Hansard, 1989-11-30

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 Ng Pock Too (Nee Soon Central) - from 3rd to 6th December, 1989. Nr Philip Tan Tee Yong (Paya Lebar) - from 4th to 6th December, 1989. Mr Lee Yiok Seng (Bukit Panjang), Senior Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for National Development - from 4th to 11th December, 1989. Mr Choo Wee Khiang (Marine Parade GRC) - from 4th to 7th December, 1989. Encik Othman bin Haron Eusofe (Marine Parade GRC) - from 6th to 14th December, 1989. Mr Ong Teng Cheong (Kim Keat), Second Deputy Prime Minister - from 7th to 11th December, 1989. Mr Heng Chiang Meng (Cheng San GRC) - from 4th to 6th December, 1989. TAN SOO KHOON Speaker Parliament of Singapore

Order read for Resumption of Debate on Question [29th November, 1989], "That the Bill be now read a Second time." - [First Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Defence]. Question again proposed.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I am all for the Bill for the reason that I would support any system which encourages the expression of non-partisan views on Government policy. I would ask my fellow Backbenchers not to be too concerned with the fact that these views will be expressed in Parliament and not elsewhere. In the context of what is being proposed, this is, to me, a matter of form more than it is a matter of substance. Realistically, speeches in Parliament enjoy more media coverage than debates in any other forum. We should recognise that and we should take advantage of it. Concerns were expressed by some of my fellow Backbenchers yesterday about the principles underlying this Bill. It was said that it would be a sad day for parliamentary democracy. I would urge this House to reconsider that. How is it that with the passage of this amendment it would be a sad day for parliamentary democracy in Singapore? It is an essential ingredient of democracy that there be free, unrestricted, responsible, credible debate on our policies and on our future. We have said so on many occasions that we are here to encourage debate. We want alternative fresh views. If these views are given and if the mechanism is created for these views to be given, how can democracy in Singapore be affected? If these views are ultimately not credible, if the nominees who come up and express these views are perceived to be Government stooges, the net result of the exercise is that the amendment does not work. But how is democracy affected? Will the man-in-the-street be affected by the failure of that amendment? The PAP's prestige will be hurt. But that does not affect the development of parliamentary democracy. How is it a sad day for our democracy? As I see it, none of the established principles of parliamentary democracy has in any way been violated by what is being proposed. Parliament remains supreme. The entire exercise is within the control of Parliament through a Committee. There is accountability. A point was made yesterday about the absence of accountability on the part of these nominees. I would like to think that we are all accountable to ourselves for what we say and we are also accountable to everyone in Singapore whose future is affected by us and who reads what we say in the papers and who watches us on the television. Accountability to our constituents is a well-established principle. But it is not a notion to be used to stymie an exercise to further the legislative process. What is legislative process? What is our role here? Our role is to ensure that any Bills which are passed are passed for the benefit of Singaporeans as a whole, for the majority of our voters. Does this mean that we are constrained by principles which have been laid down years ago in other countries? In fact, personally I am not even moved by the examples cited by the First Deputy Prime Minister. We do not need illustrations. We can be the pioneers. If the end result of the legislative process is that it works to the benefit of the populace, then it is something that we should support. At the end of the day, one should ask oneself: is this Bill going to hurt anybody? If we think about it, it cannot but hurt only the governing party. If it succeeds, we are all the better for it. If it fails, well, it will be perceived to be a wrong move. As I said, the man-in-the-street is not affected. But the governing party is doing it knowing that the only adverse repercussion can be on it and on nobody else. It is a gamble. It is a bold move and we ought to support it. If it is a gamble which can only result in harm to ourselves but good to the others, then it speaks volumes of our good faith. I would urge this House to look at it in this light. Let us give it a try. Let us give it a go. If it does not work, it can be rectified. Nobody will be hurt. If it works, Singaporeans will be the better for it. I support the Bill, Sir.

Point of clarification, Sir. The Member for Toa Payoh said that he will support the Bill because these nominated MPs will have a non-partisan view and it does not deviate from any parliamentary principle. But I beg to differ. How is he going to reconcile with the fact that these nominated MPs will in fact deviate from a very important parliamentary principle of representation?

In much the same way as the principle has been deviated - if that is the correct use of the word - by the presence in this House of the NCMP. It is hardly true, is it, that he is the representative of the people in his constituency? That constituency has elected another Member of this House. But the NCMP is with us today, has been with us for this term, takes an active part in this discussion. And I do not recall Mr Chiam jumping up to object to what the NCMP has said and actively contributed to debates in this House.

Clarification, Sir. The NCMP has a measure of support from the electorate. He has stood for election and votes have been cast. And if the Member for Toa Payoh GRC will recall those with the highest votes among the losers are appointed NCMPs. What has he got to say to that?

It is this difficulty that I was addressing - the trap that we have fallen into by looking at the form and not the substance. He says that the NCMP has a measure of support. What is a measure of support? Is one vote a measure of support? Is the second highest poll a measure of support? It does not really matter. What matters is an opportunity is given for another viewpoint to be expressed and we should ask ourselves: is that opportunity good for Singapore? Is it good for our legislative process? And if the answer is yes, as it must be, then Mr Chiam has no ground to stand on.

Sir, I do not think that argument can hold any water at all. Nevertheless, let us go to another point which I need clarification and, that is, on accountability. He says that the nominated MPs are accountable to the whole of Singapore. How does he substantiate that? The nominated MPs are not put in Parliament by the whole of Singapore.

Mr Chiam is right if we go by traditional notions. I think they are English notions of accountability to one's constituents. What I was trying to persuade this House to accept is that accountability has a larger definition. When you come up here, as I do, to express a viewpoint, you are responsible for what you say. You are responsible to yourself and you are responsible to everybody who is affected by what you say. Mr Chiam See Tong rose ---

Mr Chiam, how many more clarifications do you wish to make? It appears to me that you seem to have a problem understanding Mr Singh.

I think I have a right for clarification. Unless of course we are short of time, then I will sit down.

But you seem to be seeking too many clarifications whenever Mr Singh is speaking. Mr Chay.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to speak in support of this constitutional amendment to provide for non-elected Members to be in this House. In doing so, I am conscious of the concern expressed by my parliamentary colleagues. Yet I feel confident that through this innovation, our legislative body will represent a more complete body of views and I think this can contribute significantly to our longer term political stability. Before I dwell into the whys and the wherefores, I wish to point out that nominated Members of Parliament are not a deviation from democratic representative government or parliamentary government. For example, in many parliaments which are bicameral which have Lower and Upper Houses, non-elected Members have been a feature of many of such Upper Houses of Parliament. In the mother of Parliament in Britain, many seats in the House of Lords are hereditary and not elected and many peerages are nominated by the Prime Minister. Why do we need non-elected Nominated Members of Parliament when there are already elected ones and non-elected Non-Constituency ones (the NCMPs)? I submit that the most important reason is to find new structures within our existing first-past-the-post system of electoral voting to supplement the body of representation such as found in the Westminster political party system as ours. A Westminster political party system is essentially confrontational or adversarial. The first-past-the-post system was essentially devised to ensure strong Cabinet government in a parliamentary "Commons". The result is that a governing political party can have predominant control of seats without necessarily a predominance of the electoral votes. This is the case of Britain as in Singapore. The difference is that the opposition in Britain has the credibility to form an alternative government. In Singapore, it does not. Advocates of parliamentary reform in proportional representation do not make headway because of the very obvious need for strong government in the Westminster Cabinet style of government for potentially fractious society as in Britain and for the obvious reason that the governing party always stands to gain in this system. Applied in the context of Singapore, it would be even more weakening due to the pluralistic pulls of our society. How then do we try to ensure that the debate in Parliament will have the diversity of views and the variety of experience and expertise that territorial representation, ie, representation by constituency and the first-past-the-post system will not ensure? I would urge Members to bear in mind that territorial representation was an outgrowth of the special circumstances in British local administration system from as far back as the Middle Ages. Different societies face different problems at different times. But all forward looking successful societies must find their own solutions to the different needs and fill the different gaps of institutional needs as perceived by their leaders. This requirement is all the more necessary in an era of accelerating changes brought about by telecommunication and information technologies. In Singapore, by the accident of history and by the political will of the Party's first generation leaders, the PAP is closely identified with the workers by the so-called symbiotic relationship. There are many Members of Parliament who speak up for the workers, including the Opposition. Who speaks for the employers? Who speaks for the growing intelligentsia who feel isolated because they are uncomfortable with populistic and partisan perspectives? Their connection and interaction of this intelligentsia in work and play is not just with Singapore or the constituency they reside in. Their connection and interaction is with the modern-day world. If I may say so, they are part of the world's Fifth Estate. They do not need to vote for the PAP nor the Opposition. They vote with their hands on the terminal buttons every day. They can also vote with their feet. The PAP, which claims to represent all sections of Singapore, cannot claim to be non-partisan. PAP MPs are constrained by the Whip. They can speak against the Government on an issue but they cannot vote against the Government because they are constrained by the Whip. They are also constrained by the need for popular support in order to carry the ground - to ensure the Party and themselves stay in power. Hence, while all PAP MPs can speak critically and do so unashamedly and unafraid, the extent they can do so is limited by their responsibility and their accountability. They can be popular and critical. But they cannot be naive. Nor do the electorate expect them to be. Some people have argued that Members who speak in this House must have a mandate from the people, must be elected so to speak. This is not true, and not necessary. Such people confuse representative government which must have a popular and periodic mandate from the people, with the peculiar institutions of Parliament. The Mother of Parliament has hereditary Members in the Upper House which would be revolting to proponents of democratic populistic representation. Many parliaments have nominated Members. It does not mean that because we are going to have nominated non-elected Members of Parliament that Parliament will be somehow downgraded. To start with, even the Speaker of this House does not have to be a Member of Parliament as provided in the Constitution. And historically, we have had at least three Speakers who were not elected Members of Parliament - Sir George Oehlers, Mr A P Rajah and Mr Punch Coomarasamy. They had performed their onerous duty to this House with distinction, as the head of our Parliament. I do not think that Parliament was worse off because of their non-elected status. If anything, I believe Parliament and the nation was enriched by their presence. More recently, we have had the pleasure of the presence of the Non-Constituency Member of Parliament. I am sure Parliament, as a house of representatives and as a legislative body, was not diminished by the presence of the non-elected Non-Constituency Member. Singapore must examine the relevance and the appropriateness of institutions for our country not just from the perspective of forms and structures, in comparison with other countries. These forms and structures of other Parliaments evolved through their special and unique historical experience. Similarly, ours must evolve through our own unique path. We must be bold enough to try new institutional forms while retaining the essence of democratic representative government. Democratic representative government institutions too must be subject to the changes in forms and structures given the accelerating changes in a technotronic world and we must find new ways of supporting them. In Singapore, the predominance of the People's Action Party in the political system and in Parliament was also an accident of history not caused nor sought by the leaders of the Party. In fact, any student of political history will know that they were battling for their survival when it happened in 1966. It was caused by the pull out of Parliament by the Barisan Socialis in 1966 when they had 13 Members in Parliament. They wanted to take the struggle to the streets. Naturally, the PAP exploited the ground and filled up the seats by elections, and has never looked back ever since. Mr Speaker, Sir, I dare say the man who is responsible for the predominance of the PAP in the political system today in Singapore is, by a strange twist of events, sitting here in Parliament - thanks to the PAP's new leaders' political innovation. He is the hon. Non-Constituency Member himself. For pulling the Opposition out of Parliament, the PAP has a lot to thank him. For that, the Singapore electorate never forgave him. Since the PAP Government has the burden of predominance thrust on it, caused by the grand strategic error of the Opposition under Dr Lee, it is the duty of the PAP to find new political institutions and innovations to ensure that alternative views are ventilated and heard, and due weight given to them in the consideration of policies. Otherwise, the new PAP leaders will unwittingly play into Dr Lee's original hand - to let the struggle be driven out of Parliament and into the streets. This will happen if no avenues are found to give more participation and expression at the highest level, in the absence of a credible Opposition. Over the last two elections, we have seen about 38% of the voters vote for the Opposition.

39%.

If we fairly assume that 39% or 38% of the electorate who voted against the PAP are distributed normally, it can be said, fairly confidently, that one-third of these voters would be prepared to vote for the PAP, but for the reason that they want an alternative view in Parliament, a critical alternative view that can bring public debate to a non-partisan perhaps consensus-seeking level. While the non-elected Members of Parliament do not represent the 38%, their critical alternative views can be shared by a significant portion of the 38%. If the Party cannot win them during the elections, the Government must win over their hearts during the period of rule. It would be foolhardy and dangerous for the Government to carry on to govern for too long without letting the alternative view be articulated and expressed in the highest institution by the people who are not partisanly involved and above the fray, so to speak. We must take the lid off the crucible. As our country gets more economically developed and wealthy, and as our population acquires greater depth of talent and experience with age, we must also search for new political structures and institutions for the country. Non-elected Members of Parliament can be a good bridgehead for the political tutelage of the electorate towards the acceptance of a possible Upper House in the future. I urge the Government to seriously consider this prospect. Nominated MPs can be the first stepping stone towards this. Naturally, this being a Government proposal, there will be criticism that the nominated non-elected Members of Parliament are going to be the mouthpiece of the Government. I really see no purpose in it. I believe the test of the pudding is in the eating of it. The sacred and onerous duty of selecting the nominated Members of Parliament should be left to the Special Select Committee of Parliament as presently proposed. We should not allow interest groups to be specially provided by delegating the power of selection to them. This runs against the grain of constitutional right. If Parliament can amend the Constitution, if Parliament can examine public accounts and estimates, if Parliament can be trusted to approve all Government's current and capital spending each year, if it fully accounts itself to the people by periodic elections, should not the task of selection of the non-elected Members of Parliament be placed within itself by the Special Select Committee of Parliament? The people selected must be able to contribute freely to the discussion and the evaluation of policies, and informing public debate, by their expertise and experience. Otherwise, this nominated MP institution will fail and the Government will be the laughing stock, and Parliament will have to answer for it. Finally, Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the amendment.

May I be allowed a few words of clarification, Sir?

Yes.

I have always been singled out for distinction, and this time of having created the dominant party in the PAP. If I had such powers, Sir, I can assure you that it would not have been the PAP but the Barisan. Another thing, Sir, it has always been said that we had taken to the streets. "Taken to the streets" meant that we were almost taking to armed struggle. But what we did was only extra-parliamentary struggle which was, and still is, a form of parliamentary struggle. And if we had to go out into the streets occasionally to demonstrate, that was what was, and is, being carried out by Opposition parties all over the world. There is nothing wild in that. And another thing, Sir, I, as one-time Chairman of the Barisan Sosialis, of course had a great say in many of the things that happened in the party then. But to give me the honour of having been the one and only person who decided on the fate of the party is not fair to other Barisan leaders and also not correct. All our decisions were made not by one man. I can assure you, Sir, that our decisions in the Barisan Sosialis at any time were much more democratic than decisions in the PAP. And as you might know, we withdrew from the PAP because there was no intra-party democracy. And even today, I can sense that that is actually what is happening still in the PAP. Decisions are all made by a few people at the top. And after these decisions have been made, the decisions are announced to the Backbenchers and whoever happen to be around, and maybe they are allowed to say a few words. But the decision has been made. They do not listen to your arguments. Even today, the First Deputy Prime Minister has already said that he wants new amendments in the Bill.

Order. Dr Lee.

Just one more word, Sir.

Could you make your clarification?

You can be assured that the First Deputy Prime Minister will not give way to arguments at all. He will push the Bill through. 12.59 pm

Mr Speaker, Sir, the First Deputy Prime Minister emphasised that the purpose of this amendment to have nominated MPs is to invite alternative views from qualified professionals who did not want to be involved with the hassle of elections or the long and hard hours of constituency work. I question the value of such views as they will probably be conceived in the ivory towers. Such views will be theoretical and do not reflect the real needs of the people. As for the alternative views that we try to obtain from these qualified professionals, we should ask ourselves a few questions: (1) On what matters and issues? (2) Are there enough existing channels of feedback for these matters and issues? and (3) Are the elected MPs contributing enough to the matters and issues at hand? If the matters and issues are on concepts and ideologies, we have our think tank, the university professors, the various specific institutes covering specific subjects. If the matters and issues are on economic and business matters, we have the Chambers of Commerce, trade associations, Trade Development Board, Economic Development Board and, last but not least, the elected MPs who are in commerce and industry and banking. If these matters and issues are on social aspects, we have our Feedback Unit, our grassroots organisations and, more importantly, the elected MPs who are in constant touch with their respective constituents. On all these issues and matters, if we look back into the Hansards, we will find countless number of views expressed by the elected MPs. Do we then need any more alternative views based purely on theory? The answer is no. We need theory based on experience. Sir, I strongly feel that the Government is not taking the views of the PAP MPs seriously. It is like a case of a prophet. He is not without honour except in his own country. Allow me to quote the views of many PAP MPs on some matters and issues but are disappointed because they fall on deaf ears. Take for instance, the HDB. Many PAP MPs have told the Minister that many lower income residents are still having financial difficulties to pay conservancy charges, rental and instalments. When these residents finally found the ability to pay because they found jobs or they borrowed some money, they went to pay the current dues, but only to be turned away by HDB who coldly demanded that they must, I repeat, they must first pay the arrears and a hefty administrative charge ranging from $100 to $500. This, to me, is most ridiculous. Even a landlord will have mercy on his poor tenant, but not the HDB. Sir, to the poor, even $10 is a luxury. I have not forgotten my own childhood days when my mother had to borrow a few dollars to buy the daily food or we had to wait for the bread seller to complete his rounds and sell us the balance at a reduced price. Sir, poverty is not a joy and should not be taken lightly by those who can afford it. The PAP MPs have aired their views to the Minister on this predicament but nothing, I emphasize, nothing is conceded by the HDB. The Minister will always say it is a deterrent for abuse. This, I think, is an easy way out for the administrators and a case of the rich taking the poor lightly. The Government has made HDB look like a very cold and heartless animal to the poor. If they have taken heed of our views, HDB can become a heart warming and reasonable landlord. Do we need any more alternative views on these matters from the nominated MPs? Let us go on to business matters. Singapore has a small domestic market. This makes doing business an uphill battle for local businessmen. To compound their problems, they have to compete with Government-owned companies. Many PAP MPs have spoken strenuously on this unfair competition because Government-owned companies do not have cash flow problems. One Minister arrogantly said, "What's wrong with Government-owned companies competing? It is our philo- sophy. So be it." Is this not another way of saying, if your views do not coincide with ours, shut up. If your views coincide with ours, we listen. Do we need alternative views from nominated MPs? And will these nominated MPs dare to speak otherwise? We go on to some other areas. Many MPs have also told our Ministers that our regulatory bodies are behaving like demi-gods. And such situations only intimidate the commercial well-being of local businessmen. Sir, I can go on and on. But I just want to touch on two areas, and that is on higher medical charges and the higher school fees. Recently, we talked about the independent school fees that have gone up. We have said many times that we should not just raise the fees at such a quantum leap. It is not easy for a person to adjust suddenly. Our Ministers are always quick to adopt the attitude: did the ends justify the means? They always do this with a glee on their faces. I really find this disgusting. I think it is dangerous to adopt such a policy that the ends justify the means. History has shown us that many people adopting such policies oppressed the masses to achieve the ends. They failed in the long run. We had Hitler. We had the Chinese Emperor Chin Shi Huang. We must be careful. The ends do not always justify the means. The First Deputy Prime Minister gave the impression that these 6 nominated MPs' views are crucial, without which no matters and issues will be wholly debated and dissenting views aired. To me, this is an insult to the intelligence ---

Mr Speaker, may I just make a point of clarification? I think the Member for Paya Lebar should have listened to my speech carefully. In fact, he should read my speech in the Straits Times quite carefully. The whole speech is published. I did not in any way imply that. I was listening to the speaker quite merrily. But when he said that I have insulted, I think, members of the public should please read what I have said quite carefully.

I did not say that 1DPM insulted us. But I said, to me, it is an insult. It is my opinion that it is an insult to the intelligence concerning the capability, depth and breadth of knowledge, and courage of the present PAP MPs. Because 1DPM did say that with the presence of the nominated MPs, the quality of debate will be better, more dissenting views can be aired. It is true. That is my understanding and that is why, to me, it is my opinion that it is an insult to us. Because if you look at Hansard, we have also voiced dissenting views. The First Deputy Prime Minister also said that decisions are usually taken after closed-door meetings with PAP MPs. The fact remains that if the Government had decided after these closed-door meetings, how can 6 nominated MPs' views change it? Is it not reasonable to suggest that whatever views the 6 nominated MPs would air would have been aired by the PAP MPs at the closed-door meetings? What then is the value of the views of these 6 nominated MPs? Sir, these nominated MPs will probably be successful professionals or academicians. The question to ask is whether they, especially the successful professionals, will speak out without fear that their careers will not be jeopardized. Will a nominated MP who is a banker dare to speak out against policies of the MAS? Will a nominated MP who is an architect dare to speak out strongly against the BCD? Will a nominated MP who is an accountant dare to speak out strongly against the Income Tax, the SIC and the Stock Exchange? My personal view is that they will not be very forthright because they are wise people. They will pull punches. After all, a two-year term is not a very long time and they have a career to look after after their two-year term. If this is true, then the nominated MPs will lose their credibility. Sir, I submit that we do not need nominated MPs in this House.

Sir, the First Deputy Prime Minister in his speech moving this Bill stated very clearly from his perspective one of the motivations for the Bill. That is, as we look down the road for the next four years, if we in this Parliament do not do anything there will only be two non-Government MPs in Parliament. So the question is, should we do something about it or should we not? Being action-oriented people, I believe it is against our grain to sit by and do nothing. So to me, the proposed Constitutional Amendment creating the nominated MP seats is a pragmatic solution to this problem that we face, which Dr Aline Wong has rightly pointed out, is a problem of our electoral success. For a moment, Sir, putting aside the purist argument whether a nominated MP has or has not got the mandate to speak in Parliament, I would concede that Parliament in its current composition could conceivably be enhanced if some very outstanding individuals whose opinions are highly valued by one and all could come to the Chamber and speak their minds. If a way could be found to bring this talent into Parliament, the debate in Parliament could conceivably and very likely be enriched. Sir, I would also like to add here that hon. Members who felt that the nominated MP concept is an affront to the quality or the intelligence of the current Backbenchers are actually chasing a red herring. Yesterday, we have seen some very sterling performance by Backbenchers, the better of which would be hard to find. Sir, I think the real reason is this. As has been made very abundantly clear by Dr Aline Wong, Dr Arthur Beng and Dr Tan Cheng Bock, the PAP MPs are subjected to the Party Whip. In many instances, including this particular debate, the rule of the Whip has crammed our styles. From the MPs' point of view, one loses credibility when one speaks like a lion but acts like a lamb. From the Government's point of view, outspoken Backbenchers could also cause problems for the Government in implementing its policies, sometimes from unforeseen quarters. An example that comes to my mind would be the debate on the caning of illegal immigrants during which some Backbenchers spoke out very strongly on personal convictions. In that particular case, editorials in foreign newspapers subsequently highlighted the fact whenever the topic surfaced. Similarly, in this case, passing the amendment Bill by the weight of the Whip would also be seen by the public that the PAP leadership is pushing the Bill through Parliament. I would say that nominated MPs would then serve the dual purpose of allowing these Members of Parliament to speak their minds and act accordingly. It will also remove the current uncomfortable situation to have Government MPs complaining loudly that they are subjected to the Whip. In fact, as I listened carefully to the debate yesterday, it was quite clear to me who would have been prime candidates for the nominated MP seats if the option were available earlier. And I also think it will be a logical conclusion in the future that with the implementation of the nominated MP concept, Government MPs would then be subjected to even stronger control of the Whip. Mr Speaker, Sir, if the nominated MP concept were to achieve its full impact, I can also understand the reasons for giving these nominated MPs the right to vote. Otherwise, the nominated MPs would then be placed in an unenviable position - basically all talk and no action. Furthermore, it is possible that without the right to vote, it will be difficult to attract the right people to accept nominations as nominated MPs. If that turns out to be the case, then introducing nominated MPs into Parliament would become an exercise in futility, as the prime objective of attracting some of the outstanding opinion movers into Parliament would no longer be achieved. As such, I can understand why the First Deputy Prime Minister is prepared to take the heat and push for the nominated MP concept in Parliament. I would say that in our current context, given the current composition of Parliament, the concept of the nominated MPs does have its merits. However, Mr Speaker, Sir, while creating the new entity of nominated MPs, maybe the expedient thing to do in our current context to address the current situation, it may not be the right thing to do if the composition of Parliament is different from that existing today. We in this Chamber are going to change the Constitution for generations of Singaporeans who are yet to be born. I would like our children, our grandchildren and their children, when they celebrate the centennial or bicentennial anniversary of Singapore's independence, to say that our founding fathers have done the right thing. We must not fall into the mental blind spot that the Singapore Parliament will retain its current composition for all ages to come. In fact, as we survey the world in all functioning democracies of sufficiently long history, I would say that it will be difficult to find one where their governments enjoy the same majority with the same proportion as the Parliament in Singapore. Mr Speaker, Sir, when we look at the evolution of our beloved Singapore, we should look in terms of historical perspective. Let us ask ourselves the question whether the current composition in Parliament is a permanent feature or a passing phase. I would be the first to say that I do not know. For the good of Singapore, I would like to see the PAP retain its strength for as long as possible. But in this matter of constitutional amendment, we in this House must cater for all eventualities. I urge the House to take one step away from the heat of the debate and analyze the issue before us coolly and logically. The concept of the nominated MPs takes root in Parliament where the Government holds 80 out of 81 elected seats. If we had held only two-thirds or less than two-thirds of the seats, we would not be here debating this concept because we would not be able to amend the Constitution. Since the First Deputy Prime Minister is here, would I be correct to say that if we were to have about 10% Opposition Members in Parliament, then he would not have bothered to push for the nominated MP concept? If that is the case, then I would say that the nominated MP concept is a viable one to pursue within the very narrow range of the number of non-government MPs in Parliament. I would be very reluctant to carry a concept, which is acceptable in this context, into a different one where the same players would not have even seen the need to think about the nominated MP concept, much less pushing it through Parliament against significant opposition from its own rank. On top of this, Mr Speaker, Sir, once the nominated MP concept becomes a reality, under the current provisions there will be six of them regardless of the future composition of Parliament. I would like to do an analysis of the different scenarios, of different compositions of Members of Parliament in future Parliaments. Let us take the current number of 81 Members. We can start with the extreme scenario of 41 Government MPs versus 40, followed by 42 versus 39 and so on, all the way to the current composition. I must say that I am not smart enough to make sure that under different scenarios the nominated MPs in future will not play a role unanticipated by all of us in this Chamber. I am not so sure that sufficient safeguards can be built into the Constitution to prevent future governments from using nominated MPs creatively to frustrate the wish of the majority. As such, I would give my support to this Bill on condition that an explicit statement be added into the Bill to reduce the number of nominated MPs once the number of Opposition Members of Parliament exceeds a certain number, along the same principle as the Non-constituency MP. Mr Bernard Chen has proposed this yesterday and I support it. I would advocate that if future elections return less than 12 Opposition Members, the balance can then be made up of NCMPs or NMPs in that order. In other words, first, the NCMPs and then the nominated Members. If the elected Opposition Members exceed 12, then there shall be no non-elected Members of Parliament. Mr Speaker, Sir, another reservation I have was addressed by the First Deputy Prime Minister in his speech yesterday and, that is, to explicitly exclude nominated MPs from holding political office. I am not objecting to the fact that individuals without political mandate be allowed to hold political appointments. There are many such political systems in the world - the United States being a very prominent example where the Secretaries of key departments of the government are all political appointees. Of course, in those systems there are also constitutional checks and balances. In our political system, Parliament has vested significant authority in the office of our Ministers on the assumption that these Ministers, who are MPs themselves, would have to face their own constituents. If they are PAP MPs, they have to hold meet-the-people sessions every week and get direct feedback from the ground regarding their policies. In other words, their seats will get uncomfortable very quickly if they were to introduce unpopular policies. Even so, I think PAP Backbenchers have had long discussions with Ministers in private conversations and private caucuses in the past and presumably in the future regarding the shortcomings of some of their policies, including this one. Regrettably, often times, our persuasions or arguments were to no avail. Mr Speaker, Sir, I am very convinced that it would then be a herculean task in future if the Minister is a nominated Member of Parliament. On this ground, I would like to see that nominated MPs be specifically debarred from holding political offices. Sir, if these two safeguards were added to the Bill, then what we have will be a happy compromise where Parliament can experiment with a new concept without the risk of rushing into untested territory. With these two modifications, namely, one, on the number of nominated Members of Parliament depending on the composition of Parliament and, two, barring them from holding political office, I would give my support to the nominated MP concept.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I have been listening intently to the proceedings of the debate. It seems to me that well before NMPs are in our midst, we are judging their performance. We seem to be prejudging that before they are in our midst, we have questions regarding whether or not they are going to be effective. We question the wisdom of their being able to give us credible and better alternative views. It has always been Singapore's premise that we thrive in open competition. If we are so insecure that we feel that we are going to be outperformed in Parliament by NMPs, then I think we deserve not to be elected MPs. Because if NMPs can offer us a better alternative and sounder judgment on issues before Parliament, then we are missing out the opportunity to hear and to listen to better alternatives. It is just like what we are trying to do in the trade unions. As Singapore progresses, we see a more intelligent younger workforce emerging and we have to ensure that we have younger trade union leaders groomed up and developed to take on new leadership roles. All trade union leaders are not afraid of new trade union leaders in the central committee, in the branch committee and in the union executive committee. We openly hear views, alternative suggestions, ideas and visions which better represent the kind of world that the younger leaders want for the trade unions. And likewise here in Parliament, by the same argument, we should not be so, if I may use the term, protectionistic that we fear that someone else is going to have a better view or better vision than us and we will throw in all the road blocks and prevent him or her from coming in. It also seems to me that somehow we have forgotten that parliamentary democracy rests on the solid concept that we are voted by the people to do things in the interest of the people, and not as the debate has progressed so far, in the interest of one's own political party. We must subordinate party's interest behind the people's interest which must rank supreme. The important question to ask ourselves is: Is this idea to have nominated MPs good for the people of Singapore and not whether it is good for us, as MPs, in Parliament? If it is, then we should give it the full support. If not, it should be modified or even totally discarded. I see merit in the First Deputy Prime Minister's proposal because it will be good for Singaporeans to see the non-government side of an issue with the same clarity of mind and intelligence which our present Opposition MPs now cannot offer. We have to meet the political and economic realities of our times, and the political reality is that people want to see Government as well as non-government view- points expressed with equal quality of mind and with equal thoroughness. We have gone to great lengths to re-shape our political system so that through GRCs, we can always preserve minority representation in Parliament. We have put in a lot of time, energy and effort to create the possibility of NCMPs to be in Parliament so that they together with elected Opposition MPs can hopefully offer a genuine and meaningful opposition who can come up with better solutions to problems than those offered by the ruling Party. These efforts require amendments to be made to the Constitution, and they have been made for the purpose of ensuring that the long-term interests of our people are safeguarded. The First Deputy Prime Minister's proposal to amend the Constitution to provide for up to six nominated MPs in Parliament is yet another step in strengthening the parliamentary system, to re-shape the existing structure to cater for dissenting but constructive alternatives. We must never be afraid of dissenting opinions if they are sincerely expressed by people who may hold a different set of convictions but whose end purpose is to build a better society for all Singaporeans. We must not make it difficult for such people with this genuine desire to contribute to the political process to seeking viable and better alternatives. No Opposition enters Parliament to help a government to govern well. If any Opposition succeeds in doing this, I think the outcome in the next General Elections will be obvious. It will be sent into oblivion. The function of an Opposition, no matter how earnestly it may declare its intentions otherwise, is to make sure that good government is prevented from performing its task. At the rate we are going, and I think we can consciously judge for ourselves the quality of Opposition Members we have in Parliament, non-government viewpoints are not properly put across and expressed. I think nominated MPs will be better able to concentrate on the substance of the debate from a non-government standpoint. To introduce and accept a basic change is never easy. We are all accustomed to thinking of Parliament representation as MPs who have undergone the election process, of having sought and obtained our constituents' mandate to enter Parliament. This representation system has remained largely intact and has not undergone any consciously designed changes. I think in the future, it is to our interest that we have to ensure sufficient flexibility in our political system to allow for a new channel of creative ideas and constructive criticisms in order that all important issues before Parliament receive rounded treatment. Not all of us are familiar at all times with many of the complex issues before us, and ideas and visions from nominated MPs will be useful for new insights on a given issue. Our political process will then be able to take into account the expression of diverse interests that represent the broad-based wishes of our people for more than what can adequately be catered for from our existing system of elected MPs and NCMPs. It is a workable method to encourage a higher aggregation of interests by our people in the future of our country through better structured, better focused and constructive debate in Parliament. This will also help us, the elected MPs in Parliament, to weigh all possible courses of Government action, thus increasing the chance of reaching a wise decision. Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the amendment.

Will the Member for Nee Soon Central tell this House whether or not there is a place for Opposition in Parliament?

I think the answer is obvious, is it not?

Yes or no?

But I think the Opposition Member, and I think this is not new, has often repeated this before. He often bemoans the fact ---

Sir, I do not want him to hedge. Yes or no?

He always bemoans the fact that the ruling Party having 80 out of 81 seats in Parliament ---

He is not answering my question.

Mr Chiam, you asked a question. I think you have to wait for the answer.

His contention has always been that the ruling Party having 80 out of 81 seats in Parliament is undemocratic.

When did I say that? Do not pick words and quote me.

No. I think the connotations are very clear. I think, to him, to have more Opposition MPs in Parliament is good parliamentary democracy.

Is that not true?

But I would like to remind him that sound democracy is founded on the principle that democracy is government of the people, by the people, and for the people. So the existence in whatever numbers, elected, or like my friend, Dr Lee, the Non-Constituency MP, does not come into question. It is up to the people of Singapore to decide who they want in Parliament. And if he is the only one in Parliament representing the Opposition, I make no apologies about it. It is not the ruling Party's choice; it is the people's choice.

Sir, as I expected, there is no answer from him. Can the Member for Nee Soon Central please answer my question? Yes or no? Is there a place for Opposition in Parliament?

Of course. Mr Speaker, I do not want to belabour the point. But the point that I am trying to make here is that there is no quality in our Opposition, and until there is this quality in the Opposition, we will not be able to improve the quality of our debate. There are no better constructive views expressed. It is just ephemeral issues that are short-lived, that win popularity only for his political party.

I have got one more question for him. I assume that his answer is yes. If the answer is yes, why does he say that the Opposition is an obstruction to good government?

Sir, I have never said that the Opposition is an obstruction to good government. I said a good Opposition, if it is constructive and intelligent enough to offer a better alternative and a better viable alternative to a given issue, then I think the Opposition view should be respected and should win the support of this House. But, unfortunately, it is not the case.

Sir, I support the Bill because I see the potential good it can bring to our country. It can be a positive step in the evolution of a Singaporean democracy suitable to our needs and circumstances. Sir, it is a reality that there are always good and capable citizens of high standing who are not interested in party politics. If some of these non-partisan Singaporeans are willing to serve as nominated MPs, there is no doubt that they can enhance the quality of debate in Parliament, contribute to the law-making process, help promote consensus democracy and dampen adversary democracy, because they will put pressure on the Opposition to be more constructive. Sir, we have heard yesterday some strong objections to this Bill. The first and most important one is that nominated MPs have no mandate from the people to speak in this House, that it will be undemocratic or undermine our democracy if we allow them to do so because they do not represent any people. We must not see it in that way. We must not compare the NMPs and elected MPs in that manner. This Bill never intends to provide the NMP with the same mandate as that of an elected MP. It only seeks to create a new and useful but different role from that of an elected MP in this legislature. It is not undemocratic because unlike elected MPs, they are not given the mandate to rule. The people of Singapore still have the right to freely choose or reject their rulers. This is fundamental to democracy and must not be breached. If Members are concerned that NMPs can swing a Bill either way because of their right to vote, then in the spirit of consensus building, may I propose that we remove their right to vote? But let us support the idea of allowing them to speak in this House. Yes, Feedback Unit, Resource Panels, Select Committees, and so on are good for encouraging participation and consensus building and must be continued and strengthened. However, there is no substitute for being able to stand up in this House, the highest institution of our land, face to face with the Ministers, debate, argue, and take them to task under the scrutiny of the public and the media. Therefore, the role of an NMP will have a much greater impact on the public compared to other forms of participation. If you ask, who is he accountable to? I would say that he is accountable to this House. Yes, he has also a standing or reputation to protect and it is the responsibility of this House to ensure that men of high standing are nominated. This is the task that Members must be more concerned with because the success of this Bill, this innovation in our democracy, and the good it can bring to us, hinges on whether these NMPs can ultimately gain credibility in the eyes of the public, never mind the initial suspicion, if any. 1.45 pm

Mr Speaker, Sir, can I rise on a point of clarification?

All right.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to ask Dr John Chen what does he mean when he says that it is not undemocratic when the NMP in actuality has got no mandate to speak in Parliament. From where do we all get our mandate to speak?

Sir, where does the NCMP get his mandate to speak in this House?

He has answered the question perfectly. The NCMP has got the mandate because he has gone through the electoral process. Thank you, Mr Speaker, Sir.

Sir, but under the system, it is the first man past the post. And you change it to bring him in. Why can we not modify, remodel our democracy to strengthen our system?

Yes, I will strongly support it. As long as the new Member, whatever name you call him, goes through the democratic process of election. And that is democracy.

Sir, as I have mentioned, fundamental to democracy is the right of the people to freely choose or reject the rulers. And we have not undermined that.

Sir, fundamental to democracy is the process of election. Thank you, Mr Speaker, Sir.

Thank you, Mr Speaker, for allowing me to join the debate. Sir, the Bill to amend the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore will for what it is worth bring some new faces, new voices and perhaps new inputs to our Parliament. The question we should ask ourselves is whether it is worth while doing so, whether there is an advantage, whether there will be new inputs as a result of this change. I feel that there is no basis for us at this juncture to argue that such a scheme would be against parliamentary democracy, or such a scheme would perhaps strengthen parliamentary democracy. But I see that the nominated MP scheme is an innovative scheme. It provides a change. It builds on the current structure and supports new ideas that we all agree we need to generate. Sir, it is not radically going to change the form of our Parliament. It is only a departure from our normal parliamentary process in electing representatives to our Parliament. As I see, it does not change the one-man-one-vote system. No citizen will be denied to vote his elected representative. Therefore, I do not see that there is any fundamental change to the democratic process because we still have elected Members. Besides this, it is a new addition that we are going to bring into this House. In this light, we should ask ourselves what consequences would such a constitutional amendment bring to policy making. This is a question that we all should address. If the question is positive, then we should support such a change. Are there more merits than demerits in carrying out such a change? Sir, if I might say, it is difficult to tell what long term impact the nominated MP scheme would have on our future parliamentary scene. Apparently, the scheme seems to address the following issues. First, there is an increasing number of Singaporeans, who because of our Asian cultural orientation, do not engage in partisan politics. We must recognise that a lot of people do not want to take sides, but have useful opinions and viewpoints to offer. If they have useful viewpoints to offer, then all these useful viewpoints need to be captured. There is a need for a forum to capture such useful viewpoints. The nominated MP scheme would provide such a forum. A forum for this sector of the population would be useful. The nominated MP scheme would provide non-partisan viewpoints to be expressed. Some people may find it more comfortable to use this channel to articulate their opinion. Sir, this is a reality of Singapore's politics. It would be futile for us not to recognise this. I must say that in the course of our discussions we will obviously find that this is the case. Second, there are many interest groups such as professionals, women, workers, businesses and community groups, which are seeking for opportunities for their views to be articulated. These interest groups are on the rise and there is a need to provide a voice for them. We cannot deny that in many sectors there are various interest groups and we should not be oblivious to this. Many of these interest groups do in a way generate viewpoints, participate in various political process directly or indirectly. The nominated MP scheme may provide such groups an avenue for representing their interests. A wider variety of opinions would enrich our parliamentary discussions. The third value of the nominated MP scheme would be that at the moment we have two dimensional viewpoints in our parliamentary debates, namely, one from the Government perspective and the other from the opposition perspective. In these two dimensional viewpoints, we should ask whether these two dimensional perspectives and dialogue are adequate. Some people feel that it is too one-sided a viewpoint. Sir, with the nominated MP scheme, there will be a third dimension to our parliamentary debates. The public would certainly like to look forward to this. I hope that it will bring, in the process of time, more important viewpoints and suggestions to this House to enrich our discussions. I hope too, Sir, in this whole process, the general public will be able to see that our PAP MPs are equally concerned as the nominated MPs in discussing matters of public concern. Sir, in implementing the nominated MP scheme, we must ensure that they do not become lame duck MPs. It is therefore important that various professional, business, social and civic groups are given the opportunity to participate in nominating their preferred candidates. If possible, if they can be allowed to take part in selecting their candidates, it provides the credibility and the authenticity in terms of the people that can surface from amongst these different groups. The selection of the nominated MPs should be done as openly as possible. Sir, the nominated MPs are non-partisan members. Since they are not elected, they cannot be accountable to the people, but to this House. It is therefore not logical for them to be allowed to vote on any Bills except money and constitutional matters, in the sense that they can vote on all other matters except these two Bills. The fact that they are going to be non-partisan, then I feel that it is logical that they should not participate in voting. It will be more appropriate for them to not to be allowed to vote on various Bills. Sir, to give credibility to the nominated MP scheme, it is very important that they are selected by a Committee which should comprise some noted community leaders and personalities. This will prevent the public to view the nominated MPs as mere mouth pieces of PAP MPs and Government. So in this whole selection process, if we have some notable community leaders to sit in the selection of the nominated MP scheme, then I think it will add credibility to the people who are selected. In conclusion, I see that the nominated MP scheme is a new innovation in our parliamentary democracy. Its success is left to be seen. There has been much concern expressed in this House that such a scheme derides parliamentary democracy. Are we sure that this is going to be the case? No one can say that this is going to be so. I feel that we should give this scheme a try. It depends on how well it will be supported by our people and the response from non-partisan members or groups in our community. With these reservations, Sir, I support the Bill.

Sir, some speakers have expressed that the appointment of nominated MPs run counter to the fundamental democratic principles of representation and accountability. The United States President appoints his Ministers who are not elected for executive functions. They are responsible for the day to day government. Does it also run counter to democratic principles? The First Deputy Prime Minister has assured us that the Ministers and office holders would have to come from the ranks of elected Members of Parliament. If it is Parliament that appoints the nominated MPs, how could it be considered that the democratic principles have been compromised? Because Parliament and parliamentarians are elected by the people. It is a fact that the PAP has been the dominant ruling party. It will continue to be so. The majority of Singaporeans have consistently voted for a strong Government. Singaporeans want stability, continuity and prosperity. By recognising this fact in this Parliament and taking steps to inject independent objective and non-partisan views in Parliament, how could this be considered to be a retrogressive step? I am amazed, Mr Speaker, Sir, that there is the concern that because Parliament is dominantly PAP, there is the fear that the nominated MPs will be pro-PAP. Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to use you as an example. You are a PAP Member of Parliament. Are you partisan or non-partisan in your views? I am very sure that nominated MPs will follow your excellent example. We have so very often seen the adversarial posture taken by Opposition parties against the Government. The objective of the Opposition is to damage the reputation of the Government amongst the voters. How could this sort of relationship bring about consensus in Government? Are we suggesting that parliamentary democracy is only democracy when we are at loggerheads, taking confrontational stances and always disagreeing with one another? Parliament is the place where legislation and public policies are examined, given a critical review and approved. This being the task of Parliament, would the contributions of nominated MPs make matters any worse? I thought they would add value, a reinforcement of either of the view of the Government or the Opposition. I have listened to my PAP colleagues taking the dissenting view on this issue. I am disturbed. I ask myself: Do their very conduct and actions confirm the very necessity that another voice need to be represented? Though there is liberalness in this Parliament, strictly speaking, in accordance with Party policy and Party discipline, it is improper to take the line against the very political party that one is representing. A seat in Parliament belongs morally to the party and not the person. Increasingly, the Select Committee has been used as a channel for members of the public and by people with specialised contributions to offer their views. Elected MPs who sit in the Select Committees are happy to listen to them and to sieve through the evidence, but are not prepared to allow some selected people, like nominated MPs, to speak directly in Parliament where the influence could be more strongly felt. We all visualize things better in three dimensions. It gives us perspective. The nominated MPs provide the third dimension when legislation and Government policies are debated. Would we not be better off with that extra perspective? Parliament has an educational role to play. Parliamentarians assist in public understanding of current political issues. We owe it to our electorate a full and comprehensive representation of issues before them. With nominated MPs, we can only do a better job of having an informed electorate. We all know too well that good information makes for good decisions. We can raise further the political consciousness and maturity of Singaporeans. I have faith in the Singaporean voters. They are not easily misled. They know what is good for them. They only do not wish to be taken for granted. With the PAP keeping faith with them all the time, it will remain dominant in Parliament. But please provide a voice to keep Government in check with Non-Constituency Members of Parliament and nominated MPs. As the example of Dr Lee Siew-Choh shows, Parliament has certainly benefited from the extra viewpoints being aired and for the Singaporean electorate to ponder and decide. Mr Speaker, Sir, I strongly support the Bill moved by the First Deputy Prime Minister.

Mr Speaker, Sir, let me state at the outset that I do not like the Bill, but I can live with it. The imposition of the Party Whip is not something that Backbenchers like but I believe it is a small price to pay for political stability. Members who are new to this House might want to study the history of why the Party has imposed discipline over the years, because there was a time where MPs crossed the floor and created instability in Singapore. In fact, the Government nearly lost out in this House. In this debate, Sir, unfortunately, those who have spoken in favour of the Bill have done so with no real conviction. They do not convey a sense of passion for the Bill. There were a few who did simulate some passion. But you can see plainly it is simulated passion. Whereas those who spoke against the Bill did so expressing strong convictions, strong passions. I think if we put those together you can gauge what is inside the hearts of PAP MPs. As for the Opposition MPs, only one of them is here, I think the Bill makes them feel threatened. And Mr Chiam See Tong rose up earlier asking whether he has any place in this Parliament after all. He obviously has been made to feel insecure. One can understand the reasons why. Because if the Opposition MPs have not been able to represent the views of their electorate, the views of Singaporeans, if they feel that they cannot cope with many Bills because they just do not understand enough of the subject matter, then they have a right to feel insecure and threatened. As for my colleagues, the PAP MPs, I believe that there has been no lack of serious representation in this House of important views, of relevant views on whatever issues and I believe that we have been fairly representative. Let us not forget that the role of PAP MPs extends beyond Parliament itself, that in the Party caucuses our voices are heard, our views strongly expressed and often times I believe the Government has taken note and incorporated our views in the formulation of Bills and in the formulation of policies. And I believe that my colleagues have not been afraid to speak up in this House. I have been here nearly 20 years. I have never felt any constraint in speaking on any subject. The only constraint was my own conscience. There was never a time when a Minister or the Prime Minister told me I was not to raise this issue or that issue. I believe my independence as an MP has never been questioned by members of the public. And I believe that that is the same for my other colleagues in Parliament. But we should ask ourselves: what is the real issue that we are dealing with? And I believe the First Deputy Prime Minister raised a question which the Prime Minister raised, I believe, on the morning of the 1984 elections, namely, the possibility that at some future elections, there could be a nightmarish result, a disparate coalition of Opposition parties, unqualified, ill-prepared for office, suddenly have the majority number of seats in Parliament, for the simple reason that Singapore, as the First Deputy Prime Minister said, is really one single constituency. The ways various constituencies are structured, issues affect all constituencies without exception. Having said this, and having acknowledged the problem, what is the real solution? Is it to try and get more views represented in Parliament, more people, apolitical people, non-partisan people to come into Parliament to express their views? Or is it rather that whatever the views that are garnered the Government should take adequate note, make changes when necessary? But even more important, we should realise that PAP MPs are not mere representers of views in this House, not mere conveyors of what the people say. But the PAP MPs ought to be leaders of opinion. We should be there in the forefront if we believe that something is right. We should convey our ideas to the public. I believe that is what leadership is all about, not to be pushed from the ground, but to lead the ground in many areas. I believe another vital and important role for PAP MPs is that once the Government has formulated a policy, we should all rally around that policy and rally the people in support of the policy. I have been here for 20 years. I have seen this process work over the years. I have seen how hard my colleagues and I have worked in, order to persuade people to accept policies which have a bitter taste to it, policies which are unpopular, policies which the public may think are the wrong policies, but in the end turn out to be productive, fruitful and constructive for Singapore. My younger colleagues would do well to try and look at the history of the PAP Government to understand that this is a government unlike many other governments. It is not a government that is pushed along by public opinion. It is not a government that takes a short-term view. It is not a government that plays to sectarian interests. It is a government that has tried to do its best for Singapore by taking the long-term view and by taking the national view. But that means courting unpopularity at certain times. And it is to the credit of the Prime Minister and his colleagues that they have been able to do this successfully and it is to the credit of PAP Backbenchers that we have been able to help in our little way to garner the support necessary for those unpleasant but good and necessary policies. Then, Sir, at the end of the day, the responsibility really lies at the foot of the Frontbench. A lot of burdens have been thrown this way but let me throw the ball back that way. They are the ones who have to formulate policies. They are the ones, the younger ones among them, that have to lead Singapore into the 21st century. It is their leadership which is going to determine whether Singapore makes or breaks and if we, as Backbenchers, can do our part to help in the process, then I think we have a better and more secure Singapore to look forward to. And I believe that the challenges facing Singapore in the years ahead are vastly different from the challenges that faced the Prime Minister and his earlier Cabinet. It is a challenge of affluence. It is a challenge of what to do with the people that already have the basics in terms of housing, in terms of education, in terms of health, in terms of transportation. Are we going to be the very victims of our own success? Or is there enough in the Frontbench of that quality of leadership that can set the sights, raise the vision of the people and rally them to rise above themselves to push ahead to lead Singapore into the 21st century, to make sure that Singapore survives and prosper? That, Sir, at the end of the day, is our common concern, both Frontbench and Backbench. Although, as I said, I do not like the Bill, but I can live with it and, as a good and faithful PAP Backbencher, I shall vote for it. 2.16 pm

Mr Speaker, Sir, I am not passionate by nature nor can I simulate passion, but I will try and speak in support and I would like to think that I believe in what I am saying. Sir, I support this Bill. Initially, I did not like the Bill. But I have listened to the arguments yesterday and I do not agree with the reasons advanced against the Bill, and I am persuaded by the reasons for the Bill. The arguments that have been raised against this Bill have one fundamental basis. MPs should have a mandate to speak in this House. Those who do not wish to obtain such mandate should not be MPs. We in this House have a mandate to speak. The non-elected or nominated MP will not have such mandate. To allow him to speak would be a serious derogation from the democratic process. To use the compelling phrase of the hon. Member for Tampines GRC, the NMPs will have power without responsibility. Powerful argument but based, I would say, on a romanticised misconception of the democratic process. The democratic process, in my view, should serve at least three key functions, among other things. First, it should most importantly give the people a free choice to elect a body of persons to form and administer the government and it should give the people the right to periodically review the government's record. If the people are not happy, they should be able to throw out the government. Second, it should allow people to elect a representative who will look after their constituency interests. Third, the process should provide a quorum for free and open debate on Government policies and to act as a check on the government and any abuses of power. The present scheme does not affect the first point. Citizens will continue to be able to vote for the government of their choice. The scheme does not affect the second point. Citizens will continue to be able to elect their representatives to serve their interests. The scheme only affects the third point. It provides for more persons to review and question the government openly. In effect, the Government is saying, we want to provide for more review of our policies, give an opportunity to people who are not members of the governing party to question the Government. How is that a derogation from any existing democratic process or existing constitutional right of the citizens? The hon. Member for Fengshan suggested that what is needed is a greater responsiveness from the Government and not more MPs. I agree that greater responsiveness from the Government is necessary. But will not this Bill help bring about this greater receptiveness? I think it will. Take at present any Bill on which there is a debate. The Government imposes the Whip and will then be secure in the knowledge that regardless of what is said in this House, at the end of the day there will only be two people voting against it, and those two can be explained away. However, let us say the Government appoints NMPs, which it says will be honourable and decent men, and we hope they will be, and it receives trenchant criticism and six votes against. I am not sure that that be can explained away easily. These people are not subject to the Whip, and that is a crucial difference between the Government MPs and the non-government MPs. A lot has been said about them being able to put forward independent views. I would not like to think that they are not able to put forward independent views. The difference is at the end of the day, in voting, they are not subject to control; we are. But in the system of democracy we run, there is no choice but to impose the Whip at times. So it comes down to votes against, and if the Government at the end of the day receives, as I said, trenchant criticism and six votes against, then what the people will say is that the Government has not been able to carry the day. The PAP MPs would have voted against if they could have, because hopefully they are not any less sensible than the non-government MPs. The non-government MPs had a free choice and they voted against. I think that is an important point. It is a step towards greater receptiveness and that is one very important reason why I would support this present Bill. I think the scenario will help the Government to be more responsive. I do not see in this Bill any provision that affects the people's basic rights. I see in this Bill a lot of potential. At the end of the day, whether the Bill succeeds in achieving all that the First Deputy Prime Minister has said he hopes to see achieved depends very much on the quality and calibre of persons appointed, on what their contributions are and how they contribute. They could be seen as Government stooges or they could be seen as making an effective contribution. But the fact that they may not perform, I think it is no reason why we cannot provide for it. Much has been made about this concept of mandate. But I think that concept ought to be demystified. It is right that every citizen should be able to elect a Member of Parliament who must be given the right to review Government policies in Parliament. But I think the way it has been advanced by the people opposed to this Bill is that only such persons should be able to review the Government Bill. That I do not think follows. It is true that in a democratic process, we should be able to review the Bill because we are elected by the people. But there is no reason why a few persons should not be given the additional right to review such Bill. They already take part in the political process. There are Resource Panel members of the GPCs, people outside openly review Government policies; they take part in the political process. There is no reason why if the Bill can serve a function that they should not be in Parliament, provided they are not able to hold the ultimate balance of power between two opposing sides. That is a factor that has to be addressed. But subject to that, I think this Bill has a lot of potential. Let me finally make it clear, Sir, that in supporting this Bill, I am not for one moment conceding or suggesting that, as has been suggested by some Backbenchers, that somehow we may not be perceived as performing our duties. I think we have to act according to our conscience and, hopefully, PAP MPs have participated effectively and will continue to participate effectively. I do not see this is a derogation from anything that is existing. With that, Sir, I support the Bill.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the proposed constitutional amendment when passed will make a significant change to our parliamentary system. But it seems to me that in the view of some MPs, especially the critics of the Bill, the change will not go far enough for them. This seems to be a strange statement to make. Let me explain what I mean. Sir, the Government proposes by this amendment to introduce a certain flexibility in the membership of Parliament. Such a flexibility is reflected in the Government's desire to have persons who have, among various qualifications, distinguished service and successful career, to be nominated Members of Parliament. If this amendment is accepted, it means that in our unicameral structure, Parliament will have MPs, Non-Constituency MPs and nominated MPs all in the same House. Some Backbenchers, however, Sir, want to go further than this step implicitly. They want to have a system of check and balance introduced into our parliamentary system. For example, the Member for Ayer Rajah made an unusual and may I say, Sir, an unparliamentary proposal, ie, that a body outside of Parliament should provide the check on this Chamber. I think that if the Member and others are serious about introducing a system of parliamentary check and balance, then they should propose the establishment of an Upper House. But if they propose this, then they would have to agree that there should be nominated MPs. This is because in most Commonwealth Parliaments where you have an Upper House, such a Chamber is filled up with nominated MPs. Mr Speaker, Sir, some Commonwealth Parliaments accommodate both the flexibility which the government wants and the check and balance which some Backbenchers want by having a bicameral structure of Parliament: a Parliament with a Lower House or a House of Representatives, and an Upper House or the Senate in the case of Canada, or House of Lords in the case of the United Kingdom. In most cases, the Lower Chamber has elected MPs and the Upper House nominated MPs. Whether a person is in the Lower or Upper House, he is a Member of Parliament. Many of the Backbenchers must have met the Upper House MPs of these countries when they attended meetings organised by the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association and the Inter-Parlia- mentary Union. So whether they are from the Lower House or Upper House, they are all Members of Parliament. Sir, many Backbenchers and the Opposition MPs make the fallacious argument that having nominated MPs will erode the prestige and the stature of our Parliament. In my view, such a thinking manifests a narrow conception of what Parliament is. The problem lies in the fact that we have had no experience of a bicameral legislature where nominated MPs have as much right and stature, and in some cases more rights and stature, than elected MPs. Such is the case in Canada and the United Kingdom. What these critics of government should do is to realise that nominated MPs for a very long time have been part of the parliamentary process in the more developed parliaments. Sir, I would like to suggest that the Government considers legislation to set up an Upper House of Parliament. This is a more decisive change in our parliamentary system and it will satisfy both sides. It will serve as a check on the Lower House which the critics of the Government want and allow for nominated MPs to serve in the upper level Chamber. If such an Upper House were to be set up, the government would have more flexibility, say, appoint 20 Senators, representing a wide cross-section of our country. Why should this not be considered? I would suggest that the Government should look into the examples of Canada and the United Kingdom, if they want to change the structure of our Parliament from a unicameral to a bicameral one. Sir, if my suggestion is not taken up and if we are not yet ready for an Upper House or Senate, then in the meantime why not have the flexibility to have nominated MPs in this unicameral Parliament, ie, have the nominated MPs in our midst. This is what the amendment is all about. In my view, it is a step towards what could eventually be an Upper House. Sir, having nominated MPs in a unicameral legislature is nothing new, as the First Deputy Prime Minister has pointed out. Persons who have distinguished themselves can be nominated. The Member for Potong Pasir objects to this because he said that such a Parliament woukd be a colonial one. I think he was referring to the Legislative Assembly of the colonial period where there were nominated Members. Is he suggesting that we nominate British officials into this Parliament?

Absurd.

Exactly. If so, if he is suggesting that, then he is the one who has the colonial mentality. Now he says it is absurd. We will be nominating Singaporeans. So what is so colonial about that? Sir, there are some MPs who imply that nominated MPs have no right to be in Parliament. That is ridiculous! MPs are MPs no matter how they have come into Parliament. No one has objected to the presence of the NCMP, Dr Lee Siew-Choh who is not an elected MP - he was defeated in the general elections. Dr Lee went through the election process. Yes. But he was not elected. He does not have the mandate. I must inform the Member for Fengshan - he is not here - that simply going through the election process does not give one a mandate. If it were to be so, then all the candidates who have taken part in elections before can now say, "We have the mandate. We can do this and that." So why oppose the proposal to have a limited number of nominated MPs here? Many of my colleagues have given all kinds of reasons why they think nominated MPs should not sit amongst us. But I would like to suggest that they should consider accepting nominated MPs and work out what the proper relationship between elected MPs and nominated MPs should be. In this regard, I would like to make the following proposal, following on the one made by the Member for Thomson. We should adopt a three-step procedure for nominating the MPs. Firstly, the general public will submit the names of those whom they would like to be nominated MPs. Secondly, the Special Select Committee will shortlist from, say, eight to 12 candidates, from the names submitted by the general public. Thirdly, the elected MPs as well as the NCMP will then elect the six persons to become nominated MPs. By this procedure, the nomi- nated MPs will then have an indirect mandate, in the way the NCMP has an indirect mandate. This is because they would have been proposed by the general public and as well as elected by the people's representatives. Sir, I am glad that the Bill will be committed to a Select Committee so that the procedure for nominating MPs can be discussed and finalised. For the moment, I support the amendment which will give the Government the flexibility to have nominated MPs in our unicameral Parliament. But I would suggest that the Government considers seriously the establishment of a Senate in the future.

Clarification, Sir. The Member for Serangoon Gardens is a political scientist. He made the statement that MPs are MPs. I was waiting for him to address us on the issue of mandate, authority, representation and accountability of nominated MPs. Would he like to clarify on these points?

Sir, I think he is giving me the opportunity to give a lecture on the various categories of Members of Parliament, their responsibilities, their accountability and so. The point that I have made is that once a person has become a Member of Parliament through whatever procedure, he is thereby accountable to Parliament and to the people at large.

No.

Why not?

He has got no mandate.

The mandate comes, as I said, from Parliament. Parliament has conferred on him an indirect mandate. [Mr Chiam See Tong interrupted].

Order. Mr Chiam, can you direct your remarks at the Chair, please? Do you require further clarification?

The Member for Serangoon Gardens has not finished. He may continue.

Sir, if the Member for Potong Pasir still does not understand, I shall continue.

You still do not understand, Mr Chiam?

He has made a statement that Members of Parliament are Members of Parliament. But that cannot be true, because in relation to a nominated MP he has not explained these very important issues. So they cannot be Members of Parliament.

Sir, when I used the paraphrase MPs are MPs, I mean to say that there are various categories of Members of Parliament, but they are all Members of Parliament, whether elected MP, Non-Constituency MP or nominated MP. So MPs are MPs. Do you need further clarification?

I think he understands now. Encik Zulkifli.

( In Malay): Mr Speaker, having considered the pros and cons of this Bill, I am of the view that I can accept the fundamental principle behind it, which is to provide for wider participation from those who hope to play a part in the decision-making process of government but have no wish to be involved in political activities. The first question that came to mind as I considered this issue is whether the Bill is intended to fulfil the needs of the elite few, such as the better educated and those who earn high incomes. I do not think so, because fundamentally this Bill is based on the concept of getting greater participation from all sections of our electorate, whether civic groups, grassroots organisations, professional bodies or trade unions, in the process of making political decisions as has been mentioned by the First Deputy Prime Minister. The NMP must be seen as another avenue for Singaporeans who choose not to immerse themselves in the political arena to have their aspirations and views to be aired in Parliament. Mr Speaker, another fundamental question I posed to myself was whether the NMP concept would improve the parliamentary process in Singapore. I see no reason why this amendment would not lead to that. By bringing certain interest groups within Parliament will help to further strengthen the two-way communication as the advantage will be that Government becomes more aware of their thinking whilst, at the same time, these groups will be in a better position to understand to appreciate the rationale behind Government policies. It is the society's hope that the nominated Members of Parliament would be neutral and offer independent views on national issues. How this is to be achieved, we shall have to wait and see. Here lies the importance of the selection process of the NMPs, which I believe will not be without risks. For example, a future scenario may exist in the Chamber whereby an NMP may champion sectoral or parochial interests. This would erode the integrity of the elected MPs, especially if the nominated Members choose to focus on gut issues. Nevertheless, if that happens, I am inclined to believe that it would not lead to a runaway situation, because firstly, the NMP's position in Parliament very much dependent on their perfomance and their expected role. If they are irresponsible, I am sure they would not be reappointed after the end of their two-year term. Secondly, the elected Members of Parliament would be able to monitor and check any breach of proper conduct, in the same way that they monitor the performance of the Ministers and other office-holders. Mr Speaker, like all new thing it will take a little time for the NMP concept to blossom and I am relieved to note that there will be sufficient safeguards to ensure that those appointed will be people of integrity, non-partisan and neutral. This is because anyone who wishes to be an NMP will be subject to the same qualifications and disqualification as elected Members. On this note, Sir, I support the principle behind the Bill. 2.46 pm

Mr Speaker, Sir, I cannot in all conscience endorse this Bill. In the Legislative Council of 1948, the first such body set up after the Second World War, there were 13 official nominated Members and unofficial Members out of a total of 22 Members in the Chamber. In our struggle against colonialisation and our march towards full parliamentary representation and self-government, the nominated seats were progressively eliminated. By 1959, we had a fully elected Legislative Assembly. Now, after 30 long years of progress, we are going back to square one. This, in my opinion, is a retrogression, an anachronism, a step backward. We are putting the clock back. Yesterday, we were given a list of 20 countries with nominated Members. Surely the question is: are we in the same level of development as Botswana, Malawi, Gabon and Gambia? Surely, we do not wish to be bracketed with such countries. Nominated Members or the six wise men or six wise ladies may or may not raise the level of debate in Parliament. But that is besides the point. In my opinion, Parliament is not merely a debating society. It is not a forum where verbose gladiators slice and slash each other with their sharp tongues. It is first and foremost a House of Representatives. Members speak on behalf and represent the interests of those who put them into Parliament. Without this mandate of the people, we are nothing. We were told to accommodate the nominated Members of Parliament as they might not wish to fight it out in an election, to go through the baptism of fire or to do constituency work like house-to-house visits climbing up and down the stairs or attending to the needs of the residents in the meet-the-people sessions. My question is: should we bend backwards to admit them by the back-door? Politics, in my opinion, is not just about speaking and proffering alternative views. It is about service to the people and it is about commitment. One should have the conviction to stand up and be counted be counted by the voters in an election. Where, may I ask, is the commitment? Where is the passion? I therefore suggest to the Government to expand perhaps, as an alternative, the Non-constituency Member of Parliament scheme. They do, in my opinion, represent to some extent the voters who cast their votes in their favour.

Mr Speaker, may I seek a point of clarification? I am a little surprised by the stand taken by Dr Ong Chit Chung. Because in the debate on the President's Address earlier this year he supported the proposal to have nominated MPs and I quote from Hansard, Vol. 52, No. 6, Col. 418: 'The proposal, Sir, floated by the Minister for Trade and Industry, for non-partisan MPs drawn from the universities and the trade unions is a step in the right direction. But this would take a number of years to work out.' We took only a few months to work this out.

Sir, I agree that I have spoken those words. Upon reflection, I changed my mind. Thank you for pointing out. 2.45 pm

( In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, after hearing some 25-30 MPs' opinions, I feel that whatever that has to be spoken or should not be spoken has been spoken. Whatever that needs to be repeated or not be repeated has already been repeated. So I cannot add anything more. I suppose you are already quite fed up with if not tired of hearing all this. I myself also feel a bit fed up. But since I have already stood up so I might as well make use of the opportunity to express some lighter reflection on this subject. The main opposition's point on this subject is that they feel it is not necessary to have Nominated MPs. In other words, it is redundant to have such concept. PAP has been in office for over 20 years and Singapore has been governed very well. It shows that our parliamentary system is working quite well. Since we have been performing so well, why should we need to change? There is a Chinese saying of: " " (drawing a snake and adding four legs to it). It means something redundant or unnecessary. You need not have four legs to be added to a snake when you draw a snake. It defeats its purpose. You miss the true picture more than you have added in. From the proponent's standpoint, Singapore is an emergent progressive country. Our Parliamentary system is still in the process of changing and developing for the better. Now and then we have to adapt ourselves to new situations in order to progress and advance. The objection to the drawing of the legs to a snake is more of a conservative view. The proposition to reform is of a more progressive view. Whether the NMP innovation may or may not be of advantage cannot be decided by debate in this House within 2 days. The results of many things can be seen only years after action. It is just like the subject of NCMP when it was introduced in 1984. There was much opposition from many including our PAP Backbenchers. After some time, it now seems that this system of NCMP has been accepted by us. It is most ironical that the party which opposed this suggestion most was the Workers Party. Yet, now it is the same party that is the first to accept and be benefitted by the NCMP system. I wonder what Dr Lee Siew-Choh thinks of this. This drawing of four legs to a snake has always been used to describe doing things which are unrealistic or unnecessary. But, sometimes there are exceptions. A good artist when drawing a snake with four legs can also turn it into a dragon which can rise up to the sky. Our PAP Government has the ability of drawing a snake into a dragon. That is why Singapore has become one of the four little dragons of Asia. This topic has roused keen interests and heated debates from the MPs. It is a record for so many MPs to debate on a topic. On the contrary, after the first reading of the Bill, it has not aroused much interest in the press and from the various circles including the grassroots. It seems that there has not been any keen response to this proposition. Perhaps this keen response from Parliament itself is mainly because this motion of NMP touches on the immediate personal interests and position of MPs themselves, and therefore they are less objective in their views. There is a Chinese saying "those who are deeply involved themselves do not see things as clearly as bystanders." Therefore, I hope the Select Committee will be objective in considering this subject and will be able to acommodate objective views. There is a suggestion that the Chinese translation of "Nominated MPs" should be a certain term - "guan wei yi yuan" ( ) or "te wei yi yuan" ( ). This is a problem with language translation. However, I agree to the term "guan wei" MP in order to differentiate it from popularly elected one. But I feel the English term "Nominated MP" should be "Appointed MP" to be more appropriate. Next, the Bill requires only 6 voters to nominate an NMP. This number is too small. Unlike the elected MPs, the NMPs need not put a deposit and go through the electoral process. We can consider increasing the number of voters required for the nomination of NMP. Because of the small number of signatures of electoral voters required for the nomination of NMPs and because no deposit is required there maybe hundreds of names who are qualified and willing to be put forward as candidates. We can also consider allowing certain organizations like professional, commercial and academic bodies to nominate candidates. The final point about the selection and recommendation of NMPs, I agree with the Member for Serangoon Gardens that the final decision as to the selection and appointment of NMP should be by the Parliament.

May I have a few words of clarification, Sir, since the Member has asked for it? May I speak in Mandarin?

Yes.

( In Mandarin): May I have a few words of clarification, Sir? Dr Koh has asked me a question. I will reply in simple terms. The PAP all along does not welcome any criticism and does not allow criticism. Many people criticised the Government leaders for not allowing Opposition to speak out in the Parliament. Therefore, they devised the scheme of NCMPs as a cover-up in order to create the impression that they are democratic, when in fact, they are not. Another clarification is about why I have accepted this NCMP position. The answer is very simple. Why do we take part in the elections? It is because we hope to become MPs, not to promote ourselves, but to speak up for the people, to promote the interests of the people, to promote and advance our ideals and the policies of our Party. that is why i have accepted this post of NCMP. At the same time, I must also explain that, in all these years of my political life, I have always believed that we should, whenever possible and permissible, make use of all available means to express our ideas and promote our Party policies. If Dr Koh could understand that, he would have understood everything.

( In Mandarin): I am glad to hear Dr Lee Siew-Choh's admission that the NCMP is afterall a good scheme and he himself has also benefited under this NCMP system.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I take a cautious approach to the proposed amendment to the Constitution, as I believe that we should not make changes to the Constitution which is sacred without carefully considering the implications. I therefore welcome the proposal to send the Bill to a Select Committee. Sir, the purpose of the amendment is to enable more alternative, independent and non-partisan views to be heard in Parliament. I think this intention should be supported. We want to bring as many good people as possible into Parliament, particularly those who have the expertise, experience, knowledge and are of high standing who can make a significant contribution. I believe the preferred way is for them to contest the elections and that they are in Parliament representing a body of constituents. It would appear, however, that there are people who should be brought into Parliament, but they cannot enter by way of elections because of reasons perhaps beyond their control. We want therefore to make changes to the Constitution to facilitate their entry into Parliament. First, Sir, there is a question: why is there a need to make a special case for them to enter Parliament without having to contest elections? Why is it inadequate for them to contribute outside Parliament in channels presently available? If there are persons with expertise and stature, contributions made by them outside this House should also be carefully considered and given special attention, particularly if these contributions can affect our life, our security, our survival, and also our future development as a nation. Given their stature, why is it that their views, if made outside Parliament, could not have an impact on how we develop? Sir, we work on the basis of a representative democracy, and all those who are presently in Parliament represent a body of constituents, whether they are elected as Members of Parliament or even as Non-Constituency MPs. Another question, Sir, is who would this group of nominated MPs represent other than themselves? The point has been made that if they are to represent some pressure or interest groups and become some sort of a lobbyist, then we would be creating a dangerous precedent. The First Deputy Prime Minister has stated that Parliament should become an electoral college for appointing or electing this group of MPs. In this case, I think they would be representing Members of Parliament. Why is it necessary to have Members of Parliament representing the MPs? Are our current MPs incapable because of their party affiliation to express the views of the people? Further, if they are to be elected by Parliament acting as an electoral college, it would be perceived by the general public that they must represent the majority of the MPs who will in this case be Government MPs. In this eventuality, how independent their views may be, they will still be perceived to be speaking on behalf of the Government. And I think this is a very difficult perception to change. However independent they may be under this scheme, there is still the perception that they are speaking in terms similar to that of the Government MPs. Sir, of course, over a period of time, by their performance, they can change this perception. But are we sure that we can completely eradicate it? In future, Parliament may be in crucial balance between Government and Opposition MPs. Then this group of MPs would hold the balance of power. And why should this be if they are not truly elected representatives? Sir, even though I have these reservations, I agree that we should do our best to get good people in Parliament, to give another perspective, an independent and non-partisan approach. However, I am quite uncomfortable that Parliament should turn into an electoral college for the proposed nominated MPs. Sir, if we feel that there is this urgent need to bring in people with expertise and knowledge, I suggest we look at alternative ways. Some proposals like proportional representation or creating another Chamber have already been raised in this House. I would like to make another suggestion, ie, that we create an independent electoral college. Prominent persons in Singapore could be inducted into this independent electoral college and some of them could be appointed by the President on the basis of, say, nominations made by the Presidential Council, and some should be directly appointed to this electoral college by the positions they hold at the time of the elections of the nominated MPs. For example, Sir, they may be Presidents of Chambers of Commerce, leaders of grassroots organisations and so on. As this is an independent electoral college, the nominated MPs could then be neither identified as pro-Government or pro-Opposition. And if this electoral college is broad-based, they can be said to represent a broad base of Singaporeans. The mechanics as to how we could go about developing this electoral college could be further examined, discussed and refined. Another point which I would like to make is that the nominated MPs should only be given speaking rights in Parliament, but no voting power. The First Deputy Prime Minister has quoted some countries which have appointed MPs in their Parliaments. I think we should look into why such a system exists in these countries. For some of the countries like Bangladesh, it is probably because of the difficulty of getting women into Parliament on the basis of their election system. So some special powers have been given to Parliament to co-opt these women MPs. In other cases, the reason is to provide for minority or migrant people, and so on. These people may have difficulty to get elected into Parliament and for that reason, special concession has been made so that they can be Parliamentarians to represent a special group or minority group. However, in this case, we are bringing in people who I am sure, if they stand for elections, would have a good chance of being elected. I am not so sure why we have to make it so that the Parliament should elect them or become an electoral college. Let them be elected by an independent electoral college. Sir, I am putting all these views so that when the Bill goes to Select Committee, perhaps these matters can be looked into.

( In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, on the subject of NCMP and NMP, several fellow MPs have expressed their views. The pros and cons both have their say on the subject of NMP. I would like also to add my own opinion to the discussion on NMP. To have some professionals or some distinguished persons from our society to take part in parliamentary debate to express their opinions independently and even to criticise the Government is nothing bad. There are both merits and demerits about it. The neutral stand and expert views of the NMPs will enhance the standard of parliamentary debate. Also, those able but would not attach to any political party will be enabled to come forward to contribute to Parliament and serve the country. After two years term, their political interest has become keener, they may then wish to join or form a political party. These are good points in favour of the NMP system. But I am worried about certain unfavourable aspects of NMP system. It is a challenge to parliamentary democracy. MPs are elected through legal process through the individual voting of the electorate. Whether the MPs elected are good or bad, the electorate will have to be responsible for the outcome of their choice. As regards NMP, how are we to ensure that the NMPs are neutral, objective and capable persons of integrity? If one day, there should be an irresponsible government in power they might be played into a situation where they became a means to perpetuate its rule or there might be nepotism and other undesirable practices. In olden feudal China, there was the example of the Yen Guan ( ) system of state councillors who were appointed officials entrusted with the sole duty of speaking and advising the Emperor and the Prime Minister on matters of the state and could criticise their mistakes in those early dynasties. The history could be traced back to as early as the ancient dynasties of Chin and Han or even earlier to Xia, San and Zou Empires. These state councillors had superlative position and could speak and criticise without fear. Even Emperor Tan Tai Zun feared them a little and compared them as reflecting mirrors. They played their useful role in certain dynasties. However, during certain periods many were sycophants and involved themselves in partisan squabbles and competitions and landed themselves and the State in undesirable situations. Some people think that the NMPs need not be bound by party discipline or electorate pressure and can be neutral and express their mind freely. But if they can do so, would it benefit the Government in improving the standard and the quality of government policy and legislation? If they can, then the people would think that it is better to appoint more NMPs. But if their standard is of a high quality even outshining the Ministers, but the Government would not accept their views, then the people will think that they should elect more Opposition Members to oppose government legislation or policies. So whether their participation is of a standard, whether good or bad, will bring about certain unknown political consequences. The next question is about the setting up of the Special Select Committee and the choice of the nominees for NMPs. How are we to be sure that this Select Committee will be neutral and capable of selecting the right persons? How are we to be sure that the possible NMP candidates will be non-partisan and are capable people? What are the criteria for the selection of NMPs, on their personal achievements, academic qualifications or their organisational affiliation? Whatever yardstick we use, it is very difficult to be absolutely impartial in the process. Every organisation will think that they are very important in our society. They would like to nominate their own representatives. Since NMPs are not elected, they are not responsible to their electorate and need not answer for the government policy to the electorate and they need not execute or implement any Government policy. They can just take part in debating on Government policy. What effect or what role can they play? Also, if the Nominated MPs can also vote as elected MPs, we should ask ourselves whether they should enjoy this right, is this wise? Whereas compared to NCMP, there are certain voters who voted for him. Both the elected MP and the NCMP have got thousands of votes for them. So an NCMP can also be said to speak for and represent some people. But whom does an NMP represent, himself or his organisation? As long as they have the right to vote, one day there may be some politicians who will make use of their votes by buying over them. What will happen to our political scene if one day the number of NMPs should greatly increase? So I absolutely oppose to the right of NMPs to vote. The appointment of NMPs may affect the political consciousness of our people. There are some examples of other countries having Nominated Members in their parliaments but these examples only happen in the Third World countries. But Singapore today in economic development and social progress is at a position that ranks next only to Japan, in Asia. We are more or less a developed country. Are we admitting that in political development we are to be included among the Third World countries? Talking about activating the womenfolk by appointing some women NMPs, of those examples given, the women in those countries do not have equal opportunities to be educated or receive equal pay for equal work. They cannot have the right to enjoy or participate in so many things. Whereas in Singapore, under PAP Government since the 1960s women have been treated equally as men. They have the right to receive equal education to get equal pay for equal work and also to have the same position and enjoy equal rights as men. Some even supersede the men's positions in many fields, particularly in education. Take the example of career women, more than 56% of them have 'O' level or higher education. But only over 48% of men have this kind of Secondary 4 or higher level of education. So the womenfolk should not rely on being appointed as NMPs but should also consider spending some time to take part in elections in order to serve the country. The system of NMP may give a wrong impression or misunderstanding to our younger generation, they may think that to be a politician or an MP, one need only to be eloquent in talking. Our worry is that we may not continue to get the right or capable people to come forward to serve. If the NMP system would lead to just the opposition result, then I am afraid we shall not be able to get any dedicated career politicians like our Lee Kuan Yew, Goh Keng Swee or 1DPM and 2DPM and others to come forward to serve our country. Before the Bill is passed I support the proposition of the 1DPM setting up a Select Committee to consider the matter further. Before the Bill is passed and implemented, we should consider whether we should change the present situation. It is rather contradictory. Over 20 years ago our political leaders could make sacrifices, why can't we do so now? We are trying to internationalize Singapore. We are commercializing some semi-Government organizations, as pointed out by the Chairman of Feedback Unit. As we are trying to modernise, we should seriously consider whether we should also modernise our political career that there should be a career future for politicians to take part in politics, whether it should be professional and not vocational as in the past. Since our Ministers are far better than many multi-national heads, why should they not be given the same remuneration and conditions or facilities such as drivers and so on, so that they may not be exposed to any risk from stress and strain. Therefore, the situation should be improved so that our leadership would be willing to make sacrifices while they may still look after the livelihood of themselves and of their families. When the Ministers retire, they should be allowed to head some enterprises, so that they may feel the sacrifices not too great. I am sure they are qualified unless they left office because of committed crime or corruption. The NMP in the end still cannot be a Minister as he does not have the capacity to decide on important national policies. In the end, we still need a group of talented leadership to stand for election. Therefore we should consider changing the present situation. When we come out to stand for election to be MPs, we have to face the result of voting, success or failure. We are not doing so for our own sake. Therefore, when talking about Nominated MPs, we are not speaking for our face or from our own subjective self-interest point of view. I feel that the NMP proposition has given people a wrong impression that the present standard of debate has fallen short of expectation or it is to secure some unwilling candidates. If certain professionals were to be appointed as NMPs to take part in parliamentary debates purely for the sake of giving alternative views or improving the standard and quality of debate, I would think it should not be a bad thing. The question then is how to present it to the Backbenchers and the Parliament. Backbenchers can be helped in various ways to improve their debate. Other than the library facilities, besides the librarian there could be the provision of secretaries and typists or researchers to help us. I feel that we should change and improve the present situation to make the present MPs to play a better and more effective role as politicians.

Order. I suspend the Sitting and will take the Chair again at 3.40 pm. Sitting accordingly suspended at 3.22 pm until 3.40 pm Sitting resumed at 3.40 pm

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

Debate resumed.

Mr Speaker, Sir, first, let me thank all the MPs who have contributed to the discussion on this Bill. My sense is that this is not a Bill which troubles the public, but is one which has the MPs troubled. I want to make it very clear that there is no intention whatsoever when I introduced this Bill to slight the MPs, because some MPs felt quite emotional about this, thinking that the proposal of having nominated MPs is a slight on them. I have high regard for the PAP MPs. Sir, I had a hand in choosing many of them and I can tell you that if we do not think that our MPs can hold their own against any nominated MPs in future, our MPs will not be here in this Parliament. In other words, if they are no good they will not be here. Fullstop. It is simple as that. I want to address primarily the nub of the problem and address my remarks at those who reject the Bill, primarily because they feel that what we are doing goes against the practice of democracy. If I can convince Members that it does not, and if they listen to my arguments dispassionately, I hope I can bring them on board. First, on the principles and intent of the Bill. It is to encourage participation, to build consensus, to accommodate alternative viewpoints and dissent. I believe there is no disagreement on this. Leave aside the Bill for a while. Assume that there is no Bill. Do you agree or do you not agree with this intent of mine, ie, to do something which will allow us to forge consensus? I believe there is no disagreement on this. It is part of our programme. It is in the President's address and I have spoken on this many times. If there is no disagreement on the principle, we can now move on to the next stage, whether the Bill advances this and whether it is the best way to do this. I think those who object to the Bill do so because they feel quite strongly that it erodes democracy, that if one is not an elected representative, he should not be in Parliament. I want to argue that the Bill does not in any way erode the principles of democracy and that one need not be an elected Member to be in Parliament. There are precedents for this and I shall quote them. Let us start from basic principle. What is Parliament? I am not a lawyer. So I did some reading of some popular work. This is a book written by Stanley de Smith on Constitutional and Administrative Law. It is a popular Penguin version for laymen and undergraduates. What is Parliament? I quote: 'At common law, Parliament as the legislative body, consists of the House of Commons, the House of Lords and the Queen.' In other words, the Upper House and the Lower House together plus the Queen, in this case, form Parliament. That is in Britain. In Canada, Parliament consists of the sovereign as represented by the Governor-General, the Senate and the House of Commons and Parliament makes laws. Again, there are three components to Parliament - the Governor-General, the Senate and the House of Commons. For Malaysia, the Constitution says, and this is Article 44 of the Constitution: 'The legislative authority of the Federation shall be vested in the Parliament, which shall consist of the Yang di-Pertuan Agong and two Majlis (Houses of Parliament) to be known as the Dewan Negara (Senate) and the Dewan Rakyat (House of Representatives).' Parliament again is a total body comprising the Upper House and the Lower House. For Singapore, our Constitution provides that the legislature of Singapore shall consist of the President and Parliament. We do not have an Upper House. So Parliament is a single chamber body and together with the President makes laws. Of course, amongst other functions of Parliament are the control of national expenditure, the Budget debate and scrutiny over Ministries' expenditure, taxation, scrutiny of national policies, probing of the central government, in our case, the Government. There are no hard and fast rules whether Parliament should have one or two Chambers. In many other countries, Parliament consists of two Chambers. In our case, it is only one Chamber. Sir, if you refer to the publication by the Inter-Parliamentary Union on Parliaments of the world, you can count the number of parliaments in the world which have two Chambers and those with one chamber. The point I am stressing here is that Parliament does not comprise only the House of Representative. It can have two Chambers. In many of these two-Chamber Parliaments, there are appointed Members in the Upper House, not elected. Some are elected but there are appointed Members in the Upper House. Let us take the example of Britain. The Upper House is the House of Lords. What are their functions? What can they do? What can they not do? Again, I refer to this popular version of the Constitutional and Administrative Law. It says: 'The House of Lords as at present constituted is a useful legislative chamber. ... many of the less controversial Government bills are introduced there; the debates will often be well informed; helpful amendments to law reform bills may be moved by Law Lords at committee stage. The Government's legislative output is thereby enlarged and its efficiency improved. Not so generally appreciated is its value as a chamber for the introduction of private members' bills which may be crowded out in the Commons;' In other words, Britain has non-elected Members of Parliament, because the House of Lords is part of the British Parliament who can initiate Bills, pass Bills, question government, and speak on various policies. Would you question that they do not have the mandate because they are not elected by the people? If I can remove this point from the argument, then perhaps we can make some progress in your support of the Bill. It is not necessary for a parliamentarian to be elected in order to have the authority to debate on Bills. The Malaysian Senate has many appointed Senators. The Canadian Senate too has many appointed Senators. All these unelected Senators have the authority and the mandate to debate Government policies, to initiate Bills and to pass Bills. I hope I have removed this fundamental objection to having some nominated MPs into our Parliament which is a single Chamber. In other words, if others can have unelected representatives or Members in their parliament, even though it is in another House, we should, on principle, be able to accommodate nominated MPs in our Parliament. What we are trying to do is actually to introduce some elements of the Upper House into our Chamber over here, not for checks and balances, but in order that our Government policy can be better scrutinised by able Singaporeans, by PAP MPs, Opposition MPs and a group of MPs who does not belong to any political party. These are elements of an Upper House. I cannot foresee how our political institution will evolve over time. Maybe at some time in the future we may evolve into a two-Chamber political institution and have an Upper House. It is not on the cards at this stage. I do not have this in mind but we cannot preclude this in some future years. If we move in that direction, think of this inclusion of six nominated MPs into our Parliament as a step in this direction. If we regard it as a step in this direction, it is a progressive step, not a retrogressive step. We are advancing forward, not backward, we have this element of an Upper House in this Chamber over here. In the UK, the Members of the House of Lords can also be Ministers. They can also be Prime Ministers. When MacMillan was on his dying bed in 1963, he summoned Sir Alec Douglas Home to take over the leadership of the Conservative Party. Lord Home, as he was known at that time, asked for time because he wanted to know whether his party members supported him and whether other colleagues in the Cabinet would support him. When he had that support, he went to the Queen, kissed the Queen's hand, and accepted the Prime Ministership. He was still a Member of the House of Lords, not elected by the people when he assumed the Prime Ministership. The Conservative Party then arranged for him to stand for election in one of the safe seats in Scotland so that he could get elected. Yes, he had to seek the mandate of the people. But the point is he can be a Minister without it. He was Foreign Minister before he assumed the Prime Ministership. In other words, in an established system of parliamentary democracy, like Britain's, one can be a Minister or a Prime Minister without having to be elected by the people. Therefore, what we are doing over here is nothing exceptional. One can be an MP without having to be elected. My earlier examples on Botswana, Pakistan and Bangladesh should not be taken amiss. I think the Member for Tampines GRC, Dr Aline Wong, missed the point. I was trying to illustrate that there are as many variations of constitutions as there are countries and each constitution has to be tailored to meet the special circumstances of the country. In the case of Pakistan and Bangladesh, they have to tailor the constitution to provide for Parliament to elect woman representatives. Otherwise, women will be under-represented. Likewise, some of the other countries, make special provisions for minorities. In our case, as I explained yesterday, we have our special circumstances, ie, the dominance of the PAP, the first-past-the-post system and the electoral uniformity of our constituencies. I was not making the point that because they have it, we can have it. Our circumstances are different. I think I should pause here and check whether I have demolished some Members' fundamental objection to the fact that one must be elected to have authority. I have shown that you do not have to. I hope you can now come several steps forward. Does our Bill contradict the principle of democracy? Does it erode democracy? What is democracy? What are the features of democracy? Let us test what we are doing against such features. The Encyclo- paedia Britannica, from which this quote is taken, defines democracy in this way: 'The minimal definition in institutional terms of a constitutional democracy is that it should provide for a regularised system of periodic elections with a free choice of candidates...' The first feature - regular and fair elections. Does the Bill in any way deprive Singaporeans of free, fair and regular elections? Does it? It does not. Do they have a free choice of candidates? In the last elections, I think some eight political parties stood for elections fielding over 50 candidates. Did they have a free choice? Would the nominated MPs deprive Singaporeans of this free choice of candidates? Can they not choose Opposition MPs if they want to? The answer is yes. They can choose any candidate they want to, be they from the Opposition or from the PAP. I continue: " ... the opportunity to organise competing political parties ...". That exists. The Bill does not in any way take away the opportunity to organise competing political parties. " ... Adult suffrage ..." - that is voting by those over 21 years old in the case of Singapore. The Bill does not take that away. " ... Decisions by majority vote with protection of minority rights ..." - that is how decisions are taken over here. If there is a dispute over certain Bills, over certain policies, they are put to a vote and those policies and Bills will be carried by the majority in this House. So how does this nominated MP proposal affect this feature of democracy? And we have the Presidential Council for Minority Rights to protect the rights of the minority communities in Singapore, and also the GRCs. " .... an independent judiciary", that is another feature required of a democracy. By this definition of Encyclopaedia Britannica, we have it. "... and the opportunity to change any aspect of the governmental system through agreed procedures" - which is what we are trying to do. We are trying to change an aspect of Government through agreed procedures. In other words, put the Bill before the House, get it debated, refer it to Select Committee, get it passed, enact it as law. So how does the proposal for nominated MPs in any way conflict with the principle of democracy? Let me now read this definition in full: "The minimal definition in institutional terms of a constitutional democracy is that it should provide for a regularized system of periodic elections with a free choice of candidates, the opportunity to organize competing political parties, adult suffrage, decisions by majority vote with protection of minority rights, an independent judiciary, constitutional safeguards for basic civil liberties, [Yes, I missed it out just now] and the opportunity to change any aspect of the governmental system through agreed procedures." Now, prove to me that the proposal to have nominated MPs takes away anything from that definition of democracy. If you cannot prove it, and if you agree with me that it does not in any way diminish the practice of democracy in Singapore, can you shift a few more steps forward? Can you? Be dispassionate, do not be so emotional that NMPs in this House would be a slight on your performance. It does not. So can you move a few more steps forward? The two fundamental objections which some Members have, or one really if you roll the two together, against the Bill is that you must be elected to be in Parliament. I have shown that one does not have to be elected to be in Parliament. Yes, in most countries, their Houses of Representatives have only elected members. But I have also shown that there are many such Houses which have appointed, not elected, representatives. I hope you can now come several steps forward, seeing that your fundamental objection is demolished. Now, there were two calls for referendum, one by the Member for Potong Pasir and the other by the Member for Fengshan. I thought I should comment on this because that deals with another aspect of government. And again, I quote from this popular version for layman and undergraduates. This is on the British system: "The British system of parliamentary government is above all a system of government. It is not a system geared to a series of opinion polls or referendums in which the garbled voice of the people is equated with deity. Among the factors which the government and members of Parliament have to take into account is a strength of public sentiments on particular issues. But this is one factor among many. Members of Parliament are representatives but not delegates of the constituents. Nor is a Cabinet a committee of the House of Commons or of Parliament. A government and its parliamentary supporters ought to act in the way they think best in the general interest of the country. It is open to the electorate to use criticism and ridicule to exert pressure on their representatives by legitimate means, to voice their displeasure at by-elections and to turn the Government out at the next General Election. But there is no constitutional convention to the effect that the Government which loses the confidence of the country [and country here is in italics] must resign or advise a dissolution of Parliament so long as it commands a majority in the House of Commons." (Pg. 103) In other words, so long as a party commands a majority in the House, it has got to govern in accordance with the general interests of the people. It does not refer matters to a referendum all the time. And this Party has just won an overwhelming victory in September 1988 - 80 out of 81 seats. We do not have to go back to the people for a referendum on this simple Bill. Having dealt with the fundamentals, I do not think I need to elaborate too much on other points raised by MPs. I will not go into full details because I have said that the Bill will be referred to a Select Committee. I will just comment very quickly on a few matters. One is the procedure of appointment. I think this can be improved upon if we get considered and better suggestions on how to deal with this. The MP for Ayer Rajah has a valid point, not the point about the spectre of chauvinists and communalists taking advantage of the process to come into Parliament. That point I do not agree. But his valid point is that many people will think they have a chance to nominate candidates into Parliament - the clans, the religious groups, functional constituencies and so on. We are going to receive many, many nominations and we select only six. Those who are not selected, I think, will feel quite resentful, and rather let down that their nominations are not being accepted. Well, maybe we can think of other ways to improve on the process. On credibility, I do not think it depends so much on the procedures of appointment as on the credibility of the people who come into Parliament; the stature, the contribution of the nominated MPs is what counts. If they do not carry themselves well, are unable to debate on policies, or contribute substantially to our discus- sions, no matter how they are nominated or appointed, there will be no credibility to them. That is the key to the success of this scheme, to be able to get people of stature, people with certain expertise, good practical experience, to come to Parliament to contribute to our debate. If we have them in Parliament, I think they will be able to establish their credibility very quickly. I would not worry too much about who appoints them. We should not fall into the trap that so long as they are appointed by the Government they are not credible or that they are only credible if they are appointed by the Opposition. I think that cannot be. I think the remarks of many MPs imply that if it is seen by the people that NMPs are appointed by the PAP or by a PAP-dominated government, they have no credibility. So what does that mean? You mean they have more credibility if they are appointed by Opposition MPs or by an independent panel? I do not buy that. Votes, again this point can be discussed at the Select Committee. Should nominated MPs be given votes? I think we can argue either way. If we give votes to the nominated MPs, under certain circumstances they can affect the course of a Bill. For example, if Parliament is more or less evenly divided between Government party and the Opposition parties, the nominated MPs, if they are given votes, can hold the balance. They can either get the Bills passed or get the Bills rejected by Parliament. Should we or should we not allow them to do so? I think it is a matter for us to decide, whether we should grant them this ability. I would prefer to give them some voting powers; otherwise, as some MPs put it, they come to this House, they talk, but they have no real influence on Bills. My interest in giving them some voting power is this. If they vote with the Government most of the time, they are in fact endorsing our policies, and our Bills, provided, as I expect they would, they are people of stature and their views are considered. And if they vote against the Bills from time to time, we have got to ask ourselves why, since these are people who have got no vested partisan political interests who vote against our Bills. I think it lends weight to their speech over here and we have got to take them seriously. But I am prepared to have this matter further reviewed at the Select Committee and decide at that point of time. On the nomenclature for nominated MPs, some suggested that they could be called "Parliamentary Councillors". Again, I think these are not important matters for us to decide today. We can leave it to the Select Committee and choose a term which could increase the stature of nominated MPs, and not one which diminishes it. Because if we have a term which clips their stature, then why should people want to come into Parliament? I think it is totally unnecessary for us to diminish their stature by using a term which implies that they are not quite an MP. But again, this is a matter which we can work on in the Select Committee. Just one small point on waste of expenditure. Mr Chiam said it would be a waste of public expenditure. I can debunk that point easily. This is a privilege which we are extending to a group of Singaporeans who, in our view, can contribute to good government, to the affairs of the State. We do not have to pay them any allowances if we do not want to. But, in my view, I think it is better that we pay them some allowances, not quite the same as the allowance for a Member of Parliament. It can be a quarter, it can be less. But if I have to meet his point, I can say, "Look, it is a privilege which we extend to you and you should be happy that you are given this privilege; therefore, no allowances." So his point on waste of expenditure is debunked. If I may use this to illustrate why we think we should have nominated MPs. The point made by Mr Chiam is actually a political point, playing to the public gallery. "Here you are, the PAP getting six more people, paying them for what? Just for talking in Parliament. A waste of taxpayers' money." If we have nominated MPs over here, they will not be playing politics. They will be examining each Bill, each policy, for its intrinsic worth: does it or does it not benefit the people, and not does it or does it not benefit me as a Member of Parliament or as a party. Let me explain again why the Government wants to move ahead with this Bill. It is the principle, the objective, which is important, and that is to encourage participation. I believe in consensus democracy. I do not think adversarial politics is good for Singapore. Look at the case of India now. The country is divided. Political parties looking to the Hindus for support, other groups looking to the Muslims for support, some looking to the Sikhs. What is the result? I think adversarial politics in India will tear the country apart. In Singapore's context, if we do not succeed in getting our people to share a common vision and to work together, and instead each one of us tries to win political support by appealing to certain groups of Singaporeans, I think this country too will be torn apart because we have Muslims, we have Hindus, we have Christians, we have Buddhists, Taoists, we have employers, we have unionists, we have workers. Each one of us can cater to a different group and get a few seats in Parliament. But the net result of such politics will tear the whole country apart. I want to build consensus. I want to practise firm cohesive politics where we can. But to succeed, we have got to set out to accommodate alternative views and even dissent, constructive dissent preferably, destructive if necessary. But if we meet destructive dissent, we will meet it all the way, firmly. If we can succeed in this plan, we can involve Singaporeans in climbing a few more steps to achieve the goals that we have set out for them in building a better Singapore for ourselves and our children. I feel quite strongly that we should have the best people in Government. The PAP has set out to try and gather the best and the most representative of each generation into the Party to stand for elections so that they can be in Parliament to lead Singapore. But speaking from experience, I know that despite all our efforts, there are still some Singaporeans who can contribute but who are not in Parliament. So I try and gather these Singaporeans into the political process. Resource Panels to help the Government Parliamentary Committees. That is an effort to gather these Singaporeans to help us. Feedback Unit is another institution which I hope can gather such Singaporeans to help us. Institute of Policy Studies which we endorse and encourage, that is another effort. This is another effort to identify, locate and bring in such Singaporeans into the highest forum in the land. And if we can succeed in getting six good nominated MPs into Parliament, I believe there are only pluses, no minuses. My approach is from the angle of the good of Singapore. Is the proposal good for Singaporeans, good for Singapore? Never mind whether it is good for us as individual MPs or not. Is it good for Singapore that we bring in such people into Parliament? Because no matter how comprehensive our network is, we have not brought in some of these people into Parliament. I am trying to do that. I hope you can see it in that light and help me get these people into Parliament to contribute for the good of Singapore. I understand that many MPs over here have reservations. I will take this approach. Give this Bill a try. There is nothing to lose by trying. There is something to lose if we were to reject it outright. I am prepared at the Select Committee stage to build in a "sunset" clause, a "self-destruct" clause. After a certain time, maybe four or five years from now, either before the next general elections or soon after, if the Bill, which if it is enacted becomes law, does not bring us the benefits which I expect, and if Members of Parliament are still not convinced by the wisdom of having such people in Parliament, that law will self-destruct unless it is renewed again by Members in this House. That instrument can be built in at the Select Committee. Some MPs are not convinced at this stage. But I am convinced that I will be proven right. So my final word to Members is: give this a try. We lose nothing by trying. Thank you. [Applause.]

The Question is, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." A Division will be taken to ascertain that the Second Reading of the Bill is supported by the votes of not less than two-thirds of the total number of Members of Parliament, pursuant to Article 5(2) of the Constitution. The Clerk will ring the Division Bells. Question put, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." Division taken: Ayes, 74; No, 1; Abstention, Nil. Ayes Abbas Abu Amin Abdul Nasser bin Kamaruddin Abdullah Tarmugi Ahmad Mattar Beng Kian Lam, Arthur Chandra Das, S. Chay Wai Chuen Chen, Bernard Chen Seow Phun, John Chew Heng Ching Chin Harn Tong Ch'ng Jit Koon Chong, Charles Choo Wee Khiang Chua Sian Chin Davinder Singh Dhanabalan, S. Goh Chok Tong Goh Choon Kang Heng Chiang Meng Ho Kah Leong Ho Tat Kin Hong Hai Hu Tsu Tau, Richard Ibrahim Othman Jayakumar, S. Koh Lam Son Koh Lip Lin Lau Ping Sum Lau Teik Soon Lee Boon Yang Lee Kuan Yew Lee Yiok Seng Lee Yock Suan Leong Horn Kee Lew Syn Pau Lim Boon Heng Lim Chee Onn Loh Meng See Low Seow Chay Ng Kah Ting Ayes (cont.) Ng Pock Too Ong Chit Chung Ong Teng Cheong Othman bin Haron Eusofe Ow Chin Hock Peh Chin Hua Seet Ai Mee Shanmugam, K. Sidek bin Saniff Sung, Peter Tan Cheng Bock Tan, Dixie Tan, Augustine H H Tan Keng Yam, Tony Tan Soo Khoon Tan Tee Yong, Philip Tay Eng Soon Teo Chong Tee Vasoo, S. Wan Hussin bin Hj Zoohri Wan Soon Bee Wang Kai Yuen. Wong, Aline K. Wong Kan Seng Wong Kwei Cheong Yap Giau Cheng, Eugene Yatiman Yusof Yeo Cheow Tong Yeo Ning Hong Yeo Toon Chia Yeo, George Yong-Boon Yu-Foo Yee Shoon Zulkifli bin Mohammed No Chiam See Tong Abstention Nil

The Second Reading of the bill has been carried by the votes of not less than two-thirds of the total number of Members of Parliament. Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Mr Speaker, Sir, before I move the motion to commit the bill to Select Committee, may I make a point of clarification? In my speech, I mentioned that Lord Home was summoned by Harold Macmillan on his dying bed. I am sorry. I think I despatched him many years too early. He had to resign because of the Christine Keeler affair. An hon. Member: He was ill.

I stand corrected. He was ill when he summoned Lord Home. He did not summon Lord Home on his dying bed. Resolved, That the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore (Amendment No. 2) Bill be committed to a Select Committee consisting of Mr Speaker as Chairman and seven Members to be nominated by the Committee of Selection. - [Mr Goh Chok Tong]. 4.30 pm

Order for Second Reading read.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." The Environmental Public Health Act, Chapter 95 (EPHA), provides for the Commissioner of Public Health to authorise a public officer, which includes any officer of a statutory board, to carry out any or all of the powers in the Act. Since 1977, Sir, Housing and Development Board officers have been authorised under the EPHA to enforce against littering, spitting, illegal hawking and other public health offences within HDB estates. Given such authorisation, HDB officers were able to deal directly with offenders encountered during the officers' duties within the estates. To continue with the arrangement in housing estates managed by Town Councils, the Commissioner of Public Health will empower staff of the Town Councils with a similar authorisation. However, Sir, the nine Town Councils formed so far, do not have any field staff of their own. Instead, all of them have engaged a private management company to look after and maintain their respective estates. It is, therefore, necessary to amend the EPHA to allow the Commissioner of Public Health to empower the staff of private management companies engaged by Town Councils to enforce against littering, spitting and other public health offences within Town Council estates. Sir, I beg to move. Question proposed.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the Bill. But I have three clarifications that I need from the Minister. First, as the Town Councils do not have a big staff, enforcement is likely to be delegated to the management agents. The management agents are neither statutory boards nor Government agencies. This means that the power of enforcing a legislation is now delegated to a non-public agency. Is this practice unusual and whether there is any precedent? Second, how would the Ministry ensure uniform enforcement of the Act? How strictly would the Town Councils enforce the rule would depend on the policy of each Town Council. Sir, on a matter which concerns public health, which is the specific responsibility of the Ministry of the Environment, would the Ministry consider it desirable to have a wide variation in the enforcement standards? Third, can the Town Councils opt to leave the enforcement to the Ministry of the Environment?

Sir, the Town Council was specifically formed to manage, maintain, control and improve common property of residential and commercial housing estates. Now the Town Councils are asked to do additional duties. I would imagine basically enforcement duties. Sir, I wonder whether it would not be ultra vires the Town Councils Act, which specifically spells out the functions of the Town Councils. The Town councils not only manage and maintain properties but they are now asked to do enforcement duties. Perhaps the Minister could clarify on that. Sir, I think the Minister is not quite accurate in saying that all Town Councils are managed by the EM Services. In fact, the Potong Pasir Town Council is managed by ourselves. We are a compact unit. We run a tight budget. We have got a very small staff, minimal staff, to keep down costs. Now we are asked to stretch our resources to embark on enforcement duties. We did not foresee that. I hope the Ministry of the Environment with which our Town Council has got very good relationship, is not passing the buck on to us to do duties for them. As it is, we have already got our hands full and I do not know which section of our Town Council we should call upon to do such enforcement duties. I hope the Minister will give us the assurance that once this Bill is passed they are not coming down to Potong Pasir to do any more work as regards enforcement duties and dependent entirely on us to do it. The last point I would like to bring up is this. Once this Bill is passed, by law, the Town Councils can do these duties and are mandatory. The question is whether or not we have to carry out these enforcement duties.

( In Malay): Mr Speaker, Sir, in principle, I support the amendment Bill because the objective is good. The principal objective is to ensure a clean environment in the estates and to give enforcement powers to Town Councils. I have a few questions for the Minister. Firstly, with the passage of this Bill, is the Ministry of the Environment going to pass on all its enforcement functions to the Town Councils? Secondly, if the Ministry of the Environment aware of the cost increases that the Town Councils will have to bear as a result? And if the Town Councils' costs do increase, would the Ministry of the Environment be prepared to bear part of such increase? My final question is: should any Town Council decide not to assume these functions intended for them, what will be the effect on areas under the charge of the Town Council concerned? Does this mean that the Ministry of the Environment will not be carrying out enforcement in such areas?

Sir, looking at the amendment as it is worded, it looks like if the Minister so approves, the Town Council may have no choice but to accept the responsibility. It means that the officials from the Ministry of the Environment may not go to that particular Town Council to enforce the powers of the EPHA. Unfortunately, we must remember that enforcement requires and involves expenditure. I do not think Town Councils have the money for this expenditure. I will be very happy to hear from the Minister if he can tell us that the decision to accept enforcement of certain powers of the Act rests with the Town Council and not by fiat or by the wish of the Minister. I will be happier if this point could in fact be included as part of the amendment. Having said so, I would also like to ask the Minister for three points of clarification. One, if the Town Council so accepts the responsibility, will the fines collected from the composition of offences or successful prosecution of the offenders be given to the Town Council concerned? Two, could the Minister let us know that in the light of the HDB's experience whether the fines collected by the HDB are more or less than the cost of enforcement incurred by the HDB over the years? Three, can Town Councils be given Government grants to perform the duties of enforcement? In essence, this is no different from the Ministry of the Environment being allocated funds from the Consolidated Fund to carry out its duties. Since this enforcement is on behalf of public health, then I think it is up to the Ministry of the Environment to give us the money to do their job.

Mr Speaker, Sir, first of all, I would like to thank hon. Members who have spoken on the Bill. Let me state at the outset, that the delegation of authority to the staff or management agents of Town Councils will not be made compulsory. Town Councils individually will decide whether or not they want to be empowered to take action on spitting and littering offences. The choice is theirs. The decision rests completely with them. However, from the long experience we have in a similar arrangement with the HDB, I think this arrangement can go a long way to help Town Councils manage the estates under their charge more effectively. Sir, Mr Chin Harn Tong, the Member for Aljunied GRC and concurrently the Chairman of the Aljunied Town Council, finds the proposal to delegate power of enforcing a legislation to a non-public agency a little unusual and therefore wants to know whether there is any precedence to support it. Sir, empowering a non-public agency or a person who is not a public officer to enforce certain provisions of a legislation is not an unusual practice. For example, managing agents appointed by management corporations of private condominiums can, under certain clauses of the Land Titles (Strata) Act, be empowered to enforce certain provisions of the Act. Sir, on uniformity in enforcement, we can expect to have different degrees of strictness among Town Councils. It will all depend on how clean a Town Council chooses to keep its estate. And, of course, my Ministry would not like to see wide variations in the standards of cleanliness in Town Council estates. But I think and I am confident that no Town Council will ever allow its estate to deteriorate to a state which can pose a health hazard. On whether Town Councils can opt to leave the enforcement to the Ministry of the Environment, the answer is of course yes. The overall responsibility against littering, spitting and other public health offences rests with my Ministry. If a Town Council chooses not to be empowered and take the role of the enforcer, then of course my Ministry will have to carry out the enforcement. Sir, the Member for Cheng San GRC, and concurrently the Chairman of Cheng San Town Council, wants to know if the fines collected for cases enforced by Town Councils can be given to Town Councils. Let me briefly explain. In the past, when the HDB undertook prosecution in court for cases enforced by HDB officers, the Government reimbursed HDB the total amount of fines collected by the courts. This was to defray HDB's enforcement as well as prosecution costs. But since 1st May this year, when littering offences were made compoundable, HDB need not prosecute any case in court. All cases enforced by HDB officers are now referred directly to the Ministry of the Environment for prosecution actions Consequently, Sir, HDB will be reimbursed $50 per case as decided by the Ministry of Finance on the basis of 50% of the compounded fine. This is to defray HDB's enforcement cost while the remaining 50% is to defray Environment's prosecution cost. By the same consideration, Sir, $50 per case will be reimbursed to Town Councils for all cases enforced by them or their managing agents. Sir, the Member also wants to know with regard to the cost incurred by HDB in discharging its responsibilities under the EPHA. I am afraid I do not have the figures with me. All I know is that the reimbursement from Environment to the HDB in the last two years, prior to the introduction of compounding, was an average of about $600,000 per year. I do not know whether the HDB can really estimate how much they have actually spent on enforcing littering offences. This is because the HDB officers empowered under the EPHA are not assigned solely to do enforcement work on littering and other public health offences. They have other jobs as well. Some of them are supervising contract workers, looking after hawker centres, attending to complaints, and so on and so forth. So I do not think HDB can really apportion the amount of money they have spent, to say that this is the amount they spend on enforcement against littering and other public health offences. I do not know whether my colleague, the Minister for National Development, would like to add to what I have just said. The Member also wants to know whether the Government is prepared to give a subsidy to the Town Councils. At this point of time, Sir, the Government is only prepared to give 50% of the compounded fines arising from cases enforced by the Town Councils. I think I have answered the questions. With regard to the Member for Potong Pasir, I must appreciate him mentioning that he is managing his Town Council. But I did not mention anywhere in my speech about EMS.

Question put, and agreed to. Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House. The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. - [Dr Ahmad Mattar]. Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed.

Order for Second Reading read. 4.50 pm

Mr Speaker,Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." Sir, this is a very short and technical Bill to amend section 4(1) of the Trustees Act to enable a trustee to invest in negotiable certificates of deposits (NCDs) in Singapore currency where such NCDs are issued by banks in Singapore. An NCD is evidence of a deposit with a bank repayable on a fixed date. What distinguishes it from a bank deposit is that it is a fully negotiable document and can be resold before the maturity date. In this respect, it has an advantage over normal fixed deposit with a bank. As an investment, an NCD denominated in Singapore dollars carries less risk than equities which are quoted on the Stock Exchange since upon maturity the principal sum plus interest is payable. This amendment is needed because at present section 4 of the Trustees Act only empowers trustees to invest in immovable property and in Government and other fixed interest securities, whilst section 7 covers securities quoted on the Stock Exchange of Singapore. An NCD does not specifically fall within either section 4 or section 7, and unless the trust instrument expressly authorises the trustees to invest in NCDs, there is a doubt as to whether NCDs are authorised investments. This Bill will remove any doubt that the trustees can invest in Singapore dollar denominated NCDs in accordance with the provisions of the Trustees Act. The amendment will also benefit those statutory bodies, such as Town Councils, which are empowered to invest in trustee investments in accordance with the Trustees Act. Finally, Sir, I should acknowledge the contribution made towards this legislation by Mr Heng Chiang Meng, who is also Chairman of the Cheng San Town Council; it was he who first brought to Government's attention this difficulty which Town Councils had in investing their funds. This does not mean that there are no other aspects of the Trustees Act which require a relook; it is being reviewed to see whether other amendments are necessary. But as that review may take some time, I therefore commend this amendment to this House now. Sir, I beg to move. Question proposed.

Sir, first, I would like to thank the Minister for Law for his speedy response to my request. This surely will give the Town Councils and other bodies, whose investment portfolios are controlled by the Trustees Act, greater scope in their investment decisions. Sir, although the Minister has indicated that there will be a further review of the Trustees Act, I would just like, hopefully, to hasten that review by reminding him that the purpose of this Act is primarily to provide a measure of prudence and safety to the investments of bodies who control funds, not their own funds but funds of their constituents. Traditionally, the highest rating of the investments in terms of safety are Government papers such as bonds and Treasury Bills. Next comes fixed deposits, and of course now NCDs, with banks. And the last on the list would be stocks and shares on the Exchange as well as immovable property. Sir, since the last review, the financial markets in Singapore have undergone tremendous improvements and changes. There are now available many types of papers, many types of investible instruments which I would consider to be safer and more prudent than some of the instruments permissible under the Act. For example, there are investible papers such as trade bills. These are bills arising out of trade by Singapore traders and they are in fact endorsed, similar to being guaranteed, by banks and other financial institutions supervised by the MAS. Surely, I would consider such instruments to have a higher safety rating than those instruments such as stocks and shares on the stock market. Sir, I would like to make a plea to the Minister. Could he try to complete this review as soon as possible so as to give those of us who have to operate on shoe-string budgets some scope for better returns on their investments?

Mr Speaker, Sir, I thank the Member and also take note of his point. As I said, the matter will be reviewed. Obviously, it is not solely a legal consideration. The Ministry of Law will have to consult the Ministry of Finance and other agencies like the MAS, to suitable amendments to be made, consistent of course with the basic underlying purpose of the Trustees Act which is to ensure that the interests of the beneficiaries are never lost sight of.

Question put, and agreed to. Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House. The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. - [Prof. S. Jayakumar]. Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed.

Order for Second Reading read.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time". Sir, the Misuse of Drugs Act (MDA) was last amended in 1979. Since then, the global as well as regional drug situation has changed substantially and further amendments are necessary to our laws if we are to effectively control the menace of drug abuse and drug trafficking in Singapore. The global drug scene continues to deteriorate. More opium is being produced in the Golden Triangle. And this year's opium harvest is reported to be double that of previous years. Cocaine which is very widespread in the United States and Canada, is spreading to the European countries as well as Australia. And our assessment is that it is only a matter of time before it reaches our region. We also have the problem of marijuana or "cannabis", and the production of cannabis - a 'gateway' drug leading addicts to hard drugs - is also on the increase. It is therefore in this global context that we must prepare ourselves to deal with the ever increasing threat of drugs. Whilst we have succeeded in breaking up the large scale syndicates, there are still traffickers who for monetary gains will risk arrest and detention and even hanging. Some of the proposed amendments in this Bill are to facilitate enforcement and rehabilitation while others are meant to enable a more effective administration of our Drug Rehabilitation Centres (DRCs). If I may now turn to the individual main amendments. First, clause 10 of the Bill amends the Second Schedule of the Act to provide for the death penalty for trafficking, manufacturing, importing and exporting of opium, cannabis and cocaine beyond a specified quantum. Currently, Sir, the death penalty in the Act applies only to heroin and morphine. With opium likely to become a cheaper alternative for the heroin addict, the increasing abuse of cannabis as a 'gateway' drug and the expected arrival of cocaine trafficking, we must extend the death penalty beyond cases of heroin and morphine. Extending the death penalty provision to also include opium, cannabis and cocaine, which incidentally is already provided for in the laws of Malaysia will deter local traffickers and international syndicates from using Singapore for the transshipment of such drugs to other countries. Next, the tightening of the presumption clause. Clause 2 amends section 17 of the Act to tighten the presumption clause on trafficking in drugs and includes cocaine in the presumption provision. At present, the presumption clause is not completely clear and the phrase "presumed to have had that controlled drug in his possession for the purpose of trafficking" is not exactly the same in meaning as "trafficking". Therefore, the clause has to be amended to achieve its intended purpose. The presumption will also cover cocaine in excess of 3 grammes. I now turn to Supervision Orders. Clause 6 of the Bill will provide for Supervision Orders for first-time drug abusers. Currently, Supervision Orders can only be issued to those who have already undergone treatment and rehabilitation and convicted addicts. All first-time drug abusers are admitted to DRC for compulsory rehabilitation. Although the existing approach has been effective, from the experience of the Central Narcotics Bureau, there are some first-timers for whom the stay in a DRC for six months or longer is considered not to be necessary and supervision alone, that is compulsory supervision, should suffice to help them overcome the craving for drugs. This approach of putting persons on compulsory supervision, in other words, they are warned as to what will happen if they breach the compulsory supervision, has been tried in the case of the inhalant abusers and we have had fairly good success. The proposed amendment to the Act will enable first-time drug abusers to be put on supervision to help them turn over a new leaf. They will be warned that if they are caught consuming drugs during the period of supervision, they will then be admitted to the DRCs. Next, the cases of repeat offenders. Clause 10 will impose a mandatory jail sentence for second or subsequent offence of drug possession. While a drug addict can be detained in a DRC for periods up to a maximum of three years, on the other hand, a person convicted of the offence of possession of drugs is usually sentenced to only a fine, even for a second or subsequent offence although the penalty in the Second Schedule of the MDA for a second or subsequent offender is imprisonment of two years or a fine of $4,000. To ensure that such repeat offenders know that they will be treated severely, it is necessary that the Act be amended to delete the option of a fine for a second or subsequent offence of drug possession. Then I come to the cases of those who repeat drug consumption whilst on supervision. Another amendment deals with drug offenders - clause 5 which amends section 33(3). I must explain that under the current law, a person who is convicted of a second or subsequent offence for drug consumption whilst under supervision order is liable to a term of imprisonment of not less than 3 years whilst under supervision. But it is the experience of CNB that this provision is circumvented. Because a supervisee with a further drug charge may try to abscond whilst on supervision, so that if he is caught after the period of supervision this provision is not enforceable. When caught, he will escape the punishment because the test is "conviction" during the period of supervision, and not "commission of the offence". The proposed amendment will therefore plug this loophole and also provide for enhanced penalty for repeat offenders who are not under supervision. Then I come to the question of urine testing. Clauses 3 and 4 amend sections 22 and 31 with regard to the testing of urine samples. Drug suspects are now required to provide two urine samples. One to be tested by the Department of Scientific Services and the other to be stored in what is known as the Urine Bank for a second test upon application by the addict. The suspected addict is detained in a DRC if the first specimen is tested positive for controlled drugs. He can then apply for a second sample to be tested. If the second test is negative, he will be released from the DRC. But by then he might have been detained for as long as six or seven weeks. With the availability now of more advanced urine testing equipment, it is now practicable to analyse the second urine sample immediately if the first sample is tested positive. Both samples will be tested by different chemists with the necessary safeguards. With this amendment to the Act, a drug addict will be admitted to the DRC only after both urine tests show the presence of drugs. The Urine Bank can then cease operation. If I may turn to the other amendments on the administration of DRCs. The Prisons Department has been running the DRCs since 1977 when Operation Ferret was launched. Clause 7 introduces a new section to formally vest the Director of Prisons with the general charge and administration of the DRCs. As for DRC Review Committees, there are currently four DRC Review Committees. The Act provides for a maximum of six members. The amendment in clause 8 is to bring about flexibility to appoint more members to serve on the Committees. Then I wish to deal with corporal punishment in DRCs. Clause 9 amends section 43 to provide for the administration of corporal punishment for serious breaches of discipline in the DRCs. Sir, the Superintendents of the DRCs at present do not have adequate powers to deal with serious breaches of discipline. In fact, they do not even have the powers which those who are in charge of young juveniles in the reformative training centres have over offenders in the RTC who commit disciplinary offences. Some DRC inmates, especially the hard-core inmates, are extremely difficult to control. Some of them are vicious and knowing that the Superintendents are powerless, do not hesitate to assault fellow inmates or even the staff of the DRCs. Others smuggle drugs into the DRCs or other contraband. Without adequate powers, it is difficult for the Prisons staff to control problematic inmates and to maintain discipline. To conclude, Sir, these amendments to the Act are necessary to deal with the drug threat, to provide for more effective treatment and rehabilitation of drug addicts and to gear ourselves to face the growing threat of new forms of drugs that may spread to this region. Sir, I beg to move. Question proposed.

Mr Speaker, Sir, drug abuse as mentioned by the Minister is a world-wide problem. It is threatening whole societies and destabilising whole nations. It is no respecter of national boundaries. Its danger is further enhanced by the fact that bumper crops of several drugs have been produced in the last two years, hence increasing the availability and reducing street price. The changing pattern of abuse, with the widespread use of cocaine in the West is also a cause of concern to us. Soon, as the markets of the West become increasingly saturated, cocaine abuse will make its way to this part of the world. We must be ever vigilant. We must unite as a nation to fight this menace.

5.12 pm In Singapore, heroin abuse is still a major problem. The level of drug addiction in Singapore is reverting to the 1970s and is indeed a cause of concern. It is thus timely that this Bill is now introduced. Sir, on the personal level, drug addiction is regarded as a social-medical problem, ie, the drug addict is a sick person but his illness is contributed by social factors. We recognize that many non-medical factors contribute to the problem, such as the person's ability to deal with what would otherwise be considered as normal stress of daily living, peer pressure, economic and educational status and the home environment. Thus any drug control programme that hopes to be successful must look at the drug problem in its totality, starting from education, prevention, enforcement and going on to rehabilitation. Sir, I am glad to note that this Bill has the elements that make for a successful drug control programme. Firstly, it has increased enforcement powers. The first step must be to control the availability of these drugs. The Bill now extends the death penalty for trafficking, manufacturing, importing and exporting, to include cocaine, opium or cannabis above a specified quantum. In spite of the death penalty already in place for heroin, we have read time and again of Singapore being used as a transit centre for transshipment to other countries. We must, of course, not be so naive as to think that Singapore itself is not a target. With growing affluence and increasing travel, cocaine is a drug that we must be ever vigilant against. The second important facet of a successful drug programme is the rehabilitation of the addict. Singapore is amongst the first countries of the world where there is a compulsory rehabilitation programme. As the number of drug addicts increases, the strain on manpower and other resources makes it inevitable that we from time to time review our own rehabilitation programme and central to this programme is the drug rehabilitation centre. I am glad to note that the present amendment distinguishes between the first-timers from the hard-core repeat offenders, especially those with a criminal record. For the first-timer or experimenter, the aim will be to return him to society as soon as possible after successful treatment. The rehabilitation programme, however, continues with the ex-drug addict under supervision orders. In our GPC visit to the DRCs, the GPC for Home Affairs and Law is also glad to note that the authorities are making strenuous efforts to categorise and separate the addicts so that the hard-core addicts will not be able to assert a negative effect on those more amenable to successful treatment. This I think is an important step forward. Sir, the introduction of corporal punishment for indiscipline in the DRC is something that I was initially not convinced of. As a doctor, I ask myself: will I cane a patoent who is ill? After much discussion with our experts in the DRCs, I began to see their point of view. In summary, or simply put, self-discipline and motivation are the essence of the drug rehabilitation programme. If discipline breaks down in a DRC, then the DRC will be the worst place in the world to put a drug addict in as the negative effects would be irreparable. The GPC has also been assured that corporal punishment will be reserved for only serious breaches of discipline, eg, for those who assault other inmates or prison staff. This is not unreasonable. Sir, no rehabilitation programme will be complete until the ex-addict is accepted back to society, accepted again by his family, his friends, and society at large. Central to this, he must be able to gain meaningful employment. As MPs, time and again, we see ex-addicts who have a problem trying to make a meaningful living. The stigma sticks. As many of them have low educational qualifications, one common request is for a taxi licence. The Registrar of Vehicles is reluctant to issue one on the grounds that it is dangerous to have a person driving under the influence of drugs. Yes, we cannot fault that argument. The question is: when is society going to give the ex-addict a chance to prove that he has turned over a new leaf? May I propose to the ROV a scheme to be administered by the experts in the DRCs? Each ex-addict, before he drives a taxi, has his urine tested before and after his shift. If we can start with, say, 100 taxis or any number that is commercially viable, then maybe SCORE (the cooperative for rehabilitation) can be given the task of administering this programme. As technology advances, now with instant urine analysis available, ie, the instant detectors, we should give this scheme a try. The responsibility is now shifted to the rehabilitation experts and I am sure that they will accept the challenge. I hope the Minister will take this up with the Minister for Communications and discuss this further. Sir, lest that I be misunderstood, let me elaborate that SCORE has extensive plans to widen its scope of work into many other areas, besides taxis, of rehabilitation to provide our addicts and ex-addicts to find gainful employment so as to complete the rehabilitation cycle. Finally, Sir, may I close by again appealing to family, friends and the community at large, to give the ex-addict a second chance to lead a normal life. Rehabilitation is a life-long process. They deserve our every support. Sir, I support the Bill.

Sir, I would like to throw in my support for the Bill and I would also wish to convey the support to the Minister of the Malay Anti- Drug Task Force, of which I am Chairman, for this piece of legislation. Sir, notwithstanding our tough anti-drug laws, thousands of traffickers have been arrested between 1977 and the end of last year. But our drug situation would definitely have been worse had it not been for the severe punishments provided by the law. Even so, Sir, we cannot confidently say that we have licked the drug problem in Singapore. Indeed, the worsening drug situation around the world gives us cause for concern. This has been mentioned by the Minister just now. In Colombia, the drug barons have grown powerful enough to wage war against the government. The bountiful harvest in the Golden Triangle creates the potential of more drugs being brought into the market. New and more dangerous drugs are now available. Crack, a derivative of cocaine, has been the number one drug in the United States and poised to take on the world. This drug brings about unprecedented levels of paranoia and violence. All these developments give us cause for concern as we are so open and exposed to the happenings around the world. Firm action against drug offenders, especially traffickers, is therefore not an over-reaction as some liberals would want us to believe. Let me now touch on some of the main provisions of the Bill. Under clause 2, trafficking, manufacturing, importing and exporting of cocaine, opium and cannabis will be offences punishable by death. This, Sir, is a widening of the list of controlled drugs that come under the death penalty. The dangers of cocaine and opium are well-known. But less widely known are the dangers of cannabis or marijuana. Withdrawal from the drug appears to show no clear abstinence syndrome in most people as with other drugs. Some people who consume it can also stop abusing it at will. It is therefore a misleading drug and particularly dangerous because superficially it does not appear to be addictive. However, animal studies have shown that taking a joint or two daily for several years destroy the brain cells. Research has also indicated that taking one to three joints a day could produce lung cancer risks comparable to smoking five times as many cigarettes. But there is more. The National Institute of Drug Abuse in the US has found that marijuana now produced is more potent as the amount of THC or Tetrahydrocannabinols - the major psychoactive ingredient in the drug - averaged 1% in 1970. But today it is as high as 3-3(r)% and in some types of marijuana it can go up to as high as 10-15%. So the drug is not as innocent as it seems to be and its inclusion in the new list is therefore justifiable. But one aspect of the clause, Sir, continues to bother me and that is the presumption clause. Mere possession by anyone of the drugs in this list above the stipulated amounts shall "until the contrary is proved, be presumed to traffic in that controlled drug." My concern is that such presumption may result in the death of people who merely possess such drugs for their own consumption or as a result of the drugs being planted by others on the person. While I can appreciate the difficulty of gathering evidence of trafficking, we cannot rule out the possibility of someone being put to death for a crime he did not commit. I hope the Minister can assure the House and our citizens that such a possibility, remote as it may be, will not happen. Let me now, Sir, touch on clause 5. I support the move to plug the loophole in the existing law whereby a person cannot be given the maximum sentence for a second or subsequent offence unless he is under an existing supervision order. All the supervisee has to do is to wait out a supervision period before continuing his drug habit or to make sure that he does not get caught for his second or subsequent offence while under supervision. In view of the seriousness of recidivism and the growing number of hard-core addicts, the need to bring down their numbers through stiffer penalties is therefore necessary. Indeed, Sir, there are those who advocate that repeat offenders be caned. It indicates the feeling of desperation and anger of the community against the problem of recidivism. Finally, I would like to comment on clause 6 of the Bill. I applaud the spirit and intent of this provision. By giving the Director, CNB, the discretion to place a suspected drug addict under a supervision order instead of committing him to an approved institution is tantamount to offering him a second chance. Sir, being sent to a drug rehabilitation centre is certainly no picnic. But more serious is that ex-inmates suffer a social stigma. This has been mentioned by the Member for Fengshan just now: the social stigma of being in such a centre, a stigma which many employers find it difficult to forget when the former tries to apply for jobs later. By being placed under a supervision order only, the first-time offender is spared the experience of being an inmate of these centres and of being stuck with the stigma that goes with it. For them, the chance to amend their ways, this way is therefore more appropriate than being incarcerated in a rehabilitation centre. In closing, Sir, I hope the Minister can clarify one final point, and that is, the difference between the drug offenders who will be considered for supervision under clause 6 and those who are sent for the Exit Counselling programme because they appear to be the same type of offenders. 5.29 pm

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I support the Bill with reservation. The so-called necessary amendments proposed in the Bill, apart from the urine test amendment, certainly make the Misuse of Drugs Act one of the toughest in the world against drug addicts and drug traffickers. Firstly, any person convicted a second time, as the Minister has already indicated, having smoked or consumed a controlled drug will now be given a prison term of not less than three years, whether or not he was previously under supervision. That appears to me very unfair. This would be especially harsh on an old opium addict who has been taking the drug almost his whole lifetime. Second, inmates in rehabilitation centres may now be given corporal punishment for breaches of discipline when no such punishment has been given before. The Government seems to take a special delight in inflicting bodily harm and pains with the cane against those afflicted, as Dr Beng has said, with medico-social problems, and at a time when most progressive countries are doing away with using the cane on offenders. Indeed, Sir, it would appear that inflicting harsher and harsher punishments on offenders is the one and only approach of the PAP Government in dealing with social problems in Singapore. For example, vagrants could now be sent to prison for three years when the Government should have gone into why some people have become vagrants. Similarly, the cane is used on illegal immigrants when better supervision by the Immigration authorities could have solved most of the problems of illegal immigrants. Thirdly, and now in the Bill before us, the death penalty is to be further extended to cover also traffickers of cocaine, cannabis and cannabis resin of certain quantities. Considering the great harm, Sir, that drug traffickers have done to society, it is easily understandable that such punishment be meted out to them. But how many of those arrested are really the masterminds and kingpins of local or international organised drug syndicates? And how many of these drug kingpins have really been arrested? As is well known, most of those arrested and given the death penalty are in fact mere hirelings and tools who have been tempted with big rewards to do errands for the real culprits who continue to remain free of the law. To me, Sir, the real issue before us should in fact be how best to deal with the drug problem. But Government has taken the easy way out. It seems to believe that the death penalty is a solution to the problem. But is it? Singapore has imposed the death penalty for drug traffickers over the last 12 years. Yet despite the death penalty, now and again we find that more and more drug traffickers have been arrested with more than 15 grammes of heroin on them. Experience, therefore, shows that the death penalty has not proved to be a real deterrent. And certainly it has not solved the drug problem which now and again would surface to become a growing menace to society. Neither has the death penalty been able to solve the problem of small-time pushers called "ant traffickers". Thus, the death penalty as a deterrent clearly does not work. Moreover, there is always the danger of the court making a terrible mistake, as has already been touched on. In the UK, such mistakes have been publicly admitted and the government has to make substantial compensation for wrongful imprisonment of innocent persons. And in Singapore recently, we have also an instance in which the Privy Council in the UK has pronounced that grievous wrongs have been done to a famous lawyer/politician by the courts in Singapore. It is understandable and generally accepted by many people that the death penalty may be given for murders and certain horrible crimes committed, for armed robbery, hijacking, kidnapping, and so on. But if I may also quote from the Encyclopaedia Britannica: "It has not been proved to be a better deterrent or to protect the community better than does life imprisonment." And that is why by the 1970s the death penalty has been eliminated as a statutory punishment in many Western and even South American countries. Moreover, some religions are also opposed in principle to the taking of life in giving retribution. And today the world is moving away from the death penalty towards a more humane method of punishment. Singapore has instituted compulsory treatment and rehabilitation of drug addicts who have been arrested. But what else has the Government done to get to the root of the problem? There is much talk about a global context in supply and demand, about our geographical exposure and vulnerability as published in magazines and articles, about poor family life and so on. But has the Government conducted an official survey to really find out why many people take to drugs? Or what steps the Government may take to improve the social environment and other factors so that the would-be drug addicts may be directed away from the drugs to more healthy channels of development? Sir, drug problems are problems of people who use drugs as a relief or means of escape from reality on the one side, and of those who hope to gain financially by supplying drugs to the drug addicts on the other. We therefore support Government's efforts to deal with the drug suppliers. And we also support the death penalty for real kingpins of organised drug syndicates. But we feel that the Government has not done enough on the drug problem as a whole. We believe that Government should not concentrate so much attention on punishments and deterrents. Imposing the death penalty is no answer to the problem. We feel that it should put more efforts into finding out the root causes which drive people to drugs so that Government may adopt the appropriate measures of prevention instead.

( In Malay): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I wish to support the Misuse of Drugs (Amendment) Bill. When Parliament first passed the Misuse of Drugs Act, the objectives were very clear. It was intended to introduce statutory measures to prevent drug trafficking and provide for mandatory rehabilitation through the detention of addicts in the Drug Rehabilitation Centres or DRCs. The main targets were drug traffickers who peddle death and trade in the suffering and misery of our citizens. Now, as a result of the enforcement of this very effective law and the stiff measures we have taken, we have been able to arrest many big-time traffickers and crushed their drug syndicates. But now, the types of drugs trafficked and the patterns of drug trafficking have changed, as the Minister for Home Affairs has described. Have drugs like heroin, opium, morphine, diamorphine and cannabis stopped coming into the country? The answer clearly is no. Mr Deputy Speaker, just like other criminals, drug traffickers are very resourceful in their attempts to escape and circumvent the law. Among the measures they take is, firstly, in view of the fact that Malaysia imposes the death penalty for cannabis trafficking, Singapore has now become an alternative cannabis market for them. But it is no secret that cannabis is the gateway drug for drug "undergraduates" who later become "graduates" by moving on to more hard drugs like heroin and morphine. Secondly, since the quantity of drugs trafficked would eventually determine the severity of the punishment they would face if caught, they have changed their tactics by appointing or recruiting small-time drug pushers. It is very simple to do. Hold a party. Give away drugs for free and make the party-goers new addicts. Once hooked, they would be prepared to become small-time traffickers to maintain their habit. So it is no surprise that we have today what are known as ant traffickers. Thirdly, aware of the rather large number of former addicts who have returned to their habit, the traffickers and their cronies would form what one could call "goodwill squads". The members of these squads would visit the homes of those just discharged from the DRCs to "renew old ties". The aim is to draw these former immates back into the drug trap. Mr Deputy Speaker, considering that the amendment moved by the Minister for Home Affairs is aimed at addressing this problem by dealing with the question of quantity of drugs trafficked, as in clause 2, by providing for faster urine testing as in clauses 3 and 4, by providing for supervision as in clause 6 and by providing for corporal punishment for serious breaches of discipline by DRC inmates as in clause 9, I support this amendment. It is a measure intended to tighten our anti-drugs law and make it more effective. However, Mr Deputy Speaker, my attention is drawn to clause 9 of the Bill, concerning corporal punishment. Allow me to say something on this. When the drug problem began to spread into the Republic, we decided then that addicts were really people with a psychological problem. So they were treated as medical cases, and the preventive measures taken were also along that line. But when this approach was found ineffective, drug trafficking was deemed to be a social ill and a social problem, and hence a different line was taken. As a result, addicts were no longer brought to court. Only traffickers were deemed to have committed a crime by trafficking in drugs and thus caning was imposed only on them. The effect of such a view was that we employed two different approaches between addicts and traffickers. We use the social or soft approach for addicts and the "hard" approach for traffickers. Since addicts were, supposely, suffering from a social problem, a social ill, we dealt with them by detaining them, counselling them and giving them training, and persuading them to kick their bad habit. Because of our "soft" approach, we have failed to affectively and satisfactorily eradicate, the drug problem. In the Tampines GRC itself, as with a number of other constituencies, the number of drug addicts is very alarming. As at the end of August, for example, there were more than 450 addicts in my constituency, covering those still under rehabilitation, 237, and those under supervision, 240. At the national level the trend is also very alarming and this has been explained by the Members for Siglap and Fengshan.111 Mr Deputy Speaker, I think the time has come for us to review the effectiveness of our approach in tackling the drug addiction problem. I would like to propose that we take a more hard-line approach. Perhaps we need to introduce caning for hard-core or recidivist drug abusers who return to the habit even after being given the chance to turn over a new leaf. The Member for Siglap has voiced the desire of some community leaders in this regard, and I would like to stress here that such desire is well-placed. Those who are caught in the drug trap for the first time might have reasons for being in that position. I also believe we could forgive them, for it is after all their first offence. The second time they are found abusing drug, we could still perhaps consider giving them a final reprieve. But if they do it a third time, I think something drastic has to be done. I would like to propose that they be given the cane. Sir, why do I make this proposal? Firstly, the soft, humanitarian approach has clearly not worked for them. Something harsh has to be done. Secondly, in my meetings with parents and members of the families of drug addicts, it is evident that many of them have simply washed their hands off the problem. They alienated the former addicts from the family circle. They disown them and simply leave it to the authorities to handle the problem. Some are happy when their children are arrested and sent back to the DRC, because that would mean being relieved of a burden. Some would even say, "Do whatever is best. If it is necessary to cane them, cane them." Such a negative attitute is a matter of concern to us and must be dealt with. Thirdly, some might say that caning is only imposed in criminal offences. But we also impose caning on those who commit vandalism on public property. In fact, in today's Bill, caning would be imposed on those detainess who commit serious breaches of discipline, including acts of violence and vandalism on public property in the DRCs. Mr Deputy Speaker, the drug problem and its spread into all levels of society, even among school children, has come to such a critical stage that it is very difficult for us to say it has no potential to lead to social crimes. The view put across by the Non-Constituency Member, that we are gong back to the Dark Ages while other societies are becoming more progressive by not practising such harsh measures to tackle the drug problem, has to be answered with a question: Are the so-called progressive countries more successful than us in tackling this problem? I think the statistics speak for themselves. Sir, let us compare this with what some hardcore addicts have done - some of them have for example drove their own wives to turn to prostitution, threatened their parents with death, the very people who brought them into this would, threatened to kill the wives who love them, threatened to harm the children that they brought into this world. Is this form of tyranny not as terrible, not as severe, as if the law is applied on them? Mr Deputy Speaker, Singapore depends fully on its human resources. The drug addiction problem and the range of issues related to it are a threat to our social endurance and economic viability. Something has to be done and I would like to urge the Hon. Minister for Home Affairs to consider my proposal seriously. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for allowing me to join in the debate. Sir, I support the Bill. The amendments are timely in the sense that the drug situation in the region, particularly drug trafficking and abuse, is becoming worse. We need to take preventive action, particularly because many of our vulnerable young are victims of drug traffickers. If we make a survey of many countries where there are liberal programmes for dealing with drug abuse and drug enforcement, we will realise that many of their programmes have failed. The results are not very positive. The drug abuse situation has in fact worsened in many of these places. I must say that in the Singapore context the drug abuse situation is well under control. Perhaps, we can do better. Sir, the question is, should we let traffickers off? Many drug traffickers live on the miseries of many young people. They break many lives. They destroy their future. Should we condone the actions of drug traffickers? I feel that taking very positive and deterrent measures against drug traffickers will in a way help to reduce demand. In the Singapore context, drug trafficking is directed at creating demand. If we do not attempt to deal with the drug traffickers and take deterrent action against them, I think we would not be able to solve the problem. Therefore, deterrent sentence is essential to deal with the drug abuse problem and drug trafficking in Singapore. Sir, the enforcement programmes that we have launched does help to curb drug abuse. It is also essential to look at how we can strengthen our drug rehabilitation and supervision programmes. I feel that side by side with this approach, if we have a strong programme directed at helping drug addicts in ensuring that they do not relapse, we will be able to do more justice in that area. I see that there is a need to strengthen this aspect of services. I hope that the Ministry will take a more directed action in terms of strengthening the rehabilitation programmes. I would like to ask the Minister what efforts and attempts would be made to strengthen the drug rehabilitation and supervision programmes. Sir, discharged drug addicts need a closer supervision. There is a need to strengthen our supervisory and rehabilitative services so that there lapses can be reduced. In the light that we are taking harsher sentence on second and subsequent offences, I am concerned about the manh younger drug addicts who are undergoing supervision. Care should be exercised so that we do not unnecessarily criminalise the very young. I hope that the Ministry will be able to decide very objectively as to whether the younger drug addicts, particularly those who are below 21 are not unnecessarily criminalised through subsequent sentences. Sir, the other area that I would like to seek clarification is that the provision for corporal punishment in the rehabilitation centres. Corporal punishment is appropriate if we are going to deal with drug addicts who are causing tremendous diswelfare within these outfits. They become destructive and they work against the whole drug rehabilitation efforts. However, the administration of such punishment poses difficulties. It is therefore important that proper guidelines are drawn up for implementing corporal punishment in the various drug rehabilitation centres. I would like to know whether these guidelines will be drawn up by the Ministry so that the officers who are administering corporal punishment will be able at least to administer this judiciously.

( In Malay): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I rise to welcome the measures proposed today, which show how serious the Government is in addressing this problem. I would like at the same time to congratu- late the Ministry, which has been intensifying its efforts. I am sure the people of Singapore feel that these latest efforts including the initiatives of the Ministry's Political Secretary, are sound and positive. Mr Deputy Speaker, I have been told that this year, there are 505 new addicts, which is a reduction of 12% from the figure for the same period last year. However, I note also that there are 2,165 relapse cases. In view of what is happening in Colombia, where addiction has led to trafficking which has in turn led to crime, I feel the measures to be taken are very appropriate. But now I would like to ask the Minister to seriously consider some plans for the next three years, some form of monitoring to ensure that this problem would not deteriorate into something much bigger. Before I go on, I would like to quote the words of Dr Ong Teck Hong, Senior Lecturer in Psychology and a volunteer in SANA. I quote this from Mirror of 1st October 1989, volume 25, No. 19. He said: 'Drug abusers are generally escapists. They are ill-equipped to tackle problems, have a low threshold of frustration and are emotionally and easily anxious. They differ from non-abusers also in plural self-concept and the possession of a greater tendency to seek pleasure and to take risks'. That is the view of a volunteer and a doctor. I now quote the President of SANA, Baey Lian Peck. Baey Lian Peck spoke of how tough it is for the addict to free himself from the shackles of addiction. He said, I quote: 'Once addicted, it is very difficult for an addict to give up drugs, no matter how hard he himself wants to.' Mr Deputy Speaker, in view of these two quotations and in view of the 2,165 relapse cases and in view of the 10-30% addicts who turn traffickers, I would like to appeal, as I have said earlier, that the Ministry monitor the situation for the next three years. If, having put these measures into effect, we do not see the expected results, I appeal that my suggestion be considered seriously. Three years from now, if things get really bad, please take my suggestion. I have often heard people saying we should cane our young people only if they commit a second or subsequent offence. The Minister is a man of law, and I remember once a judge said: "If I do not punish this young man as he deserves, today it might be theft, the next time it will be robbery and eventually he will be facing the gallows." That is why I ask that this idea be considered. I look at the drug problem like a house with a leaking roof. Water leaks into the house and collects on the floor below. We try all sorts of things to clear the water on the floor, but what is most important is the roof, perhaps we ought to change it, from attap roof to zinc, from zinc to tile. Because if we only look at the problem down below, and just get a machine that can clear the water in one minute, but fail to repair the leaking roof, the best of machines will not serve any purpose. With due respect to Dr lee, I am not inhumane. It is not out of capriciousness that I make this suggestion to do something harsh. Really, I make this suggestion with sorrow, with sadness in my heart. And it is simply because I love our kids, our young people, and I sympathise with their parents. If we take what Baey Lian Peck and the doctor, I think it is right that we look into this at its proper perspective. My suggestion is, three years from now, if there is no convincing change in the situation, I propose that the first-time addicts, if found guilty, should be caned and I say this very reluctantly. I think it is better to see the scars on his back than to let the addict turn to trafficking, to be caught, and have the scars on his neck, ie, for him to go to the gallows. If this could be throughly studied, I am confident parents would be more careful, teachers would always try to spread the message in school and the children themselves would always be aware of this aspect, and their awareness, their cautiousness, would be far greater than before. To those who might say that they are not criminals for us to cane them, I think, our Minister is himself a lawyer. He knows well enough, that there are hundreds, even thousands of acts that are now deemed as criminal that a hundred or a hundred and fifty years ago were not. This is because we have jurists who interpret the law according to time and circumstances. We have the tradition of legal men who exercise their minds, people like Dicey, Fitzgerald Lord Denning, Diplock, Scarmen, people who adapt the law changing to circumstances. Why? Because time and the society are ever-changing, and, thus, the desires and expectations of society also change. Society is no longer as simple as it was before. The Society has become more complex. Before, we used to hear only of small-time addicts and traffickers, but now Colombia has shown us the proportions of crime at its worst. So it would be only prudent to take a close look at this. Particularly this decision is not made just by the judges but by the House, by Parliament, by people with thorough knowledge of the problem, who put the interests of the country, especially our children, at the highest level of importance. 6.05 pm

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of the proposed amendments to the Act. I am a bit shocked and surprised to hear the NCMP say that Singapore has the toughest law in the world, that we concentrate on punishment and deterrents and we enjoy inflicting bodily harm on people. But does he not acknowledge that we have been successful in containing our drug problem because we have opted for stiffer penalties? What is his solution for the long standing problem of increasing drug addicts throughout these years? He has not offered any. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, although the enhanced measures appear severe, we cannot deceive ourselves but come to grips with the drug problem and accept the harsh realities. The recent statistics have shown that we are reaching the 1970s' epidemic despite 12 years of fighting the drug war. Are we then not convinced that the drug menace is here to stay and the battle against drug abuse is unending? Is it therefore improper to introduce additional deterrent penalties so that the authorities could tackle more effectively the various aspects of the problem? Sir, I welcome the move to impose mandatory death penalty for cocaine, opium and the cannabis drug traffickers. It is indeed a move in the right direction since its significance lies in the fact that it will make it less attractive for international drug syndicates to use Singapore because of our strategic location as a transit centre for drug trafficking. On the amendment to put first-time drug abusers who are experimenters on supervision, I consider this in line with our sincere and serious efforts in wanting to rehabilitate first-time offenders, in that we recognise that drug victims are sick persons and not criminals. What they require is plenty of guidance and counselling over a reasonable period of time to enable them to progressively kick the habit. Finally, Sir, with regard to corporal punishment for serious indiscipline in the DRCs by hard-core repeaters, I am all for it because it would be a mockery if inmates who indulge in extreme indiscipline get away with light penalties. After all, the objective of any penal institution is to inculcate a strong sense of discipline for its inmates so that when they are released they could become better citizens. On this note, Sir, I once again support the Bill.

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for giving me this opportunity to join in the debate. Firstly, I welcome this amendment simply because it reflects the Minister's foresight in anticipating the arrival of the potential drug, cocaine, from the west to the east and the relevant amendments to the sections of the Act will be able to plug the various loopholes in the area of enforcement and rehabilitation. But, Sir, the problem of drugs does not solely rest on these two aspects of enforcement and rehabilitation. It also includes, amongst other things, supervision, counselling and education. I must admit that because of our stringent laws our enforcement agencies have worked very hard to contain the drug problem here. But even in spite of this, we have figures to show that the number of drug addicts is on the increase. And what is more disturbing to me and to my other Malay MPs is that a preponderance of these drug addicts are Malays. I just like to focus on one area and that is the revelation from the report that more than 90% of the drug addicts are pre-school leavers. I am just wondering whether this problem has been properly addressed. In other words, when a student drops out from school, has there been any follow-up action by either the Ministry of Education or by other relevant authorities? Because if the number of pre-school leavers is there, it is only natural that they will slowly drift into this area. They have a lot of time. They have a lot of energy. They will gravitate to their own peers. Unfortunately, if they mix with the wrong company, they will graduate, as Encik Yatiman says, from drug addicts to drug pushers. May I just make this simple plea that the Ministry of Home Affairs work together with the Ministry of Education and, that is, is it possible for the Ministry of Education to identify who these pre-school leavers are? They should get their addresses and inform the Ministry of Home Affairs so that the relevant agencies can work together with the Ministry of Community Development. Between them, they can send their social workers to work on these pre-school leavers so that they will not gravitate into anti-social behaviour. The details and the mechanics can be worked out later. This is a group of students or pupils who are potential dangers and if there is nothing meaningful to nip the problem in the bud they will unconsciously or consciously drift into this menace. Perhaps this is an area that could be looked into. In other words, we have to mount a positive intervention in this crucial area to prevent the increase of pre-school leavers drifting to drug addicts. Secondly, Sir, the Minister has just returned from Malaysia on his goodwill visit and it was reported that he had discussions with the Malaysian Deputy Minister for Home Affairs on the question of forfeiture of assets of those involved in drug transactions. I am just wondering what is the outcome of his visit in terms of discussion in this area. Is he contemplating to incorporate this feature into this amendment, if not now, but later on? Perhaps he can enlighten us on this matter.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I thank Members who have contributed to the debate. Before I touch on some of the individual points that have been raised, I may make the general comment that the views which have been expressed show that there is no single way to solve the drug problem and those who have been following events in other countries know that in other countries they are also having a big debate. In the west, in some of the countries the drug menace has reached almost epidemic proportions that they have practically thrown in the towel. They are talking of legalising the drugs. We have opted for a different approach. We cannot let drugs take on an epidemic proportion in Singapore. We have a drug problem. Our priority is to contain it and control it as best as we can which is not easy because, as I said, the world-wide supply and trafficking of drugs is on the increase. There is a lot of money to be made and they are powerful, as you can see from what is happening in Latin America. So just to stay on top of the situation itself and keep it in check is a major exercise. Even with the number of speakers who have spoken, we can see that there are diverse approaches. Dr Lee Siew-Choh frowns upon corporal punishment, which is not for all drug addicts. Corporal punishment in this Bill is only for addicts who commit serious breaches of discipline in the DRCs. Whereas on the other side of the coin, we have had Encik Yatiman Yusof and Encik Sidek Saniff urging the House to go beyond what is in the Bill, and to consider imposition of caning on drug addicts as a whole. Let me now touch on the individual points that have been raised. Dr Arthur Beng supported the Bill. His main point was a plea for greater understanding of the problems of discharged drug addicts inmates, in their desire to fit into society and to obtain employment. I fully share his concern. In fact, CNB, the Superitentent of the DRCs and the Ministry of Home Affairs' common position is that to facilitate rehabilitation and to prevent drug addicts from relapsing, it is essential that they obtain employment as early as possible. So any move that would increase their chances of getting employment is to be welcomed. And just to demonstrate this, the Ministry of Home Affairs, together with SCORE, has worked towards the establishment of a new cooperative under the auspices of SCORE, which is to cater for employment of newly discharged inmates and prisoners who may have initial difficulties in getting employment. This is part of the process. But Dr Arthur Beng is right that the community as a whole must have this approach. Because if they are stigmatised and barred from all jobs even if they have kicked the habit, then you are going to have a vicious cycle where they will never be employed and chances are that they will relapse, and we have the problem going round in cycles. Therefore, with regard to his specifc point about taxi licences and so on, I assure him that I will discuss this with my colleague, the Minister for Communications, and see whether this additional idea can be followed up either indepedently or as part of what the new cooperative plans to do. Mr Abdullah Tarmgui has raised two points. His concern was over the presumption clause and he said that a person could be wrongly convicted because the amount of drugs that he has may be for his personal consumption. This is most unlikely to be the case because the quantum that you find specified in the Schedule which would lead to the death penalty, is worked out with the Department of Scientific Services of the Ministry of Health so that the amount which is specified, let us take heroin, is based on thousand doses. If you take heroin, one dose for daily consumption, I am told, is 0.015 grammes. The amount stipulated is 15 grammes. That is a dosage of a thousand times. By no stretch of the imagination or logic can a person claim that that amount is for his personal consumption. As for safeguards, I can assure him, first of all, that the amended presumption provision is an improvement over the previous presumption clause. Because section 17, as it stands, has two presumptions as it were worked into it. It says: 'Any person who is proved or presumed to have had in his possesion .... shall, until the contrary is proved, be presumed to have had that controlled drug .... for the purpose of trafficking'. We have in this approach moved away from that so that it must be proved that he had it in his possession, and then only a rebuttable presumption arises. Secondly, Mr Tarmugi also asked how would we differentiate between the drug addicts who would be put on compulsory supervision and those drug addicts who may be subjected to earlier release under the exit counselling programme. This must depend on an assessment by the Central Narcotics Bureau together with the other authorities in the same way that an assessment has to be made as to whether a drug addict is amenable to be put on the exit counselling scheme. Various circumstances of course have to be taken into account - the circumstances in which he was found to be consuming drugs, whether it was the first time, the amount that he had consumed, the place where it was found, the company, and the whole set of circumstances. A determination has to be made whether he will be benefiting from compulsory supervision. And this determination will have to be made just as similar decisions will be made on the exit counselling progrmame. Dr Lee Siew-Choh was most unhappy with the death penalty. He supports it, I think, for what he called the kingpins. Of course, one can argue that the death penalty should be only for the kingpins. But does it mean that if we do not have the death penalty for others that the level of trafficking would be what it is today? I have no doubt at all, and our enforcement authorities have no doubt, that if we did not have the death penalty, the level of trafficking in Singapore would be manifold times what it is today; in fact, it will reach epidemic proportions. In other words, whoever it is, whether the kingpin or a courier, he knows when he takes a risk what is the consequence if he is caught. Dr Lee Siew-Choh says that death penalty, in his view, should be reserved for murderers. That is a point of view which some may have. I respect that point of view but I disagree. Because in my view and the view that the Government has taken over the years is that the drug trafficker really should be considered worse than a murderer who kills an individual person for the reasons that were spelt out by Dr Vasoo. A murderer kills one person. It is very unlikely he is going to repeat. He deliberately does it for crimes of passion or in the course of robbery and so on. But a drug trafficker has an insidious, pernicious effect on society, on the individual. He is rendered useless to himself, to his family, and to society. And every Singaporean who becomes a drug addict, his potential contribution to himself, family and society is robbed. In that sense, the drug trafficker deserves even less mercy than what I would call an ordinary murderer. I do not want to dwell too long on Dr Lee Siew-Choh's point because in the Comittee of Supply and other occasions, we have spelt out that it is not true that the sole thrust of the Government's drug enforcement and rehabilitation programme rests with the death penalty. The Government's efforts rest on a whole panoply of policies which are designed on the one hand to reduce supply and on the other hand to reduce demand. So we have the death penalty, we have prosecution in a court of law, where we cannot prosecute we detain them under the Criminal Law detention, we have the DRCs, we deny passports to known traffickers and hard-core addicts, and to foreigners who are trafficking we deny them entry into Singapore, just to name a few. And on the addict side, detention, compulsory treatment, counselling, after-care, educational programmes in schools and so on. So it is a wide range of policies. And the fact is that they work. When we have visiting delegations from other countries who expressed the wish that they had similar programmes in those countries. But alas, they pointed out that it was too late for them. On corporal punishment, it is not as Dr Lee Siew-Choh points out that they are patients who will be caned. As I pointed out, the persons who will be subjected to corporal punishment are those who commit serious breaches of discipline. If I may go on to the points raised by Encik Sidek Saniff and Encik Yatiman. Both of them made a common point, ie, that the Government should consider caning for drug addicts. In other words, I take it that their point is that this Bill does not go far enough. Encik Sidek Saniff's variation of Encik Yatiman's point is that we should consider this in three years' time. Perhaps we ought not to be so pessimistic that this law will not have its effect. Like all laws, we always continuously review it. I am not sure whether the proposal to cane drug addicts per se is necessary at all. I take note of their point that this, in their view, is not going as far as it should. But I will suggest that we approve these measures now. Corporal punishment is for a very limited category. And down the road in later years if indeed there has to be a review of all these measures, let us review them. But perhaps for the time being, I would urge colleagues to give support to these measures as spelt out in this Bill. Dr Vasoo urged that there be a strong rehabilitation programme. The details of our rehabilitation programme have been spelt out in this House before. All I want to say is that the Government can do its part, the DRCs, and so on. But rehabilitation of drug addicts cannot be a job to be done only by the Government. The community must play its role and the family of the drug addict must play their role. Because all of our studies have shown that where the family neglects or ostracises the addict, that addict is bound to come back to the DRC. So I take note of his point that we pay attention to rehabilitation. But for rehabilitation efforts by the Government to work, there must be support from the community and the family. Community must help by more volunteers and counsellors coming forth. What are the safeguards for corporal punishment? First of all, the safeguards are that in fact they will be confined to a narrow category of what I call "major breaches of discipline" and this will be spelt out in the regulations. This will consist of, for example, bringing drugs into the DRC. The drug addict is incarcerated in the DRC so that he will not have a supply of drugs and it is absurd if drugs are supplied; we must consider it to be a major case of indiscipline. Aggravated or repeated assault on other inmates or on DRC staff, that is a major indiscipline. If we cannot control it, the whole system of rehabilitation will break down. Wilfully vandalising DRC property is another serious offence. So it will be confined to very serious offences of that nature. Secondly, the procedures, the guidelines, will be spelt out. There must be an inquiry. He must have a chance to be heard before the final decision is taken. The other safeguards like persons over 50 years cannot be caned, females cannot be caned, the presence of a doctor, all these well-established safeguards, I can assure the Member, will be in the Bill. Finally, Encik Wan Hussin asked about the programmes for the pre-school leavers. I take it that he means drop-outs.

Mr Deputy Speaker, I meant the pre-mature school drop-outs, not pre-school leavers.

Of course, I do not think we want to send out questionnaires and interviewers to every home of a drop-out. Because although a large percentage of drug addicts may be drop-outs, it does not follow that all school drop-outs are drug addicts. Let me say that the profile of the drug addict and the profile of the drug addict population are carefully examined by the authorities in designing the strategy, both in terms of rehabilitation and also as to which should be the target groups to pay attention and priority. So Encik Wan Hussin's point will be borne in mind here. He asked about assets seizure law. The discussion we had in Kuala Lumpur was really more an exchange of views and to find out how they have in fact implemented their assets seizure law. As for what we are doing in Singapore, this is one of the legislative ideas that are being explored, but asset seizure law is quite a complicated piece of legislation. My Ministry will have to discuss with other Ministries, particularly the Ministry of Finance, which has got an interest in regard to the protection of banking secrecy and other such laws, so that the views of all Government agencies will be taken into account before any decision is taken on whether to proceed with such a law. In this regard, we must examine how other countries have enacted such laws, what safeguards they have, and what problems they have experienced in the practical implementation of such laws. I think I have answered most of the questions, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir.

Question put, and agreed to. Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House. The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. - [Prof. Jayakumar]. Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed.

Order for Third Reading read. 6.35 pm

Notice has been given by the Minister for Finance of amendments in respect of clauses 6 and 17 as set out in the Order Paper Supplement. The Bill accordingly stands recommitted to a Committee of the whole House in respect of those clauses. Bill considered in Committee.

Clause 6 -

There are corrections to be made. (1) In page, 5 line 33, to leave out the dash. (2) In page 5, line 33, to insert in the margin "Amendment of section 50.". (3) In page 5, line 34, to leave out "(a)". These corrections will be made. Clause 6 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 17 -

Sir, I beg to move. In page 22, line 19, after "deemed", to insert "to control". Clause 17 of the Companies (Amendment) Bill 1989, was redrafted substantially in Select Committee. Because of incorporating the various amendments, the words "to control" were inadvertently omitted. The purpose of the amendment is to rectify this omission. Amendment agreed to.

Sir, I beg to move, In page 22, to leave out lines 37 and 38 and insert "(4) For the purposes of subsections (2) and (3) - ". The purpose of this amendment is to rectify clerical errors in the clause. Amendment agreed to. Clause 17, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. Bill reported with amendments.

Third Reading, what day?

Now, Sir. I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Third time." Sir, the Companies (Amendment) Bill 1989 was referred by the House to a Select Committee for consideration. The Select Committee received 12 written representations. The Committee heard oral evidence from 26 persons in respect of 10 of the written representations over a period of seven meetings. The representations were generally well-argued and useful and many of the suggestions made have been accepted by the Select Committee. I wish to record my appreciation to the various persons and organisations who gave their views on the Bill. The Report of the Select Committee was presented to this House on the 27th October 1989, as Paper Parl. 4 of 1989. The Bill as set out at Appendix I of the Report incorporates the amendments made by the Select Committee. Many of the amendments are of a drafting nature. They serve to improve the language, remove ambiguities or provide greater certainty in certain provisions of the Bill. These do not need elaboration. Allow me, however, to elaborate on the more substantive amendments. As Members are aware, a major part of the Bill is devoted to liberalising the prospectus requirements of the Act so as to facilitate the development and advancement of our bond and equity markets, both on the domestic and international levels, the underlying objective being to further Singapore's growth as a financial centre. Representors offered constructive thoughts on how the proposed amendments could be improved. Accordingly, proposed section 106B(1)(f) has been amended to exempt from the prospectus requirement not only shares issued under an employee share investment scheme but also shares issued under an employee share option scheme. Proposed section 106B(2)(a) has been amended to extend the Ministerial powers of exemption to secondary as well as primary offers of shares or debentures under the specific circumstances prescribed therein. A new subsection (4) has been added to proposed section 106D to limit to once in every 12-month period the frequency at which an offeror can make an offer of shares or debentures to "sophisticated" investors. This is to prevent offerors from making repetitive use of the exemption provisions under the proposed section 106D in order to overcome the limit of 50 persons to whom such an offer could be made. Proposed section 106E(2) has been simplified to take into account the fact that as shares or debentures acquired under sections 106C or 106D may have been acquired in the secondary market, it is not practicable or useful to expect the original issuer of the securities to keep track of the particulars of their proposed disposal under section 106E. Proposed sections 106F(2), (3), (4) and (5) have been deleted. The Select Committee was of the view that the disclosure requirements prescribed in the proposed Statement of Material Facts would be adequate for the purposes of investor protection, and that the additional protection accorded by a 3-day "cooling off" period was unnecessary as the shares or debentures being offered would be uniform in all respects with those already listed on the stock exchange. Clause 6 of the Bill, which provides for additional grounds for the Registrar to refuse registration of a prospectus, has also been amended by deleting proposed subsections 50(2) (e) to (h). The general consensus was that these subsections could place the Registrar in a difficult position. Subsection (i), which has now been renumbered as subsection (e) and which imposes a duty on the Registrar to refuse registration of a prospectus on grounds of public interest, would suffice. This is because the Registrar would, in deciding to invoke subsection (e), pay due regard to matters earlier prescribed in subsections (e) to (h). Some representors also felt that the Registrar should be accorded protection against suits for actions taken in good faith under section 50. Such protection has been provided under the proposed subsection 50(2C). I shall now touch on the amendments to clauses 20, 21 and 22, all of which are concerned with providing more effective means to prevent and detect fraud in companies. For consistency, clause 20 has been amended to place a duty not only on public companies but also on their subsidiaries to maintain a system of internal accounting controls to ensure that assets are safeguarded and transactions are properly authorised and recorded. Audit Committees. Old subsection (3) of the proposed section 201B, which stipulated a term of 3 years for the appointment of audit committee members, has been deleted. The broad consensus that emerged was that a statutory term of appointment for audit committee members, could conflict with their terms of appointment as company directors which are governed by the Memorandum and Articles of Association of the company in accordance with the wishes of the shareholders. For audit committees to be an effective check against financial mismanagement and manipulation by management, audit committee members must take their responsibilities seriously. For this reason, and also to enable shareholders to receive a report on the work of the audit committee, subsection (9) originally required the audit committee to furnish a certificate to the auditor stating that the audit committee had discharged all its functions under subsection (5) conscientiously and to the best of its ability. Many representors, however, felt that the requirement to furnish a certificate was superfluous as directors appointed to audit committees could be expected to be responsible and competent persons who would discharge their duties earnestly. The Select Committee has therefore decided to delete the requirement for the audit committee to furnish a certificate. Instead, new subsection (9) will now require directors to describe in their report to shareholders the nature and extent of the functions performed by the audit committee pursuant to subsection (5). The Committee deliberated at some length on the potential interpretational difficulties in distinguishing executive directors from non-executive directors for the purposes of complying with the requirement that the majority of audit committee members must be non-executive directors. Arising from this, it was thought that the problem could be best resolved by amending subsection 10 to provide a definition of non-executive director, with the definition of executive director following accordingly. Finally, clause 22. This clause amends section 207 of the Act by imposing a statutory duty on the auditor to report to the Minister cases of actual or suspected fraud uncovered in the course of his duties as auditor. There was broad agreement, however, that since the object of the amendment is to bring to light serious frauds that have been or are being perpetrated against the company, the duty on auditors to report the matter should be confined to only the more serious offences. Otherwise, auditors would be unduly burdened with the obligation to report even minor offences, such as defalcations of petty amounts. Accordingly, an amendment has now been made to confine the reporting obligation to only those offences that are punishable by imprisonment for a term not less than two years, and where the value of the property obtained or likely to be obtained is not less than $20,000. Similarly, since the object of this amendment is primarily to protect public shareholders and debenture holders against management frauds, the mandatory repor- ting requirement has been confined to public companies and their subsidiaries. Sir, I beg to move.

Question put, and agreed to. Bill accordingly read a Third time and passed.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, we have had a very long day and I think we should also take a bit of time before we convene the next sitting. Resolved, "That Parliament do now adjourn to a date to be fixed." -[Mr Wong Kan Seng]. Adjourned accordingly at Ten Minutes to Seven o'clock pm to a date to be fixed.