers, businessmen, or religious leaders to be present in Parliament to voice sectional interests. We should also consider those who are able to take a wider view because they have been serving in the community and their track record, their dedication to the people, their dedication to the country, have already been tested. As there are many facets of this Bill that merit more thorough scrutiny, I would support sending it to a Select Committee. And after thorough public discussion, let us make whatever changes we think is needed. Our objective must be to strengthen our parliamentary system for the good of the people.

Order. I suspend the Sitting and will take the Chair again at 3.40 pm. Sitting accordingly suspended at 3.20 pm until 3.40 pm. Sitting resumed at 3.40 pm

Resolved, That the proceedings on the item under discussion be exempted at this day's sitting from the provisions of Standing Order No. 1 until 5.30 pm. - [Mr Wong Kan Seng].

Debate resumed.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I speak in support of this Bill to amend the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore to provide for the appointment of a maximum number of six Nominated Members of Parliament. As stipulated in the amendment Bill, such appointed Members of Parliament shall serve for a term of two years commencing on the date of their appointment, and shall have the same voting rights in Parliament as a Non-Constituency Member. Mr Speaker, Sir, seven PAP members have just spoken on the Bill and as we can see, four have given their full support, two have strongly objected, although they have to vote with the Party, and one has given his conditional support. I support this Bill, Mr Speaker, Sir, as I firmly believe that this amendment will further enhance the development of parliamentary democracy in Singapore. The Government, moreover, has this idea of allowing a group of "Non-elected Members of Parliament" into Parliament for many years. In fact, as early as 1972, our Prime Minister, Mr Lee Kuan Yew has suggested that some parliamentary seats be reserved for representatives of tertiary institutions. The Prime Minister made this suggestion after the PAP had won all 65 seats in the 1972 General Elections. At the press conference held on 3rd September 1972, after the results of the General Elections had been announced, the Prime Minister expressed his worry over the problem of getting a constructive opposition, and I quote: "But I think the problem of getting an intelligent, constructive opposition has got to be solved, and Singapore just hasn't got the kind of people who are coming into politics - are not likely ever to develop into a coherent, constructive, loyal opposition." Since 1972, this problem has remained unresolved. In the General Elections of 1976 and 1980, the PAP won all the 69 and 75 parliamentary seats respectively. In the 1984 General Elections, the opposition parties, the SDP and the WP, each won one out of the 79 parliamentary seats. In the 1988 General Elections, the SDP won one of the 81 parliamentary seats; the WP lost all their contested seats and decided to accept a Non-Constituency MP seat. Mr Speaker, Sir, it is obvious that what the Prime Minister said about opposition parties in 1972 remains true today - that Singapore just hasn't got the kind of people who are coming into politics that can develop into a team of coherent, constructive and loyal opposition Members. This amendment Bill will help to encourage more people of the right calibre to join the political arena as Nominated MPs. The amendment Bill ensures that such nominated MPs will come from a wide cross-section of the people, as clause 5, section 2(1) of the amendment Bill states that the Special Select Committee shall invite the general public to submit names of persons who may be considered for nomination by the Committee. Such nominated MPs would not need to go through the electoral process and would not have a constituency to look after. They are not constrained by party policies. Neither do they need to pander to popular sentiments in order to win votes at the next election. Hence, nominated MPs can speak their minds freely during parliamentary debates and may even out-perform elected MPs over sensitive issues. If such nominated MPs have political ambitions and can perform well in Parliament, they may even win enough votes at the next general elections and be returned to Parliament as elected PAP MPs or even as elected opposition party MPs and develop into a team of coherent, constructive, and loyal opposition Members. Hence, I am convinced that this amendment Bill will enhance the development of parliamentary democracy in Singapore and ensure Singapore's survival as a democratic and prosperous city state. Sir, I support the Bill. 3.46 pm

Much obliged to you, Mr Speaker, Sir. Sir, I am against the proposed amendment to the Constitution. As I have said on another occasion, with the amendment to the Constitution, we shall have three classes of MPs, the elected MPs are in the first class, the NCMPs are in the second class and the nominated MPs are in the third class. I put the NCMPs in a higher class than the nominated MPs because they have gone through the fire of a parliamentary election and they have a measure of electoral support, whereas the nominated MPs have none of these. Personally, I say that the nominated MPs have no place in the Parliament of independent Singapore. We are not a colonial legislative body where nominated legislative members are a common feature. I would say that when nominated MPs are installed in our Parliament, they are just like fish out of water. They should not be in our Parliament. They should be tossed back to the universities or statutory bodies or businesses or other work places where they came from. If these people want to be in Parliament, then let them do so by the proper means. Come forward and put themselves through the electoral process. I do not think it is right for anyone to enjoy the privileges and prestige of being a Member of Parliament without earning that right in a parliamentary election. The proposed amendment is a retrogressive step. It will whittle down our democratic parliamentary system. The essence of true democracy is representation. The people elect their representatives to Parliament and Members of Parliament in Parliament represent the will of the people. Members of Parliament do not act for themselves in Parliament. They are voted in by the electorate and they represent the electorate. This is how democracy works. In the case of nominated MPs, they represent no electorate. They are in Parliament by virtue of being appointed ultimately by the ruling party. Thus they naturally represent the interest of the political party that appoints them. They cannot be the voice of the people. The nominated MPs shall be useless to the electorate because they do not represent their interests. The only use nominated MPs really have is to talk for the sake of talking in Parliament. There are at the moment 81 elected MPs in Parliament. This number is more than enough of MPs to serve the electorate. The ratio of elected MPs to the voters is about 1:20,000. This ratio is high compared to many other Western democratic countries. We may have to increase the number of elected MPs as our population grows, but certainly we do not need them now. I believe we already have excess numbers of elected Members of Parliament. As far as the voters are concerned, these nominated MPs, if appointed, are a waste of public funds. They are like the fifth wheel on a carriage which has no practical use. The Government should be more responsible and not turn Parliament into a mere talk shop and also not to waste taxpayers' money. Why throw away good money when we can save it? The nominated MPs will not be of any help to Parliament. It has been said that nominated MPs will raise the level of debate in Parliament. But then the PAP has told the electorate in the last general elections that their candidates are the best brains in Singapore. Today, there is an admission. They are in fact not the best brains after all. We need nominated MPs to assist them in the debates in Parliament. Even if the PAP Members are not really as good as they are made out to be, Backbenchers through their GPCs have the help and aid of resource panels who comprise people with specialist knowledge. The Government MPs have the Feedback Unit which is supposed to have its ears on the ground. In addition to the Feedback Unit, the Government Members also have the benefit of feedback from the grassroots organisations like the RCs, CCCs, CCMCs and, as the Member for Ayer Rajah has pointed out, many other sources for information and knowledge if they want to. In view of the fact that Government MPs are so equipped to debate in Parliament, there is no excuse really if their level of debate is not up to the mark. They should be up to the mark. Therefore, there is no need for nominated MPs. As I recall, the PAP did not canvass the issue of nominated MPs at the last general elections. I would say therefore that the Government can only amend the Constitution on such an important matter as the introduction of nominated MPs, it must first of all go back to the people to get an electoral mandate. This Government does not have the mandate to amend the Constitution. It has no moral right to do so. If Singapore hopes to be like Switzerland, then we should have a national referendum before such a very important matter as nominated MPs can be introduced in our Parliament. Of course, Singapore is not like Switzerland. This Government thinks that it can make Singapore like Switzerland in its so-called Vision of 1999. Singapore can never be compared to Switzerland simply because Switzerland practises true democracy. Singapore does not. We practise a brand of authoritarian, paternalistic, pseudo-democracy with a dominant party which intends to keep political power for ever. That is really what this amendment is all about. This amendment is one of the means to ensure the Government to be in power all the time. The Government's intention is also to bring in the nominated MPs with a view to perpetuate a myth. The gist of the myth has already been mentioned and it runs something like this. The people want the PAP to rule them, but at the same time they also want some opposition to be in Parliament to check the Government. Since the opposition is unable to win any parliamentary elections except in one constituency, the Government has generously amended the Constitution to meet the people's wishes to have opposition in Parliament, and by giving them 6 nominated MPs who shall, in the Government's view, satisfy the needs of the people for opposition in Parliament. I say that that myth remains a myth and it is, of course, absolutely untrue. What people want is really elected MPs in Parliament, not nominated MPs or NCMPs. The Government knows it and that was the true reason why the Government refused to hold by-elections at Geylang West and at Anson when those constituencies became vacant in late 1986 and early 1987 respectively. Further evidence that the people want elected opposition MPs is by the increase of Opposition votes. In the 1984 general elections the opposition increased their vote by 12.3%. And in the last general elections, the people gave the opposition a further increase of 2.3% vote, making the total opposition vote of about 40%. If the Government is sincere in wanting opposition in Parliament, the Government should be fair. That is all the opposition is asking. The Government should be fair at the polls and not resort to smear tactics, changing of the ground rules, changing of boundary lines, juggling with constituencies, and resort to the tactic of fear by using the Internal Security Act to make arbitrary arrests. The truth is that the Government is afraid that at the next general elections more opposition will be voted into Parliament and it does not want any more elected opposition in parliament. Therefore the Government has to do something about it. Hence, the introduction of 6 nominated MPs. The opposition calls on the government not to bring back forms of colonialism into our parliamentary system, not to convert our Parliament into a legislative assembly with initially 6 nominated Members but eventually increasing it to a substantial number. Our style of parliamentary system is essentially a contentious one. Our Parliament is fairly new, only 25 years next year. It is time we set a precedent of good, high level contentious debate in Parliament amongst mature people and not by way of the nominated MPs, by trying to sneak in elements of "Confusion type proceedings" in Parliament by consensus. If we set on that road now, we will eventually end up a dictatorship of one-party rule. It is the duty of the opposition to see that that day does not come.

Mr Speaker, Sir, our country is unique. We are small and yet successful. We have come a long way in the last 25 years. Singaporeans today are better educated and have become more politically conscious. They want to have a greater say on matters that affect their lives. They want more voices in Parliament to convey their aspirations and views. To satisfy this trend, various innovative measures have been introduced in the past. We introduced the NCMP scheme in 1984 and the GRC scheme in 1988. We are now in the midst of a debate on yet another scheme, the NMP scheme. Sir, this scheme serves to create a new category of non-elected MPs who could make a positive contribution to Singapore and it is aimed at increasing the people's political participation and yet maintain parliamentary democracy. The Bill in principle is sound. If the right people are selected to be NMPs it serves to enhance the quality of debate in Parliament. This will benefit the country. But the question before us is whether there is a pressing need today to have nominated MPs in our Parliament. By bringing in nominated MPs now may send a wrong signal to the general public that our elected MPs in today's Parliament are inadequate. I certainly do not believe so. I do not like to appear self-flattering. But I believe the present batch of PAP MPs is probably the best our Parliament ever had. (In fact, the Prime Minister himself said so). They are men and women of the highest quality, well-educated, dedicated, honourable and with a sense of mission. They come from a varied socio-economic background and represent a wide cross-section of our society. They are the fruits of our meritocratic system. The quality of their debate is up to the mark. Sir, whilst I believe the need for Nominated MPs is less pressing now, I am prepared to support the Bill as a form of safeguard or insurance for the future. There could be a greater need for NMPs in the future when, who knows, one day the calibre and the quality of Singaporeans being elected into Parliament drop. A day could come when well-qualified people, the top brains in Singapore, really shy away from politics. And if we do not have good MPs we cannot have good Ministers, Ministers of State and Parliamentary Secretaries. Sir, as a safeguard against this happening, I think it is necessary that we have in our Constitution a scheme which serves as an avenue to induct good people into Parliament and even into Government in order to ensure Singapore continues to progress and prosper. This NMP Bill provides this avenue. Sir, the next question is: why introduce this Bill now? Why can we not wait until we see a drop in the quality and in the calibre of parliamentarians and the Government before we amend the Constitution? Sir, the answer is obvious. The elected MPs of the future, for selfish reasons, may be against bringing in people better than themselves into Parliament and if this is the case the legislation will never be passed. In summary, Sir, I maintain that it is less pressing today to have nominated MPs in our Parliament. However, it is necessary to introduce this legislation now. It is a safeguard against a future which may see a deterioration in the calibre and quality of Singaporeans being elected into our Parliament. On that note, I support the Bill.

Mr Speaker, Sir, to begin, I think it is not quite fair to say that not a single MP had objected to the political vision as stated in the President's Address which included a reference to the fact that the Government was going to have non-government MPs. At that time, the idea was merely floated around and our normal practice is to thrash out the details of the scheme, both in formal and informal discussions, and the public debate only takes place when a Bill is tabled in Parliament or when it is tabled as a White Paper or Green Paper. So I do not think it is quite fair to say that since we did not object at that time, therefore we should have no right and should not speak up and object now. Ever since this Bill was tabled in Parliament, I have been struggling over how to debate it. This is a constitutional amendment, a very serious matter. By logic and by convention, the PAP Party Whip cannot be lifted. Yet, this Bill involves a number of very complex issues, contains some questionable features, and has long-term implications for both the nation and the ruling party. Sir, I think I would be amiss in my duty as a Backbencher if I do not lay out very frankly my views about the implications of this Bill. The issues that underlie the presumed necessity of the amendment are complex. Questions that come immediately to mind are: what is the role of the Opposition in a place where the great majority of voters desire the ruling party to govern on, because of its integrity, its competence and proven record? Second, why is it that the Opposition parties have consistently failed to become credible, whether in terms of their policies or in terms of the quality of their candidates? Thirdly, why do some good people abstain from joining politics even though they have much to contribute? I cannot deal with these issues here one by one. There are actually plenty of political analysts who can offer very incisive comments. All I wish to say is that, to a great extent, these issues have become issues because of our success. The PAP has succeeded so well in delivering the economic goods that affluence actually and naturally brings political apathy to the greatest majority of the population. Affluence has resulted in political apathy. Secondly, we have succeeded so well also in identifying and implementing the correct policies that people are actually convinced and indeed take for granted the basic premises of our policies. This explains why there is a lack of ideas on true alternative approaches, and the tendency for a lot of our policy debates just to concentrate on implementation details. Thirdly, the PAP has also succeeded in gearing its policies towards the broad spectrum of society. Therefore, we have been meeting the aspirations of the broad masses. Fourthly, we have maintained very high standards in selecting our election candidates and, in the words of our Party leaders, "scoured the earth" to invite people who wish to join us to join. So the problems or the issues we think this Bill is designed to address are actually the problems of our success. Let me instead concentrate on this Bill, its questionable features, and its implications. On the surface, there is nothing wrong to include new voices in Parliament. However, nomination deviates from one of the most fundamental principles of democracy, ie, the principle of representation. Democratic governments derive their legitimacy from the mandate given by the people through free elections. Each of us here represents a certain number of constituents who voted us in. They are the people who authorise us to make decisions that affect their lives. By contrast, the proposed six nominated MPs are not representing anybody other than themselves. Yet they will have the power to vote on most policies. Does this not constitute a case of power without accountability? I do not deny the fact that some parliaments have nominated Members in their midst. The First Deputy Prime Minister has tabled a list of 20 parliaments within the Commonwealth which have nominated Members. Examples mentioned are Botswana, Seychelles, St Vincent and the Grenadines, Solomon Islands, Uganda and others. But the question is why are these countries mentioned and why not other countries such as Australia, New Zealand, France, Netherlands, USA, which have no nominated Members? The point is if we want to be unique, we can be unique. If we want to quote precedents, there are always precedents. We must, however, just maintain our own principles. I would have less difficulty in accepting this Bill if the additional Members are brought in as representatives of various functional constituencies after they have been duly elected by these groups. However, this will open our doors to lobby group politics with dire consequences for the entire process of governing. It would be far better to maintain our present system where the MPs can come from all walks of life and be counted on to represent the various strata of society. The Member for Ayer Rajah has mentioned a broad range of our MPs' background. But let me put some figures and accuracy into his statement. Among our present Backbenchers, including the two Opposition Members, we have 23 Members who are managers or business executives, two bankers, five doctors, four lawyers, 10 academicians, two teachers, seven trade unionists and one journalist, making a total of 54. I should think these backgrounds cover sufficiently the various functional groups' concerns, without our having to appeal to functional group support in electioneering. Besides, if we were to allow functional groups to enter politics as such, we would be contradicting our past stance that professional bodies should stay clear of politics. The possibility that this NMP scheme can hold out greater promises for women to participate in politics has been made much of. Yes, women are under-represented, I agree. Women are hard pressed by their career and family responsibilities, I agree. The question is: Has the PAP looked hard enough for woman candidates? Are we looking for certain kinds of women among our candidates? Are we willing and ready to open up our range of possibilities to include women who, for example, in the political outlook are rather more radical, so to speak? What about having women from a wider range of background and not just concentrate ourselves on people who have family, career and the kind of political outlook which squares with our way of thinking? What about women who are single? What about housewives who are well educated? If we look wide enough, perhaps we can find more. But of course it is still doubtful. I am not one to say that women do not need Government's help. We do. We need the Government's help particularly in terms of child care facilities, part-time work, better leave schemes, equal medical benefits and even the legal provisions to make sure some employers do not discriminate against women in the employment practice. With this kind of support, we will be able to manage our family and our career and still be able to come out in politics. Bangladesh and Pakistan have been mentioned as examples where special seats are reserved for women. Bangladesh and Pakistan, however, have a vast majority of the population living in rural areas. The countries are poor. The greatest majority of the population are still illiterate, particularly the women. Women there are subject to all kinds of inequalities and even oppression. It is a credit to the government and to their parliaments that they should reserve some seats for women. I myself have known some professional women from Bangladesh, Pakistan and India who are academics and who have fought for the women's rights and, hurrah to them, they have gained seats for women in Parliament. But those reserved seats are to make sure women in those countries can have the opportunity to go to school, to get health services, to be able to participate even in economic and social life, because otherwise the social, cultural traditions of the society would not allow women to do so. Our situation in Singapore is very different. It is no compliment to say that women need to be exempted from constituency work, otherwise we cannot manage well. The four of us here have proven that we can do it all. Some hon. Members: Hear, hear!

But a more important point is the one pointed out by the Member for Ayer Rajah, ie, nominated MPs are likely to be armchair politicians if they do not do any grassroots work. I think that is a far more important point and a very valid point. Individuals have very bright ideas and they can have very bright ideas, but if they do not and cannot relate their ideas to the ground and face the realities of society in politics, how are they going to make meaningful contributions to a political debate? That is where the constituency work is necessary. For me, even the holding out of a promise that more women can enter into the Chamber does not move me from deviating from my fundamental principle that parliamentary seats should be based on elections and representation. Let me move on to the other aspects of the Bill. I think its objectives, in spite of the First Deputy Prime Minister's explanation, are still not very clear. Is it simply to incorporate a broader spectrum of viewpoints into our debates? Or is it not also meant to satisfy the people's desire to see more opposing voices in Parliament? Both have been mentioned. We already have an Opposition in Parliament. If the Opposition Members are not doing their job well, let the people throw them out at the next General Elections.

Of course.

Our Ministers can stand up to the Opposition; our Backbenchers can tackle them. The six non-elected or nominated MPs are supposed to be non-partisan. They are supposed to voice independent views and not to play up to the gallery. However, my guesses are, I hope I will be proven wrong, but my guesses are the pressure is on them to step in where the Opposition has failed for lack of good ideas, or for lack of sharp opinions. Even the First Deputy Prime Minister has grouped them as non-government MPs together with the Opposition Members. The pressure on them is to criticize the Government, because if they do not, the people will be disappointed. But the irony is that if the nominated MPs out of their own convictions, out of their own independent thinking, agree with the Government's policies, the people will think they are the Government's yes-men or yes-women. Another irony is that if the NMPs perform well in the eyes of the public, they will only whet the people's appetite for more opposing voices in Parliament. Are we then to amend the Constitution again to increase the number of NMP seats? If the NMPs do not perform well, are we then to abolish the seats because they failed to raise the quality of debate in Parliament? If we do, the people will think we cannot tolerate dissent. I think we will be caught in a bind, whichever way. And where is the end to this satisfying the public's desire for more opposing voices in Parliament? The Bill, unfortunately, looks as if we are bending over backwards to accommodate people who do not want to enter politics in the first place. People who do not want to enter politics have their various reasons. I think we should respect their wishes. We have always maintained that people who hold different viewpoints from the Government and feel strongly about them should form their own political parties. People who do not wish to do so are not lost to the nation. They can still play an important role and make contributions to policy-making. They can serve in various capacities on our statutory boards, advisory councils, GPC resource panels, Town Council management committees. They can make recommendations to our Select Committees, to the various feedback channels. And what about our think tanks? We are getting more and more of them. In our system, as in many parliaments or congresses, a lot of policy deliberations actually take place during the committee stage, where professional advice and technical details are sorted out. Experts make their testimonies in open hearings, while Members of Parliament decide on the broad principles. Thus, I fail to see what the six NMPs can do in Parliament which the present Backbenchers cannot do also. Besides, if an issue is put to a vote, would the six NMPs make much difference to a House where the ruling party holds 80 seats? If one day the PAP has only a slim majority, are we going to abolish the NMP seats just in case they may tip the balance? Finally, Mr Speaker, Sir, it is difficult to mention the sentiments of the Backbenchers on this Bill. A public comment on the Bill is that it is an indirect indictment on the present Backbenchers' performance. But I do not think we should be too concerned over such comments. What should rightly concern us are the logic, the necessity, and the implications of this Amendment for the country's entire political process. Under the circumstances where the Party Whip is not lifted, voting is compulsory but speaking is not, I beg the First Deputy Prime Minister to interpret the silence of some Members judiciously.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to support the Bill and to add my views to the discussion. The objective of the Bill is to bring in a group of non-partisan non-PAP MPs into Parliament and it is hoped that they will add to a better representation of the views of the people and thus enhance the democratic process. There are pros and cons in this Bill. But what concerns me most is this question of independence and credibility of the selection system. If the objective is to bring in a new group of independent MPs, then the system must be independent and neutral. This will dispel any criticism that the system is devised by the ruling party to serve its own interest. It will also attract better calibre candidates who might not otherwise take up the call if the system appears prejudiced. Under the present proposal, the Special Select Committee will be made up of mainly Government MPs. There is this danger that this may lead to nominated MPs being treated with suspicion and labelled as pro-government MPs, as alluded by Dr Aline Wong, no matter how well they perform in Parliament as independent MPs. Mr Lim Boon Heng has suggested that the Select Committee look into other ways of selecting nominated MPs, and I would like to support that. If it is possible to form an independent non-partisan Select Committee, that will be a more superior system. Nominated MPs selected in this manner will be seen as independent because the system is independent. They will not be constrained by political affiliation in any manner and will be able to articulate views or arguments which would be clumsy for other MPs to put forward. Having said all this, I must add that my own discussion of the Bill at the grassroots level has raised several issues which I feel are pertinent for the Government to note. First, there appears to be an uneasiness concerning the Bill. This is understandable, as has been pointed out by several speakers before me, because the Bill is a fundamental change to the Constitution. So it is important that the objective of the Bill be put forward to the people clearly and time must be given for a fuller discussion. It would be foolish to rush the Bill through in a hasty manner. And in this regard, I welcome the First Deputy Prime Minister's plan to have a Select Committee hearing on the Bill. Second, there is a feeling that by opening another seemingly convenient avenue into Parliament for the nominated MPs, the efforts of elected MPs and their supporters will be diluted. The nominated MPs do not carry responsibilities of serving the electorate in a direct manner. They do not have any mandate from the people and yet they have extensive powers in terms of voting rights. This does not seem to support the democratic process. Moreover, they are not accountable to the electorate for their performance if they are nominated by a Select Committee. Instead they will be assessed by the Select Committee and cannot be voted out by the people. Third, there is also doubt that the nominated MPs can do more than what the present MPs are already doing. This, of course, will be difficult to gauge at this point in time because it will all depend on the quality of the candidates who are nominated, and certainly the success of the scheme hinges on the quality and effectiveness of the nominated MPs. The big question here is whether those talented, whom we have failed to draw into the political process, will now come forward to serve under this new scheme. In conclusion, although the Bill holds promise of bringing better representations of people's views into Parliament, the process of selection needs further consideration and many questions still remain unanswered at the grassroots level. It will be prudent to allow more time to debate all concerns in full prior to the implementation of the Bill.

Mr Speaker, Sir, let me first say that I share many of the points raised by Dr Tan and Dr Aline Wong, and I applaud the way they have put forward their cases. The Bill proposes a fundamental change to our Constitution, as the last speaker has said. And soon after the 1984 Elections, our Prime Minister had said that no one should tinker with the Constitution. But as usual, the PAP itself did just what it said no one should do. And just after that, it amended the Constitution to provide for the election of NCMPs. Then in the middle of 1988, the PAP again amended the Constitution to provide for the system of Group Representation Constituencies. 4.21 pm

Early this year, the Government again amended the Constitution to regularise and legitimise and covered up mistakes made by the Prime Minister since 1972 on the issue of the appointment of the Chief Minister. And now the PAP wants to amend the Constitution once again in order to provide for the appointment of nominated MPs. The First Deputy Prime Minister has given us some reasons for the Bill. He argues that the nominated MP scheme would help to broaden participation in parliamentary debate, enable people of high standing with special interests and expertise in the various fields to actively participate in the country's government, and even to induce people who normally shy away from the hurly-burly of politics to express their views and encourage constructive opposition. And, of course, he also says that it is intended to build consensus. If Government should propose amendments to safeguard the fundamental and basic human rights and democracies of the people, we would all understand the need for such amendments and so give our full-hearted support. But the amendments have nothing to do with such important principles. They are merely to provide for wider participation of more NMPs in parliamentary debate, and to allow Government to benefit from the expertise of such NMPs. But if expertise is what the PAP hopes to get, then Government has already the benefit of views and advice from all its experts in various fields, as listed by Dr Tan. They have their think tanks, resident committees, feedback units, economic advisory committees, Government Parliamentary Committees, a whole lot of other committees, their own youth wings, women's wings, and what nots. So what need is there to amend the Constitution merely to provide for expertise from Nominated MPs? The First Deputy Prime Minster has also given a new angle to the arguments often expressed by the Government. The Government frequently refers to Singapore's special circumstances, its smallness in size, and its shortage of talents. The Government used the same arguments to provide excuses for giving high salaries to Government Ministers and top civil servants. But though our population is small, we nevertheless have enough talents in every sphere of activity in our society. Our difficulty, Sir, is that the PAP Government does not allow local talents to blossom and flourish if such talents are not directed to supporting the PAP politically. Hundreds and hundreds of Singapore's best talents have been arbitrarily arrested and detained for prolonged periods or deported to other countries. Even today, the oppressive political climate has driven many thousands of our best brains to leave our country, just as tens or hundreds of thousands of people in Europe and elsewhere emigrate in order to seek political freedom and democracy. So, let the Government stop its political harassments, intimidations and oppressions of political opponents, and more and more people would readily step forward into the political arena to the benefit of both the Government and opposition parties and all Singapore, with their expertise in the different fields. There is a hint that the system of nominated MPs will extend the scope of parliamentary and political democracy in Singa- pore. But that is a colonialist argument. When the British had nominated MPs in the Singapore Legislative Council, in 1948 and 1951 and again nominated Members in the Labour Front Government under the Rendel Constitution, the PAP Government fought to remove such nominated Members. Yet, now we are going to have nominated MPs again under the PAP Government itself. What an irony of the whole situation. People all over the world are demanding for free elections in order to have their own representatives in Parliament and government. But the PAP Government takes us back to the colonial times. It is bucking against the progressive world trend. This NMP system, Sir, will extend not democracy, but its opposite, non-democracy. Other countries having NMPs are listed by the First Deputy Prime Minister. But that argument has been countered by Dr Aline Wong. I do not wish to labour the point. But let us ask, why the proposal for nominated MPs? The First Deputy Prime Minister refers to 1984, 1988, the NCMP and the GRC. He also refers to history. Let me also similarly refer to history, and let us see from a non-PAP angle why the PAP in the first place put up the idea of NCMP and then that GRC. After the PAP's defeat in Anson in 1981 at the hands of the Workers' Party, the PAP launched full-scale attacks against J B Jeyaretnam, the lone representative of the opposition in Parliament. The PAP did everything possible to destabilise the Workers' Party and discredit J B Jeyaretnam. It boasted that it would nominate the same candidate in the next elections and would regain Anson for the PAP. We all know that such boasts came to nought. The Workers' Party had solid support of the people in Anson and in 1984, J B Jeyaretnam was duly re-elected to Parliament. Long used to "Yes-men" in an all-PAP Parliament, the PAP found that Jeyaretnam was becoming a thorn in the eyes of the PAP. It therefore set out to get rid of the lone opposition MP. But in so doing, its non-tolerance to criticism and to political opposition was fully exposed to the public. The people on their part, long tired of PAP shadow boxing in a one-party Parliament, had their appetite whetted for more opposition MPs. They, especially the younger set, were openly demanding to have more and more opposition MPs. This demand did not arise from a vacuum. It arose from the concrete situation at the time. This demand for more opposition MPs became more and more vociferous. As the PAP does not tolerate criticism and opposition, it became more and more difficult for the PAP to pretend that it would like to have a parliamentary opposition when there was none, and when at the same time it unleashed increasingly vehement attacks on the lone opposition MP. Moreover the PAP has always postured as democrats although it also keep on arresting activists and leaders of the opposition. And it knew that it would reflect badly on the PAP if the people continued to complain that the PAP was intolerant of criticism and of parliamentary opposition. Something had to be done as a cover up. The PAP thus came up with the idea of the NCMP. Speaking on why the NCMP scheme was introduced, the Prime Minister gave three reasons for the move. But the most important reason, the real reason, was not mentioned, namely, to use the NCMP scheme as a facade of parliamentary democracy, to create the impression that the PAP tolerates criticism and indeed would like to have an opposition, and has now even gone out of its way to create a parliamentary opposition. When the opposition parties criticised the scheme, PAP leaders came out to say that they hoped the opposition would take up the NCMP seats, and to quote one of them, in order to "Speak up for the people who voted for them." However, after having lost 12.6% of the total votes in the 1984 elections, the PAP became fearful that it would lose more votes and more seats to the opposition in the 1988 elections. It discarded certain unpopular policies, carried out some reorganisation, and came out with the idea of the GRC in order to create additional difficulties for the opposition. With the help of the GRCs and the usual PAP scare-tactics regarding town councils and other things, the PAP managed to gain all seats except one in the 1988 elections. But it also lost another 1.1% of the popular votes. What is more important, the PAP had not been able to dampen criticism that it does not tolerate a parliamentary opposition. The people want to have still more opposition MPs and they are dissatisfied with the results of the 1988 elections. Now, to keep up the pretence that it is keen to have more opposition MPs, the PAP has come out with the idea of nominated MPs. It would be a logical continuation of the NCMP idea, as the First Deputy Prime Minister has said. And both the NCMP and NMP scheme would together serve to pave the way for what some PAP MPs have called the dominant party scheme. But we ask: does the PAP really wish to have more views from the opposition in Parliament? If the answer is yes, why not go the conventional democratic way? First, hold more democratic elections. Give the opposition more time and facilities. Allow the opposition equal access to TV and radio. Let the press give full coverage to opposition parties. Uphold basic human rights. No threats and intimidations, no scare tactics, no arrests. Then Constitution already has provisions for opposition Members, including NCMPs, to be made up to a maximum of 6 in number. Presently, we have one elected MP and one, or if you like, two NCMPs. So we have room for another three or four NCMPs. Therefore it would be logical to have more NCMPs as a first step. Thirdly, if the PAP wishes to ensure that various sectional interests are represented in Parliament, then we should adopt the democratic system of proportional representation. It is no worse than the NMP system. If there is concern that proportional representation might produce an unstable government, because no single party might have a simple majority in Parliament, then we could adopt, as you have mentioned, Mr Deputy Speaker, a hybrid system, which is a combination of first-past-the-post and proportional representation based on a party slate. Therefore, there is no need to have nominated MPs. The First Deputy Prime Minister in his explanation has also unwittingly revealed what the Government hopes to achieve with an NMP system. He wants, to build consensus in the country. But the only way to achieve such consensus is for the Government to follow policies that truly represent and reflect the views and interests of all sections of our people. The people are asking for more opposition MPs because the PAP policies have failed to represent and reflect the views and interests of all sections of the people in Singapore. Look at the provisions in the Bill. Who will nominate the 6 NMPs? The general public may submit names, but they will ultimately be considered and appointed by a Special Select Committee of Parliament. And who constitutes the Special Select Committee of Parliament? With 80 PAP MPs out of a total of 81 Members of Parliament, is there any doubt as to who will constitute the Special Select Committee and do the selection? Further, these nominated MPs will be put on probation for two years. If they should please the power-that-be, perhaps they would serve another two-year term. Otherwise they would be kicked out. So all the nominations and selections depend on the whims and fancies of the PAP Government. It is all a PAP show, however disguised. Is it likely that those who disagree strongly with PAP policies will be selected? For example, will leaders of the opposition be considered for selection? Finally, whose interests do the nominated MPs represent? Other Members have already spoken on it. And I stress again. They cannot possibly represent the interests of the voters as they have not been voted in by the voters. They represent only themselves. There is a lot of talk of representation of voters in Parliament. The system of nominated MPs now denies voters of their basic right to vote for their representatives in Parliament. The Special Select Committee of Parliament in the PAP takes away the basic right of the voters. Lately, PAP MPs have been talking about a so-called "dominant party" system in Singapore. This could mean that the PAP would contrive to hold such one-sided elections that the opposition, not being given a fair chance in the contest, would at best consist of only a small number of elected MPs, including some NCMPs and few nominated MPs. Such a situation would allow the PAP to install itself as the Government in Singapore forever. The Government would be taking us back 50 years to the colonial era, to the late 40's and the 50's. It is a retrograde step, as some speakers have already said. Or is the PAP slowly adopting a system, similar to that of the communist system in which the PAP will play the dominant leading role? Is that the dominant party system which some PAP MPs are openly talking about? And are the NCMP and NMP schemes really intended to pave the way for a PAP dominant-party system like the communist system? That would certainly create a form of political consensus. The nominated MP idea should be dropped. 4.45 pm

( In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, this amendment to the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore has been debated vehemently by the MPs and varied views, pros and cons, have been put forward in this House. Let me first talk about the term nominated MP. The Chinese translation of NMP should more appropriately be "te wei yi yuen" ( ) rather than "Guan wei yi yuen" ( ) because the translation "Guan wei" ( ) as appeared in the Chinese newspapers will give the people the impression that they are agents for the Government, whereas the English term "nominated MP" will not give such impression. Talking about this Amendment Bill, some people may think it would give the elected MPs a feeling of discomfiture or "loss of face". Some may think that the NMPs are Government agents. In fact, as many PAP MPs have said, people elected us into Parliament because they liked the PAP. In other words, they supported PAP. If they had wanted PAP MPs to oppose PAP Government policies, then I believe, they would have elected Opposition MPs rather than PAP MPs into Parliament. I feel rather strange that our elected MPs should be worried about the NMPs. Initially, the Cabinet Ministers should be the ones to be worried because they will have to face the questioning and criticisms of six more MPs. However, from the debate we had just now, it can be seen that many elected MPs are also very worried over this new system. If we study in depth and analyse the present existing political system we will find that the concept of NMP suits our political environment today and it is a manifestation of political flexibility and maturity. Therefore, it can be said that the nominated MPs scheme is a feasible one and as such, we should not be too dogged or hard and fast about our present political system, or be unduly worried that this new concept would pose a danger to our country. Earlier I sensed a feeling of discomfiture among some MPs. They seem to feel a loss of face because of the introduction of the NMPs. Such reaction is understandable because in Singapore to be elected MPs is not so simple as those in some other countries where they are merely armchair MPs or self-serving under the guise of MP, when they do not do any work actually. The elected PAP MPs, as my colleagues have said, have worked very hard, day and night, they have to meet the people, conduct activities in their constituencies and attend functions of organizations in their constituency, attend meetings of grassroots committee, look after the welfare of the voters and to speak in Parliament expressing political views, and until recently, run the Town Council besides having to do a thousand and one things. These MPs are the public servants of the people. Therefore, their role and image in the eyes of the people are of such prestige that they are out of comparison by the Nominated MPs. The heavy duties and responsibilities of PAP MPs are common household knowledge. Take myself as an example. Since I became an MP for one year, when my friends meet me, they do not ask me, "How is your business?" , but "You have been very busy?" This shows that Singaporeans understand the heavy commitment and spirit of devotion of PAP MPs. This dedication and sense of responsibility have been able to win their support and admiration, which have in turn contributed to the success of PAP at every general election. It is the people who confirm the quality of PAP MPs by voting them in at the general elections which is the best sign of their support. Therefore, only one Opposition Member, Mr Chiam, was elected in the last election and there is nothing much he can do in Parliament. Under these circumstances, we have to make some adjustments to our political system to make up for the dearth of other views from non-PAP MPs in Parliament and therefore the Nominated MP scheme is a timely measure to satisfy the requirements of the present political situation. We should not feel that since we are in Parliament we could not accommodate other non-political partisans from coming into Parliament as nominated MPs. It is not right to begrudge them. We should be broad minded enough to accept them for their contributions. I feel strange that Dr Lee also objected to this measure, forgetting that he himself is a NCMP. He said there is no democracy in Parliament. If there is no democracy in Parliament, he would not have this chance to speak against the policy in the Parliament as a NCMP or does he think that he is being forced to support our stand? In fact, nominated MPs are quite different from popularly elected MPs. As a matter of fact, nominated MPs and elected MPs play different roles. There is no reason for us to feel uncomfortable or to have a feeling of loss of face. Elected MPs feel the jubilation and excitement after they are elected because they have won the mandate of the people. This is the main difference between elected MPs and Nominated MPs. Such jubilation and excitement cannot be experienced by nominated MPs. Therefore, I do not think the NMPs are a superior class of people or more special than the popularly elected MPs. With the rising of educational level, living standard and political consciousness, what people look forward is a good government, like the PAP Government which is honest, clean and efficient. But they also want to see constructive, and sensible views from opposition in Parliament. However, the opposition parties have let them down. Therefore we have to look for another alternative to satisfy their needs. They do not want to see here the type of confusion and chaos that take place in the Indian political arena. The people supported and wanted to elect the PAP to be the Government and we had been able to win 80 out of 81 seats. However, we should not forget that some of them would also like to hear other voices in Parliament. Some people feel that the Opposition MPs' performance has been far from satisfactory in the House. The opposition MP and NCMP in Parliament also deny these people their desire to hear different and constructive views and suggestions in Parliament. The NMP system will be able to fulfil such desires of these people to hear different and constructive voices in Parliament to make up for the shortcomings from the Opposition. This will also raise the standard and quality of debate in Parliament and help to make Government policies and measures better and their implementation smoother. I believe the NMP system would improve our political system and help to build a clean, honest and efficient Government that will serve the people better. It will play an important part and have a definite role in our political system. We should not denigrate the Nominated MP system for what they may be able to do in Parliament. We should also not take the support for the past 25 years the people have given to the PAP for granted. Today, no MPs will deny that the NCMPs have certain role to play in Parliament. I believe NMPs can play a comparable role too. Moreover, there are many talented knowledgeable people who are not willing to be linked up with political parties. Neither do they want to join the party in power or any Opposition party. They are non-partisan. They are not Government agents. These capable people of good intent under certain unique circumstances cannot join political parties or take part in constituency work in the political elective process. Therefore, they are the suitable candidates to be selected as nominated MPs. They can put forward neutral or more independent views. They would not have to consider about party discipline or the pressure from the voters. Therefore, the NMP system is a sensible one and a sound one at the present stage. It is a pity Mr Chiam is not here. He thinks that the introduction of NMPs is indirectly a negation of the quality of PAP MPs. In fact, it shows more of the lacklustre performance of the candidates of Singapore Democratic Party. If Mr Chiam really thinks so he would be under-estimating the political consciousness of the people. Should he desire by such slander to split the PAP, he would be manifesting his political infantility. When talking about the opposition leader, we are reminded of the silent dedication and devotion of the grassroots leaders who have been denigrated by opposition leaders as Government running dogs or stooges. To call them so is an insult to them. Their dedication, capability, and zest and spirit of service to the community, outshine those, if any, of the opposition leaders and have won our people's respect. Among this group of community leaders there are a good number of unpublicized able and talented people including many professional people. They are non-partisan and possess of good qualities. They are the most suitable people, far better than any opposition leaders, today, and should be considered for selection as NMPs. I hope that the Special Select Committee will not overlook this group of elite. Sir, this move for NMPs is the Government's response to the state of our political requirements, it will also allow outstanding candidates from all walks of life to be considered as NMPs without having to belong to any political party or to stand for elections. This is a bold move in line with our practice in the last 25 years in culling and selecting capable and suitable candidates to serve our nation. This new political system will meet the requirement of our present political situation and will be for the good of our nation and people in the long term. I am very glad to hear the First Deputy Prime Minister say that he hoped the Special Select Committee would not give the impression of being partisan in selecting candidates for NMPs. I feel that when selecting suitable candidates they should not give the people the preconception that the NMPs are only "yes-men" of the Government. This is most important. I support this Bill.

( In Malay): Mr Deputy Speaker, in proposing this Bill, the First Deputy Prime Minister has explained the reasons why this amendment is moved. He described the proposed amendment as the best option open to us in our efforts to meet the changing desires and expectations of Singaporeans, especially those of the younger generation. And in order to meet the desire of the younger generation, he stated that compared to the four options available: (1) increasing the number of Non-Constituency MPs (NCMPS); (2) having proportional representation; (3) holding supplementary elections meant solely for Opposition candidates; and (4) established a second Chamber, he was more inclined towards proposing this amendment, to introduce nominated MPs into Parliament. Mr Deputy Speaker, I support this Bill only in principle. And it is rather odd that, an office-holder, I am not as vocal as my friend Mr Peh in supporting this Bill. For, I question the objectives behind this amendment and, further, I wonder whether this move would not undermine parliamentary democracy. Mr Deputy Speaker, would we not, in moving this amendment, erode or undermine the supremacy of Parliament in our system of parliamentary democracy? I regard Parliament as an institution that must form the backbone of a parliamentary democracy. By this I mean that any decision made in this House must, in the final analysis, have the support of the people. Having compared the proposals in this Bill to the fourth option cited by the First Deputy Prime Minister, that is, establishing a second Chamber, I would, in principle, support this idea but would add that the proposal should include creation of a bicameral Parliament. There are many reasons why I feel the idea of having a second Chamber should be given prior consideration. I do not wish to repeat the arguments put forth by fellow MPs before me, but, in debating this issue, we should consider the fact that Singapore has struggled extremely hard to build a society that is progressive, prosperous educated, intelligent, sophisticated and cultured. And yet, where politics is concerned, I am not sure the direction we are headed now shows we have progressed to an equal degree politically. As example, no disrespect intended to the countries cited by the First Deputy Prime Minister - Bangladesh, Botswana, Dominica, India, Kenya, Malawi, Pakistan, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, St Vincent and the Grenadines, Solomon Islands - a quick look will tell us that these are developing countries. And due to their being developing countries, they need political stability to a very much larger degree than developed countries. Thus one can justify the special features referred to in their political systems. But we are more developed. If we compared our technological advancements to the western countries and Japan, why do we not have the same perspective in trying to bring innovations into our parliamentary system? Mr Deputy Speaker, if we could introduce this concept of a second Chamber, we would to some extent be able to raise the quality of thinking that goes into our legislative functions to a level that is in line with our achievements in other fields. Japan, as an example, has a Diet of two levels, a House of representatives a House of Councillors (members of both houses are elected). But the point is, even with this innovation that we are bringing into the system, the present Parliament will still be the body that has the final say in the introduction or passing of any law. A second Chamber, whatever it may be called, a Senate an upper House or an Advisory Council, that functions by giving views and opinions on a piece of legislation, would have a role in fulfulling the desires of our people. There is another reason I would like to offer here. We are trying to address the issue of how to fulfil the desires of the younger electorate. We need to ask: what is their desire? Is their desire simply to elect a Member of Parliament like Mr Chiam, and another like Dr Lee Siew-Choh, or such? In short, is it their desire that there should be more heated debates in Parliament, to be televised for the public to see? Or is it for the sort of thinking, arguments, that would make the laws we pass and the ideas we put forward in this House more sound, better received and more reflective of the needs of our people? These are fundamental questions which must be answered, and I feel that a second Chamber would be able to answer these questions more effectively. Mr Deputy Speaker, the First Deputy Prime Minister said that to create this second Chamber, we might need to make a major amendment, something of a greater scale than what he is moving now. I think if the idea of a second Chamber would be able to solve our problems in the long rum not just from one general election to the next, then there is no reason why this major but important and appropriate change cannot be made. If we are going to do something, we might as well go the whole hog. If we are going to consider an idea that is good, let us be thorough about it. Therefore, Mr Deputy Speaker, as there are similarities in principles between 1DPM's proposal and the setting up of a Second House - that we are modifying one-man-one-vote system and an elected Member of Parliament - in line with this, I support the Bill.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, this is a Bill which deals with the fundamentals of parliamentary democracy. Our system of parliamentary democracy has served us well and brought us peace, progress and prosperity for the last 25 years. Admittedly, as in all things, it is not perfect. However, a very radical and fundamental change is being proposed in this Bill. A Member of Parliament will be nominated and he will not be elected by the people. The First Deputy Prime Minister has circulated a list of 20 countries where there are nominated Members. I am not sure whether we want to belong to this list of 20 countries. Sir, a Member of Parliament, as we know him or her, is elected by the people to represent them in this House. The mandate is given to him to speak for his voters. He is accountable to his voters for his words and his actions. There are two important words - mandate and accountability - both of which a nominated MP does not have. The Cabinet is chosen from the MPs, and thus have the mandate of the people to govern. I am glad to hear of the reassurance from the First Deputy Prime Minister that the NMP would not hold a Government post. I am indeed relieved. Sir, in the past, when amendments were made to the electoral process, there were good reasons for it. For example, the Non-Constituency MP Bill provided for a system of checks and balances. The GRC Bill provided for minority representation. However, in both these Bills, the process of election through the one-man-one-vote system remained intact. There were some Members of the House who had some reservations on the NCMP Bill. However, the NCMP has credibility as he went through, the electoral process. Some called the NCMP a "back-door" or "second-class" MP. This label should rightfully now be transferred to the NMP as he does not have the mandate of the people to speak and he has no accountability to the electorate. They are more akin to "illegal immigrants" in Parliament than a "back-door" or "second-class" MP. The NMP is very different and not an extension of the NCMP scheme. I beg to differ from the First Deputy Prime Minister. In this Bill, the ground rules are now changed. The electoral process is by-passed. This Bill is asking this House to give itself the power to nominate six MPs. The Special Select Committee which will choose the six comprise Members of this House. We, in the PAP, form the overwhelming majority in this House. We should exert self-discipline when it comes to vesting power to ourselves. We have a moral obligation to check ourselves. It is my view that to vest unto ourselves the power to nominate MPs who will legislate is fundamentally objectionable. Mr Bernard Chen said that nothing harmful can come out of this Bill. I beg to differ. Something very fundamental is being done in this Bill, and it can be harmful. Mr Peh Chin Hua has said that we should be more broad-minded. I think there is no question of being broad-minded or narrow-minded when one talks of something as fundamental as the electoral process. Sir, we next need to ask ourselves why we need NMPs. Is it the view of the Frontbench that the Backbench and Opposition are not fulfilling their role? I surmise this from the speech by the First Deputy Prime Minister. If this is the case, in my mind, it is also a reflection on the Frontbench. Why? Because the performance of the House is the result of an interaction between the Frontbench and the Backbench. What we can do, what we cannot do, is also imposed on us by the Frontbench. Can the addition of six more persons then make the House all representative? We have heard the argument that we want the House to be more representative. But can the addition of six more Members make it much more representative? Dr Aline Wong has already mentioned and given us statistics on this. What is the objective of this exercise? The First Deputy Prime Minister has said "to strengthen the political system". I am not convinced. I am not able to accept that. Mr Goh Chok Tong rose -

Dr Beng, are you giving way?

Yes.

Mr Deputy Speaker, I just want to make one clarification. I did not imply in any way that our PAP MPs are not performing to expectations. I thought I should make that clear. Therefore, the remarks of Dr Beng would be irrelevant because there was no such implication whatsoever.

Thank you, Sir. I am much reassured and I am much cheered by the First Deputy Prime Minister's words. However, I am still not able to accept that direct-entry MPs can fulfil a role that elected MPs cannot. Sir, if we need more "brains" or "views" on any issue, there are many avenues that have already been mentioned. I will not bore you again, Sir. The problem is that too often decisions are made prior to dialogue and so the grassroots leaders become disillusioned and decide to keep quiet. This view was reinforced to me in a "Contact-Y" dialogue which I had with an audience chosen by SBC - not by myself - entitled "Are we a nation of followers." Sir, at this point, I would like to qualify the statement by putting on record that it is my view that there is today significantly more dialogue than one year ago. But as in all things, there is room for improvement. However, all this has happened without nominated MPs. Sir, the success of the Economic Committee in the 1985 recession under the able chairmanship of the Minister for Trade and Industry is an example to us of how the best "brains" can be mobilised without interfering in the electoral process. After the Economic Committee completed its report, the House then debated it. This goes to show that talent, whether inside or outside the House, is always available to the Government - provided it is willing to be receptive. Sir, let us be frank. The First Deputy Prime Minister said that PAP MPs cannot speak out convincingly enough. Am I correct?

The people feel ---

The people feel that we cannot speak out convincingly enough. Am I correct in that? If this is so, as the First Deputy Prime Minister has said, then it must be removed. How do we get this removed? We should start now. Even on this Bill, some of my colleagues feel that it is against their conscience to speak against the Bill, then vote for the Bill, because the Whip is not lifted. Let a clear signal be given to all by lifting the Whip on this Bill. This will send a message, loud and clear, to all that discussion and even disagreements are encouraged, so that the decisions that will be ultimately taken in this House will work towards Singapore's good. Sir, what the people want is not more NMPs. What they want is a government that is listening, what they want is a government that is receptive and is willing to accept alternative views. Sir, with all due respect to the First Deputy Prime Minister, may I suggest that he consider the following options: 1. That he withdraws the Bill. 2. That he lifts the Whip. 3. That he defers this Bill till after next year's budget session so as to allow all of us in this House to "buck up" since there is a perception that we are not doing well enough. Should he be satisfied with the standard of debate, then there is no need for this Bill. If he is still not satisfied, then a Constitutional Commission should be formed, and a referendum conducted. If the recommendations are accepted by the electorate, then all of us in this House are bound to accept it. The First Deputy Prime Minister is well known to us as "the tall man". I am sure he will now become a very "big man" if he can accept any one of these three options. Sir, I cannot support this Bill. However, as a PAP Backbencher, I say this again, like my colleagues, well realising that I will be subjected to the Party Whip. This is the constraint upon us, and I guess we will have to continue to live a "schizophrenic" political life - speaking against, yet voting for a Bill. Sir, the First Deputy Prime Minister summarised the three objectives of the Bill as: the building of consensus, contribution to good Government and to accommodate alternative views. I strongly feel that there is no need for this Bill to achieve these three objectives. What needs to be done is to give us all much more flexibility in this House. And, of course, there will have to be a change in the attitude of the Frontbench towards the Backbench so that there can be much more dialogue and in this way to satisfy the needs of people inside and outside this House.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, basic to the spirit of our Constitution is that each and every citizen of 21 years and above has a vote. The votes of citizens collectively decide the persons that will sit in the Parliament Chamber. This basic principle will be violated if we let nominated MPs into the House. This is not the case with Non-Constituency MPs because they have submitted themselves to the election process and have proven that they have the support of a substantial number of voters. In this regard then, I support the proposal for an increase in the number of Non-Constituency MPs to a maximum of six persons. All Members in this House, I believe, are always conscious of the responsibility of having been elected. Although one speaks one's own mind, the implication of having been elected is that we are trusted by our constituents to do the right thing by them. Sir, nomination not followed by election is definitely not worthy of this House. The First Deputy Prime Minister has mentioned precedents in other countries, largely very underdeveloped, where MPs are nominated to correct deficiency of representation in certain sectors of the population and he cited women and small minorities. Sir, women in Singapore have the vote. Women in Singapore have equal opportunities for education and the women of Singapore, I am very sure, know what they are about when they go to the polls. Members also remember that this same male dominated House endorsed the Women's Charter in 1963. Also, the PAP commanded a very big majority during the 14 years that this House had no women MPs. Obviously, not all men MPs are male chauvinists. I wish to remind Members too that women MPs represent constituents and they include men and women. As for representation of minority races in the House, one has but to look around to see all shades of yellow, brown and black representing the races of Singapore. The Government party can justly take pride in this achievement. Furthermore, the GRC system ensures that our minority races will always be adequately represented in Parliament. Sir, I cannot think what oppressed and unfranchised sector of Singaporeans need to be represented by nominated MPs. Surely, Sir, not the women of Singapore. If there are such sectors of population hidden amongst us, I wish the First Deputy Prime Minister would spell them out and tell us how the people of eminence, special expertise, and experience whom he has in mind for nominated MPs will be able to speak for these people in Parliament. There is also a second problem that troubles me. Who will finally select or elect the nominated MPs? This House being predominantly PAP, any nominated MP who is elected by the present House with or without the Party Whip in place, will naturally be seen to be PAP stooges. The same will happen if they are selected by the President as long as the President has been nominated by a PAP Cabinet and elected and voted in by a PAP dominated House. There is no way around these perceptions. If these nominated MPs are elected by certain designated organisations - I am not sure what they are - it means that members of these organisations, or more likely office holders of these organisations, will in effect have two votes, one vote at the polls and one additional special vote. We must remind ourselves that organisations other than political parties are not gathered for political purposes. Indeed, the Minister for Homes Affairs has just today announced that he will be bringing in a Bill to provide for a strict divide between religion and politics. We also remember that not long ago certain members of the Law Society ran foul of the Internal Security Act because they indulged in activities which were designated as political. Why then are we asking whatever organisations to elect or select or nominate people into Parliament? Parliament is a place for politics. But my basic assumption, I repeat, Sir, is that this Bill will bring about a situation where, to paraphrase George Orwell in his book "Animal Farm" - all citizens are equal, but some citizens are more equal than others.

Order. It is 5.30 pm. Debate to be resumed what day?

Tomorrow, Sir.

So be it.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, before I move the adjournment, may I remind all Members to speak at the lectern when they make their speeches.

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

asked the Acting Minister for Health whether the number of people who have exhausted their Medisave whilst under medical treatment is on the increase; and what steps are being taken to assist them in their medical care.

The number of Medisave members with zero or near zero balances has remained fairly constant, at an average of about 6,400, representing about 0.3% of the total number of Medisave accounts. Ninety-nine percent of these depleted accounts were inactive at the time of usage, ie, no contributions had been made into these accounts for four or more months prior to the account being used. Over 70% of these account holders were below the age of 45 years. The members concerned had either already stopped working, or had become self-employed. A member who depletes his account has the following alternatives: (a) pay in cash the outstanding balance of the hospital bill; arrangements can also be made for the balance to be paid in instalments; (b) use the Medisave accounts of immediate family members; (c) overdraw on his Medisave account if the patient is in C or B2 wards of Government or restructured hospitals, provided the Medisave account is active. Only 27 members have made use of this facility from January to September this year. Patients who are genuinely unable to pay their hospital bills may apply for a waiver or partial remission of fees.

asked the Minister for National Development whether the Housing and Development Board will relax the conditions for transfer of rental flats so that problems of families requiring child care help from relatives can be solved.

HDB rental flats tenants are allowed to transfer to alternative flats if they are encountering financial difficulties or have family members with medical problems. In the case of those applying for transfer, on ground of requiring child care assistance from in-laws or relatives, HDB will consider such request on the merits of each case.

asked the Minister for National Development whether the Housing and Development Board has finalised any plans (i) to redevelop the former Mindef Camp in Dover Road into new housing units and (ii) to convert the flats in the vacant Block 22, Dover Crescent into bigger units.

As I indicated in my answer to the Member of Parliament for Pasir Panjang on 23 March 1989, the Ministry of National Development is preparing a plan to guide the long term development of the Ayer Rajah area bounded by Clementi Road, Pasir Panjang Road, the railway line and Alexandra Road. The former Mindef Camp is earmarked for medium density housing. The present thinking is that there will be no more HDB developments in the area. The overall development plan for the area is expected to be finalised sometime next year. (ii) The tender for the conversion of the flats in the vacant Block 22, Dover Crescent into 5 rooms and executive apartments is expected to be called in mid 1990.

asked the Minister for Education whether there is any plan to increase the number of primary SAP schools.

The Ministry of Education has identified 10 schools to implement the Primary SAP programme in 1990. We will use the experience gained by the 10 schools to see what lessons can be learned in the area of retention of core values which can be transmitted to other primary schools. We will consider increasing the number of primary SAP schools when we have evaluated the effectiveness of the programme.

asked the Minister for National Development what plans have been made for the old, rented Housing and Development Board flats at Race Course Road and Winstedt Drive.

The rental flats at Race Course Road and Winstedt Drive still show high occupancy rates. There are no immediate relocation or redevelopment plans for the flats. As these flats fall within the Central Area, they will have to give way in the long term to redevelopment. We have to optimise the use of the land in the Central Area.

asked the Minister for National Development whether the Housing and Development Board will allow the use of void decks at Potong Pasir Estate as a neighbourhood library and a creche by the Potong Pasir Town Council.

The HDB lets void deck space to organisations approved by Minstry of Community Development which provide non-profit making, welfare and community-oriented services. Examples of such uses are education centres, child care centres and RC centres. In the case of Potong Pasir Town, HDB will be prepared to allow the Town Council to use void deck space provided the proposals are supported by the Ministry of Community Development and the facilities are operated by the Council itself and not for profit. list - SOME COUNTRIES WITH APPOINTED MPs IN LOWER HOUSES (Cols. 773 - 780)