Hansard, 1992-05-29

Under the provisions of clause 2(d) of Article 46 of the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore, the following Members have been granted permission to be or to remain absent from sittings of Parliament (or any Committee of Parliament to which they have been appointed) for the periods stated:- Mr Charles Chong - from 27th to 29th March and from 10th to 12th April, 1992. BG George Yong-Boon Yeo - from 29th March to 9th April, from 23rd April to 1st May and from 30th May to 3rd June, 1992. Mr R. Sinnakaruppan - from 30th March to 10th April, 1992. Mr Peh Chin Hua - from 2nd to 11th April, from 1st to 14th June and from 23rd June to 8th July, 1992. Dr Hu Tsu Tau, Richard - from 3rd to 11th April and from 24th April to 6th May, 1992. Mrs Yu-Foo Yee Shoon - from 3rd to 17th April and from 12th to 15th June, 1992. Mr Peter Sung - from 3rd to 12th April, from 6th to 10th May, from 12th to 16th May, from 24th to 30th May, from 31st May to 4th June and from 7th to 11th June, 1992. Dr Ong Chit Chung - on 4th April and from 11th to 21st May, 1992. Dr Koh Lip Lin - from 6th to 18th April and from 2nd to 12th May, 1992. Mr Chay Wai Chuen - from 7th to 9th April, 1992. Dr Wong Kwei Cheong - from 9th to 18th April, from 14th to 21st May, from 28th to 30th May and from 5th to 6th June, 1992. Mr Choo Wee Khiang - from 9th to 14th April, 1992. Mr Teo Chong Tee - from 9th to 14th April, 1992. Dr Aline K. Wong - from 10th to 18th April and from 16th to 31st May, 1992. Mr Lim Chee Onn - from 15th to 17th April, from 7th to 9th May and from 17th to 24th May, 1992. Dr Tony Tan Keng Yam - from 16th to 21st April and from 1st to 11th June, 1992. Mr S. Chandra Das - from 17th to 19th April, from 1st to 3rd May, from 8th to 10th May and from 13th to 28th June, 1992. Mr Koo Tsai Kee - from 18th April to 5th May, 1992. Mr Mah Bow Tan - from 19th to 25th April, 1992. Mr Lew Syn Pau - from 20th to 23rd April, from 12th to 13th May and from 16th to 17th May, 1992. Mr Tan Soo Khoon - from 21st to 28th April, from 11th to 22nd May, from 3rd to 4th June, from 8th to 12th June and from 16th to 24th June, 1992. Mr Bernard Chen - from 21st April to 8th May and from 1st to 7th June, 1992. Mr Zulkifli bin Mohammed - from 22nd April to 4th May, 1992. Mr Heng Chiang Meng - from 22nd to 26th April, 1992. Dr Tan Cheng Bock - from 22nd to 26th April, 1992. Mr Loh Meng See - from 23rd April to 12th May, 1992. Mr Lim Hng Kiang - from 23rd to 27th April, 1992. Dr Ahmad Mattar - from 26th to 30th April and from 13th to 17th May, 1992. Dr Lee Boon Yang - from 27th to 29th April and from 2nd to 21st June, 1992. Mr K. Shanmugam - from 2nd to 9th May, 1992. Mr Kenneth Chen Koon Lap - from 3rd to 5th May and from 1st to 17th June, 1992. Mr Davinder Singh - from 4th to 6th May and on 27th May, 1992. BG Lee Hsien Loong - from 7th to 14th May, 1992. Dr John Chen Seow Phun - from 9th to 23rd May, 1992. Mr Ong Teng Cheong - from 10th to 23rd May and from 4th to 8th June, 1992. Mr Goh Choon Kang - from 11th to 21st May, 1992. Dr Wan Soon Bee - from 11th to 13th May, 1992. Mr Wong Kan Seng - from 12th to 15th May and from 4th to 8th June, 1992. Mr Yeo Cheow Tong - from 14th to 23rd May, 1992. Mr Chin Harn Tong - from 16th to 21st May, 1992. Mr Goh Chee Wee - from 19th to 23rd May, 1992. Dr Tay Eng Soon - from 28th May to 20th June, 1992. Mr Ho Kah Leong - from 1st to 18th June, 1992. Dr Yeo Ning Hong - from 1st to 13th June, 1992. Mr Low Thia Khiang - from 6th to 16th June, 1992. Mr Leong Horn Kee - from 9th to 16th June, 1992. Mr Ch'ng Jit Koon - from 12th to 14th and from 17th to 29th June, 1992. Encik Othman bin Haron Eusofe - from 13th to 22nd June, 1992. Encik Harun bin A. Ghani - from 15th to 27th June, 1992. Encik Mohamad Maidin B P M - from 15th to 28th June, 1992. TAN SOO KHOON Speaker Parliament of Singapore

The following Bills were assented to by the President of the Republic of Singapore on the dates stated: 23rd March, 1992 (i) Customs (Amendment) Bill 1992. 30th March, 1992 (i) Supply Bill 1992; (ii) Supplementary Supply Bill 1992; (iii) Nanyang Polytechnic Bill 1992; (iv) Telecommunication Authority of Singapore Bill 1992; (v) Criminal Procedure Code (Amendment) Bill 1992; (vi) National Council of Social Service Bill 1992; (vii) Rubber Industry Bill 1992; (viii) Trade Development Board (Amendment) Bill 1992; (ix) Commodity Futures Bill 1992; (x) Town Councils (Amendment) Bill 1992; and (xi) Housing and Development (Amendment) Bill 1992 TAN SOO KHOON Speaker Parliament of Singapore

For the record, the President has concurred with the following Resolution passed by Parliament on 19th March, 1992: "That Parliament, in accordance with section 11(1) of the Government Securities Act, 1992, resolves that the Minister for Finance be authorised to borrow by the issue of Government Securities in Singapore a sum not exceeding $100,000 million."

asked the Minister for National Development whether the scheme to encourage more low income families to become homeowners has been finalised.

Sir, I am answering on behalf of the Minister for National Development. The Ministry of National Development and the Housing and Development Board are currently reviewing existing financial assistance schemes, such as the Low Income Family Incentive Scheme, to enable more low income families to own HDB flats. The review is nearing completion. Details will be announced in the second half of this year.

asked the Minister for Home Affairs whether his Ministry is looking into the phenomenon of "road bullies" and what is being done or planned to stamp out this menace.

Mr Speaker, Sir, my Ministry and the Police have indeed looked into this problem. In June 1990, I announced that the Police intended to be firm against people who take the law into their own hands and resort to violence, whether on the roads, in shopping centres or elsewhere. In fact, it is in pursuance of that policy that the Police decided to prosecute the more serious cases of road bullies, instead of the victims having to take out private summonses. The cases which have come up in the courts recently and which have received extensive publicity are the result of such Police action. The action taken against road bullies and the extensive publicity has encouraged more members of the public to come forward to report such cases. Correspondingly, more offenders are now being prosecuted. In 1991, 35 persons were charged which is almost double the figure for 1989. Depending on the facts of the case, offenders can be charged for different offences under the law. The penalties provided by law range from a maximum fine of $1,000 and imprisonment not exceeding one year for voluntarily causing hurt and a maximum fine of $10,000 and imprisonment not exceeding seven years for the offence of causing grievous hurt. These maximum penalties give sufficient leeway to the courts to impose deterrent sentences. Indeed, in quite a number of cases, the courts have meted out custodial sentences. The Police will continue their enforcement policy and they will press for deterrent sentences in all such cases. Where they consider the sentence given by the court to be inadequate, they will approach the Attorney-General's Chambers to appeal against the decision. My Ministry and the Police will monitor the trend of such cases to assess if any further measures or other penalties need to be introduced.

Sir, is the Ministry considering harsher measures to prevent such behaviour, because there have been calls from the public to have more severe penalties to stop such behaviour?

I am glad to know that the public is concerned about this because that was one of the objectives of the Police in prosecuting and publicising these cases. As I mentioned in the closing part of my answer, we will indeed consider further measures if the trend of cases warrants it. For example, I am prepared to consider proposing an amendment to the law where the offending driver, for instance, could be disqualified from having his driving licence. That is one of the possible penalties.

asked the Minister for Law what is the outcome of the review of the role which para-legal professionals can play in conveyancing.

Sir, the Member will recall that when this matter was raised in this House last year, I said that I will examine the feasibility of following the practice in the United Kingdom of allowing non-lawyers to do certain kinds of conveyancing. I stated then that the primary consideration must be public interest, in particular those members of the public who will be the clients of such a new category of professionals. Both the previous Attorney-General and the new Attorney-General have given me their views. Both of them have advised that, while it is possible to follow the British practice of allowing non-lawyers to do conveyancing work, there are some important implications which must be carefully considered. The most serious implication is that it will require the Government to set up an entirely new system of education and training and to provide the infrastructure to allow non-lawyers to engage in conveyancing work. Indeed, new provisions will have to be enacted by Parliament for the creation of an entirely new and separate profession which, in effect, would call for the duplication of the same type of machinery and combined resources that now exist in the Law Faculty, Board of Legal Education, the Law Society and the Academy of Law. This is exactly what has happened in England with their system of licensed conveyancers. They have had to establish a separate Council for Licensed Conveyancers to ensure standards of competence and professional conduct. The Council is also responsible for the registration of students and for their practical training and examinations. They have to establish the machinery for disciplining those who are guilty of misconduct. They also had to set up a Conveyancing Ombudsman Scheme to investigate complaints against licensed conveyancers. Given our scarce resources in Singapore, the question that arises for us is whether it is in the public's interest to expend the money and resources to set up an entirely new and parallel system for the establishment of such a new profession. As it is, for the training of our new Advocates and Solicitors, considerable difficulties are encountered in providing for the practical post-graduate law course for law graduates every year. Many of the lecturers are practising lawyers who have volunteered to teach in this Course. If the need arises, we will consider the possibility of allowing some types of conveyancing to be handled by non- lawyers. However, because of the difficulties I have mentioned, we intend to proceed rather cautiously in this area.

Sir, may I ask the Minister whether he will consider abolishing the schedule of fees connected to conveyancing and let the free market principle prevail in the charges of conveyancing by lawyers?

Mr Speaker, Sir, that is a suggestion which I think may be more workable and I am prepared to consider whether the solicitors' scale fees for conveyancing should be re-examined with a view to either modification or whether it should be retained in today's circumstances. Members will recall that when we made the amendments to the Surveyors Act, we did away with the scale fees for surveyors on the grounds that we should leave it to market forces. We should examine whether it is not time for us to have a serious look at the solicitors' scale fees.

asked the Minister for Labour whether he will waive the requirement for permanent residents to obtain work permits since the criteria for granting permanent residence will have included an applicant's economic contribution, including his contribution as a worker.

Mr Speaker, Sir, my Ministry has reviewed its policy which requires Singapore permanent residents who earn not more than $1,500 per month to obtain work permits. I have decided that Singapore permanent residents will not have to apply for work permits even if they earn not more than $1,500 per month. My Ministry has simplified the employment procedures because it is in our interest to ensure that these Singapore permanent residents are economically active. The revision is also consistent with the practice of the Ministry of Home Affairs which does not require Singapore permanent residents who earn more than $1,500 per month to apply for employment passes. Furthermore, it will reduce inconvenience for employers and Singapore permanent residents.

asked the Minister for Labour (a) what is the current success rate of applications made by Singaporeans to marry work permit holders and (b) whether he will consider reviewing the rules to enable applicants to marry work permit holders, who have family members who are Singapore citizens or who have upgraded their education or skills, to be more favourably considered.

Mr Speaker, Sir, in the past two years, the success rate of applications made by Singaporeans to marry work permit holders has been about 70%. As for the rules governing the approval of marriage applications, I am pleased to inform the Member that we do take into consideration the work permit holder's family roots here and whether he has upgraded his education or skills. Members may be interested to know that, since 1989, my Ministry has adjusted the marriage criteria to be consistent with the relaxation in the immigration policy for Hong Kong residents. So long as Singaporeans who wish to marry foreign spouses meet the same criteria, we will approve them on the same basis as the Hong Kong immigrants.

Sir, I would like to ask whether the Minister is willing to publish those marriage criteria whereby Singaporeans can marry foreigners or foreigners marrying Singaporeans.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I have said in my answer that we will be prepared to consider and approve applications from all Singaporeans who meet the same criteria for Hong Kong residents. The criteria for Hong Kong residents have been announced previously, ie, people with 5 'O' levels or equivalent trade qualifications or certificates or people with an income of $1,500 per month for the past five years. These are some of the basic criteria. But for the vast majority of work permit holders in Singapore, a large number of them are unskilled workers and they may not be able to meet these criteria. Then their applications are considered on other basis, ie, whether they have made the effort to upgrade their skills by attending skills training and taking a trade test which will demonstrate that they are able to look after themselves and that they can contribute economically to Singapore after they have been allowed to settle down here.

Further supplementary question, Sir. In view of the fact that the Minister has just said that he is willing to review the criteria in respect of permanent residents in Singapore, would he also be willing to review the criteria in relation to permanent residents who are marrying foreign spouses or permanent residents marrying Singaporeans?

Mr Speaker, Sir, I do not quite understand Mr Chiam's question. If he is asking a question on the review of the criteria for permanent residents, may I suggest that he take it up with the Minister for Home Affairs.

The following Question stood in the name of Dr Tan Cheng Bock - 6. To ask the Minister for Labour whether he will consider allowing foreigners, who had registered to work in Singapore but who, for some reason, have not taken up employment here, to marry Singaporeans.

Sir, Question No. 6.

Mr Speaker, Sir, my Ministry has reviewed its policy to apply the Marriage Restriction Policy to work permit applicants who had applied but cancelled their applications or did not work after approval was given. I would like to inform the Member that the policy has been changed since December 1991. Since then, my Ministry has not objected to marriage applications between those non-citizens and Singaporeans.

asked the Minister for the Environment whether there are any plans to privatise cooked food centres following the successful privatisation of the cooked food centre at the former Telok Ayer Market.

Mr Speaker, Sir, as a policy, the Government's long-term plan is to devolve itself from the management of markets and food centres. The details on how this could be done are being looked into. However, Sir, I would like to draw a distinction between the privatisation plan for markets and food centres in general and that of the Telok Ayer Market. The Telok Ayer Market, Sir, is a national monument, and to put the building to better and more creative use, it was tendered out as a food and entertainment complex with a festival market ambience. Its success will bring some night-life back to the city.

Sir, may I ask the Minister when does he think the plan to privatise some of the markets will come into being, especially in relation to the Newton Cooked Food Centre.

When we are ready, we will announce the plan.

Sir, has the Telok Ayer Festival Market succeeded in bringing back night-life to the city centre? Regarding the complaints about the Telok Ayer Festival Market being warm and stuffy during the day, is there anything being done to improve the ventilation there?

Mr Speaker, Sir, the opening of the Telok Ayer Festival Market has certainly brought some night-life to that part of the city. With regard to the problem of heat and stuffiness, the matter is being looked into by the company that now operates the Market.

asked the Minister for Law why tenants at the UDMC controlled premises at Naval Base, Sembawang are being evicted.

A number of Government properties managed by Urban Development and Management Company Pte Ltd (UDMC) in the vicinity of Admiralty Road/Auckland Road/Falkland Road are required by MINDEF to house the staff of the US Logistics element who will be transferred from the Philippines to Singapore. These properties were formerly used by the New Zealand Defence Force personnel. They were rented out on short-term leases or month-to-month tenancy, pending new plans for the area. The majority of the premises were rented out to foreigners. Out of 104 units affected, only 21 of them were occupied by Singaporeans on month-to-month terms. They were fully aware that their stay was only temporary until such time when the buildings were needed again by Government. While only one month's notice was required, UDMC in fact gave these tenants 2 1/2 months to 4 1/2 months' notice, in order to give them ample time to look for alternative accommodation.

Sir, these UDMC premises that will now be let out to foreign army personnel, are the rentals charged to these foreigners higher or lower than those charged to the local tenants?

Mr Speaker, Sir, I do not have the details but I believe that there is no distinction between the rentals paid by the different occupants of these premises.

Then, Sir, why are priorities given to foreigners ahead of Singaporeans? They can easily get many of the condominium units or other units that are available. Why should they evict local Singaporeans?

Sir, I do not understand the thrust of Mr Chiam's question. This is a straightforward landlord-tenant relationship. The occupants were given short-term leases on a month-to-month tenancy previously, precisely because the premises might be needed again and the tenants knew about this. In fact, more than ample notice had been given. This is a case of a very sympathetic landlord who has gone out of his way to help, firstly, by giving a very long period of notice, more than that required in the contract, and secondly, I understand that, as far as Singaporeans are concerned, the UDMC even offered alternative accommodation which they are not obliged to do.

Both foreigners as well as Singaporeans enjoy the same tenancy terms. But the thrust of the question is: why should you give these premises to foreigners and not to Singaporeans? There are alternative premises where these foreigners can go to. You have one set of premises, and you have got sitting tenants who are Singaporeans. What is the reason for evicting all these Singaporean tenants and bringing in foreigners? It is easier for the Government to house these foreigners elsewhere, or they can look for their own premises.

I take it that what he is saying is: why is MINDEF going to house the Logistics staff in this locality instead of somewhere else? That is the thrust of his question. But, surely, Sir, this is not the place to decide or debate whether MINDEF is wise, or right, in deciding whether to house them in these premises or some other premises. That is for MINDEF to decide. The question is: in asking these people to leave, has there been any breach of any law or any agreement by the UDMC? The answer is "no".

Sir, we are not talking about the breach of the law. We are talking of Singaporeans who are sitting tenants. Unless there is good reason for eviction, it has caused them grave inconveniences and great hardship. Because I understand --

Mr Chiam, could you ask your supplementary question? You are making a speech. What is your question?

I have been asking the same question. Why are priorities given to foreigners ahead of Singapore citizens for this very special type of premises where, I believe, the rentals are fairly low?

Mr Speaker, Sir, I have made it clear that the tenants, whether they are locals or foreigners, knew that they were there on a very short-term basis, on a month-to-month basis, or on a very short lease, precisely because the Government would need the area when plans arise; and plans have arisen, and that is exactly why they have been asked to move.

asked the Minister for Finance if it has now been determined how much loss was incurred by Singapore Technologies Ventures, the period over which the losses were incurred and how these losses came to be incurred.

Mr Speaker, Sir, Singapore Technologies Ventures (STV) lost $22 million in 1990, and $142 million in 1991. STV is a subsidiary of Singapore Technologies Holdings (STH). It was formed in September 1990 when STH restructured itself to prepare its subsidiaries for public listing. STV took over start-up and technology venture activities which had previously formed part of the other business sectors of the STH group. Some initial losses for these operations are unavoidable. The activities are capital and technology intensive. They require long gestation periods before showing results. They are also vulnerable to market and technological risks. However, STV's operating losses were larger than foreseen because the company had embarked on several large projects where market conditions proved more difficult than expected, partly because of the recent global economic slowdown. In addition, as STV had been formed by grouping together existing venture activities in STH's other business sectors, the company initially had an un- suitable capital structure, with too much debt and too little equity. STV's losses included start-up development and operating expenses, heavy interest charges, and overseas training of technical staff in specialised skills. In view of the uncertainties, STV took a conservative approach and wrote down a large part of its pre-operating expenses. The STH Board has been working closely with the STV Board to tackle STV's problems. It has taken steps to improve STV's capital base. STV should turn around within the next two to three years. STV's short record must be seen in the context of the performance of the STH group as a whole. STV is one of the five principal business sectors of STH. Over a longer time perspective, the STH group has been successful. Its four other business sectors are profitable. Two business sectors are publicly listed. The publicly listed portions of the group have market valuations many times the initial Government investment in them. Almost by definition, technology venture activities carry greater risk. Not all of them can be expected to succeed, nor will they be profitable every single year. But taken overall, such leading edge activities should yield definite returns. They are essential to the business strategy of a technology company like STH. STH cannot rely on its traditional activities to grow indefinitely year after year. STH's technology ventures enable the group to continually explore new areas of opportunities, and identify promising fields to expand into. STH has to maintain a balance between established, profitable activities and these new, more risky enterprises. I am satisfied that in doing so, the STH Board has discharged its responsibilities competently and to the best of its ability.

Sir, is there any investigation done, or ordered into the losses incurred?

The answer to that is "yes". It has been extensively investigated by the STH Board and by the Ministry of Finance.

Sir, would the Minister make available the relevant investigation reports to the public or to Parliament?

I do not think that is something which we want to publish. It is an internal investigation. The Ministry is satisfied, so is the Board of STH.

The money invested in these ventures, ie, the loss incurred, where did this money come from? Did it come from part of our national reserves as well?

These funds were initially contributed as capital by the Government and include a portion of loans extended to the company and they form part of STH group's financial assets.

Sir, since the money comes from the Government, would the Minister not think that the investigation report should be made public, so that it is accountable to the public, or at least to Parliament, for the money that is being invested?

The investigation clearly shows the source of expenditure is for pre-operating expenses and capital expenditure. It shows that the sales did not meet operating expenses. There is nothing technically incorrect with it. If such is the information that is required, there is no problem.

Sir, what evaluation was done before a decision was made to invest in these ventures?

The normal technical evaluation of developing a project is done in every case of a new venture. What is unpredictable is the market condition when the ventures move actually into operation. It is not possible to predict ahead of time whether by year X or after start-up, the company will remain profitable. I will give you an example of the sort of uncertainties faced by operating companies in high-tech areas. The Petrochemical Corporation of Singapore (PCS), in which the Government had equity. During the early years, 1984-86, it accumulated total losses of $120 million before it turned the corner, because it started operations during a downturn of the petrochemical industry. Another example is Keppel Corporation in which the Government has a majority interest. In 1984, it took a write-down of $174 million because the bulk carrier, tanker business, was highly unprofitable and it wrote off a series of tankers. In the following year, 1985, it had to write off an additional $130 million, again for the same reason. Thereafter, it has been profitable.

Sir, may I ask the Minister whether it is not the general rule of thumb in this venture capital business that not every venture capitalist expects to make money on every venture that he has invested in? But normally, although there might be more losses than gains, in terms of ventures, overall over a period of time, as long as the absolute money that one makes over the gains, although smaller in number vis-a-vis the money that is lost over a larger number of cases or ventures, then one can say that it is a relatively successful venture capital business.

That is indeed true. Do not forget that STV was incorporated in 1991. So I think we should give it a few years to try to prove this.

asked the Minister for Health whether there are further plans to improve the medical and surgical treatment facilities as well as the staffing situation in Alexandra Hospital.

Mr Speaker, Sir, my Ministry is currently undertaking a $18.2 million project to upgrade the facilities of Alexandra Hospital. The project includes: (a) The creation of a 13-bedded Day Surgery Suite; (b) The establishment of a clinical Department of Geriatric Medicine; (c) Improvements to the major opera-ting theatres with better pre- and post- operative facilities; (d) Creation of a 10-bedded Coronary Care Unit; (e) Renovation of the X-ray Department with upgrading of equipment; (f) We are also renovating and refurbishing all the wards. The B1 wards will be airconditioned. We will also add new Class B wards which are quite lacking in Alexandra Hospital; (g) The total number of beds will be increased from 397 to 488 after the ward renovations. The development of the Day Surgery Suite will be completed by the end of June 1992, ie, the end of next month. The other renovation works are being carried out in phases and are expected to be completed by early 1994. With regard to staffing, the staffing ratio in Alexandra Hospital is comparable to the other Government and restructured hospitals. The number of professional staff has increased over the years. In the last two years, the number of doctors has increased from 80 to 85; the number of nurses from 356 to 386; and paramedical staff from 52 to 61. To further upgrade their skills and professional knowledge, the medical and nursing staff attend continuing education courses. For the period 1989 to 1991, 9 doctors, 5 nurses and another 5 paramedical staff from Alexandra Hospital were sponsored for courses overseas and for overseas attachment to medical centres under my Ministry's Health Manpower Development Programme. All these efforts have helped to better equip them to provide a higher standard of care to the patients.

Sir, will the charges of Alexandra Hospital increase again after the upgrading?

Sir, for the subsidised patients, the costs of renovations are not included in the costing of services.

Sir, is there a plan to privatise or restructure the hospital?

Sir, there are no plans at present to restructure Alexandra Hospital.

Sir, after all the improvements at the Alexandra Hospital, will there still be C class beds? If so, how many?

Of course, there will still be Class C beds and there will be enough to cater for the needs of patients.

How many?

I do not have the details about the number, Sir.

asked the Minister for Health what is the progress of the development of the Geylang Polyclinic in the Marine Parade Constituency and what medical services and facilities will be provided in the polyclinic.

Sir, Geylang Polyclinic will be located at Geylang East Central. We are in the process of finalising the architectural drawings. Building works are expected to commence in mid-l993 and will be completed in one year. Geylang Polyclinic will be a one-stop health centre with promotive, preventive, curative and rehabilitative services. Like the other modern polyclinics, Geylang Polyclinic will provide outpatient medical care, maternal and child health care, family planning, health screening, rehabilitation and day care of the elderly, dental care and outpatient psychiatric care. Its facilities will include a laboratory, an X-ray clinic, a pharmacy, a minor surgical procedure room and a health education resource room.

Sir, when will the project be completed? Is there any delay?

Sir, building works will commence in mid-1993 and we expect to complete them by mid-1994.

asked the Minister for National Development whether his Ministry will consider developing the land between Bishan Street 22/24 and Catholic High School into a Garden Park.

Sir, the land bounded by Bishan Street 22, Street 24 and Catholic High School is earmarked for long-term public housing development. The 3.6 hectare site is expected to yield about 500 flats. To meet the recreational needs of the residents in the Bishan area, HDB is currently building a neighbourhood park in front of Block 287. The park will be completed by 1994. This is in addition to the existing Bishan Park which serves the whole of Bishan New Town.

Sir, what is the time-frame for the implementation of the development plans? In the meanwhile, would the Minister consider beautifying the location as mentioned?

The construction of the neighbourhood park has already started, and it will be finished by 1994. So there is no need to make interim provision.

asked the Minister for National Development whether the Housing and Development Board has any plans to construct more car parks at Bishan North Estate and, if so, when will they be completed.

Sir, the HDB will be providing an additional 100 surface carpark lots at a site fronting Block 241, Bishan Street 25 in the Bishan North Estate. Construction work will commence early next year and will be completed by the second half of next year.

asked the Minister for National Development whether he will reduce the season parking charges for all the multi-storey car parks which are grossly under-utilised in Simei Estate.

Sir, we are currently reviewing the season parking rates for surface and multi-storey carparks. We will be introducing different charges for carpark lots in different areas. Carpark charges will vary according to the cost of land, eg, whether the land is in the central or non-central areas. Carpark charges will also vary according to demand and supply in a particular area. And, finally, carpark charges will also vary depending on the type of carpark, ie, whether it is a surface or a multi-storey carpark. The new charges will be announced within the next three months.

Sir, will the Minister consider charging only a nominal charge for families living in HUDC flats which do not have void decks and who need to use carparks for funeral wakes? Right now, they are being charged at market rates. It means that they have to pay full-day carpark fee plus night parking fee which I think is very high.

Sir, if the Member is referring to using of carpark space for funeral wakes, I think we will take a look at the charges. But we are referring to carpark charges for vehicles.

Sir, I have a number of supplementary questions. (1) Will the Minister of State agree that the multi-storey carpark is part of the infrastructure and has a sunk cost? (2) There is better land utilisation at multi-storey carparks. In other words, a 5-storey carpark will house more cars than a surface carpark. In view of this, in his review, will he say that parking charges for multi-storey carparks should be lower than surface carparks?

Sir, if the Member propounds the theory of sunk costs, a lot of things will be free. I think that is not feasible. And coming from the private sector, I am surprised to hear that suggestion from him. Basically, the costing of a multi-storey carpark takes care of both the land cost as well as the construction cost of the carpark. Even though a multi-storey carpark can yield more carpark lots, the construction cost is, in fact, quite high. So the cost of providing a multi-storey carpark lot is, in fact, higher than a surface carpark lot.

Sir, would the Minister say that after some time, the HDB would have recovered the construction cost of a multi-storey carpark? And by then, would he reduce the parking charges for multi-storey carparks?

Again, this Member comes from the private sector. If we have recovered the construction cost, would it be for free? Anyway, the fact of the matter is that the construction costs for both multi-storey carparks and surface carparks are not recovered. That is why the charges are below the construction cost of providing such carpark lots. This was explained by the Minister for National Development in 1989.

1.10 pm

"to establish and incorporate the Inland Revenue Authority of Singapore, to provide for its functions and powers and for matters connected therewith", presented by the Minister for Finance (Dr Richard Hu Tsu Tau); read the First time; to be read a Second time on the next available sitting of Parliament, and to be printed.

"to provide for the dissolution of the Redundancy Payments Fund, the distribution of the moneys therein to its members and for matters connected therewith, and to repeal the Redundancy Payments Fund Act (Chapter 266 of the 1985 Revised Edition)", presented by the Minister for Labour (Dr Lee Boon Yang); read the First time; to be read a Second time on the next available sitting of Parliament, and to be printed.

"to amend the Central Provident Fund Act (Chapter 36 of the 1991 Revised Edition)", presented by Dr Lee Boon Yang; read the First time; to be read a Second time on the next available sitting of Parliament, and to be printed.

Order for Second Reading read.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." If I may just make a preliminary comment on this and the other two Bills which will also come up for Second Reading, these three Bills are Bills to reform three areas of the law and are basically amendments which have been proposed by the Law Reform Committee of the Academy of Law. And I would like to take this opportunity to thank the Academy of Law's Law Reform Committee for their contribution in this area. The amendments are rather technical but, nevertheless, are important in updating and bringing our laws up to date. As for the Wills (Amendment) Bill, the Bill before us clarifies some of the provisions in the Wills Act (Cap. 352). First, amendments are made to the provisions concerning formal validity of wills. At present, if a person who is not domiciled in Singapore, for example, a foreigner, and he wishes to dispose of his movable property after his death, he has to ensure that his will complies with the law of his domicile. This has caused difficulties to lawyers, executors, trustees and the court because they have to determine three different issues, namely: (a) the testator's domicile which is a rather complex legal concept; (b) the formalities required by the law of the testator's domicile; and (c) whether these have been complied with. This information is often not easily ascertainable or accessible. The amendments before us alleviate these difficulties by increasing the number of situations where wills may be treated by Singapore law as having been validly executed. The approach is similar to that in the United Kingdom Wills Act 1963. Clause 3 of the Bill introduces a new section 4A. Sub-section (1) provides that a will shall be treated as properly executed if its execution conforms to the internal law in force in any one of seven situations. They are: (a) in the territory where the will was executed; (b) in the territory where the testator was domiciled at the time of its execution of the will; (c) in the territory where the testator was domiciled at the time of his death; (d) in the territory where the testator had his habitual residence at the time of the execution of the will; (e) in the territory where the testator had his habitual residence at the time of his death; (f) in a state/country of which the testator was a national at the time of the execution of the will; and (g) in a country of which the testator was a national at the time of his death. In the case of immovable property, a will shall, in addition, be formally valid if it is executed in compliance with the law of the territory where the immovable property is situated. Where a will is executed on board a vessel or aircraft, it has to comply with the internal law of the country with which the vessel or aircraft is closely associated, for example, its place of registration. To simplify the procedure, a new section 4A will provide specifically for the law applicable when a will is executed on board a vessel or aircraft. This will also be the case where a will revokes another will or a provision of a will, and exercises a power of appointment. Finally, Sir, under section 9 of the existing Wills Act, no witness should be a beneficiary or the spouse of the beneficiary. A gift under the will to such a witness, or spouse, will fail. The amendments alleviate the harshness of this provision by amending the law to provide that an attesting witness or his spouse can take the gift so long as the will is duly executed in the presence of two other witnesses, which is the minimum statutory requirement, and who are not beneficiaries. In other words, the attestation of the beneficiary and his spouse will, for this purpose, be ignored. Sir, these amendments, as I said, are technical but they bring our law into line with current practice in the United Kingdom and elsewhere. Sir, I beg to move.

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 Second Reading read.

Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." As I have explained earlier, this is a second area where we have received amendments proposed by the Academy of Law's Law Reform Committee, and also on a rather technical and complex area of the law. Sir, under the existing law, the limitation periods are as follows: (1) In the case of personal injury, it is three years from the date the damage occurred; and (2) In non-personal injury cases, it is six years from the date the damage occurred. This amendment is necessary because under the present law, the limitation period for legal actions runs from the time the damage actually occurred even if the plaintiff did not know or could not reasonably have known about the damage. This can, of course, cause injustice and problems, especially in building construction cases where latent defects may not be discoverable until after the limitation period has expired. In such cases, the plaintiff, or the aggrieved party, is then left without any legal recourse. This was highlighted in an English case in 1983 where the United Kingdom House of Lords held that the equivalent law was "harsh and absurd" and "unjustified in principle that a cause of action should be held to accrue before it was possible to discover the damage". However, the House of Lords felt constrained by the law to apply that principle to an action. Prior to this case, it was generally thought that in negligence cases other than personal injuries, the cause of action would accrue only when damage was discoverable. The House of Lords, aware of the difficulties created by the judgment, recommended that legislation be passed to overcome the undesirable effects of its judgment. In England, an amendment as regards personal injuries cases had already been made in 1975. Subsequently, the United Kingdom Latent Damage Act 1986 was passed to remove the problem relating to other negligence cases. Sir, the Bill before us amends the Limitation Act along the lines of the United Kingdom Limitation Act 1980 and the United Kingdom Latent Damage Act 1986. What it does is to extend the limitation periods for personal and non-personal injury claims by providing an alternative starting date for the limitation period, ie, the date the aggrieved person has knowledge of the damage. The limitation period would be computed from the date that expires later. It also seeks to balance the interest of potential defendants by providing that no action may be brought after 15 years from the date of the breach of duty even though the damage or injury has not and could not be discovered. Sir, I beg to move.

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 Second Reading read.

Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." This is a third area where amendments are proposed on the basis of recommendations of the Law Reform Committee of the Academy of Law. In finalising the amendments, my Ministry has also taken into consideration the views of the Ministry of Finance and the Monetary Authority of Singapore. The most significant amendment concerns the manner in which trustee investments authorised by the Act may be modified or updated. Trustee investments authorised by the Act will now be listed in the First Schedule and any amendment to the Schedule can in future be made by the Minister by order published in the Gazette. This is a more flexible arrangement than the present position when an amendment by Parliament is needed each time trustee investments are to be updated. This amendment would enable the Minister, after consulting relevant bodies like the Ministry of Finance, Monetary Authority of Singapore and the Public Trustee, to maintain an up-to-date list of trustee investments. The Bill will amend the trustees' powers of investment to enable them to invest in the following: (a) bank bills and trade bills denominated in Singapore currency which are endorsed by a bank in Singapore and which will mature not later than three months after the date of investment; (b) fixed income securities of foreign governments having a Triple A credit rating or equivalent given by specified credit rating agencies, such as Moody's Investor's Service, Inc., or Standard and Poor's Corporation in the United States, well-known agencies. A maximum of 30% of the funds belonging to the trust may be invested in such investments. This limit is necessary as the trust funds in Singapore are mainly denominated in Singapore dollars and investments in foreign government securities pose significant risks in view of the exchange rate volatility. As for the existing provision in the current Act for investments in leases (other than mining leases), which have an unexpired term of 60 years or more, the amendments change this to an unexpired term requirement of 30 years because the trend in Singapore is to grant shorter leases. The Bill also revises the present qualifying criteria governing trustee stocks in view of major changes which have taken place in the Singapore stock market. The criteria laid down many years ago are now inadequate. At the same time, some safeguards are incorporated. Safeguards are necessary to protect the interests of beneficiaries of trust funds. Hence, the following will be the minimum criteria for trustee stocks: (a) The minimum total issued and paid-up capital of a company incorporated in Singapore shall be $15 million or more, while the minimum total issued and paid-up capital of a company incorporated elsewhere (foreign company) shall be $30 million or more. This two-tier system seeks to confine the status of trustee stocks to established and reputable foreign companies. I would add that this upward revision of paid-up capital from $5 million under the present law to $15 million for Singapore companies is in line with the Stock Exchange paid-up capital requirement of $15 million which took effect in 1988. It is necessary to require foreign companies which are trustee stocks to have a higher paid-up capital because the Stock Exchange of Singapore has no powers to regulate foreign companies and cannot compel them to disclose material information promptly to Singapore investors. (b) The company must have paid a dividend in each of the three financial years immediately preceding the financial year in which the investment is made. In other words, the amendment here has reduced the dividend payment period from five years to three years, as the previous requirement was found to be too stringent. Furthermore, there are other factors determining a company's financial viability. (c) The company must have a minimum shareholders equity (ie, its total assets less its total liabilities in its last audited accounts) of $30 million; and (d) The company must have reported a profit (excluding any extraordinary item) in its profit and loss account in its annual accounts in the financial year immediately preceding the financial year in which the investment is made. Sir, a grace period of three years will be given to those existing trustee stocks which, I understand, are very few in number which are unable to meet the revised requirement on minimum paid-up capital and shareholders equity, after which time they will lose their trustee status if they still fail to meet the new requirements. As for the other amendments, Sir, I might mention a few. (1) Trustees have the discretion now, under the amendment, to purchase a dwelling house in Singapore for any beneficiary of the trust. (2) Interest-bearing deposits may be held in Singapore currency in the Post Office Savings Bank or a bank or finance company in Singapore. (3) Trustees must obtain proper advice from an investment adviser licensed under the Securities Industry Act or a bank licensed under the Banking Act or a merchant bank approved under the Monetary Authority of Singapore in relation to investments in an authorised unit trust scheme, company securities or bank bills or trade bills. Sir, this Bill is a timely and useful measure of law reform which I commend to this House. Sir, I beg to move.

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.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move the Motion* standing in my name as it appears on the Order Paper. *The Motion reads as follows: That this parliament, in accordance with Section 4 of the Foreshore Act (Chapter 113), approves the reclamation by Government of the foreshore and seabed at Pasir Panjang containing an area of approximately 122 hectares as shown coloured yellow on the plan marked "LAND OFFICE RECLAMATION PLAN NO 2/92", which is deposited at the Land Office, Singapore. Sir, the Port of Singapore Authority (PSA) plays a vital role in maintaining Singapore's economic health. Since 1985, Singapore's container traffic has grown at a compound rate of 25% a year. This growth is expected to continue, although at a lower compound rate of 12% a year for the rest of this decade. The basis for this high increase in container throughput is the continued buoyant economic growth in Singapore and in the region. PSA's existing terminals at Tanjong Pagar and Pulau Brani are designed for a combined annual handling capacity of 10 million twenty-foot equivalent units (MTEUs). However, by 1996, PSA will require a new container terminal at Pasir Panjang to cope with the growing volume of containerised cargo. Reclamation of land will be required for this new terminal. Implementation of the new container port will be done in four main phases, spanning a period of some 30 years. The first phase will involve reclamation of 122 hectares starting in early 1993. The reclamation for this first phase will take three years to complete at an estimated cost of $393 million. This will enable PSA to build eight main container berths at Pasir Panjang. The area to be reclaimed is shown coloured yellow on the Land Office Reclamation Plan No. 2/92, a copy of which is displayed in the Library of this House for the information of hon. Members. Sir, I beg to move.

Question put, and agreed to. Resolved, That this Parliament, in accordance with Section 4 of the Foreshore Act (Chapter 113), approves the reclamation by Government of the foreshore and seabed at Pasir Panjang containing an area of approximately 122 hectares as shown coloured yellow on the plan marked "LAND OFFICE RECLAMATION PLAN NO 2/92", which is deposited at the Land Office, Singapore.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, That this Parliament, in accordance with section 1(1) of the Fourth Schedule to the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore, resolves that there shall be nominated Members during the term of this Parliament. Sir, the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore provides for the appointment of Nominated Members of Parliament (NMPs). Two NMPs, Prof. Maurice Choo and Mr Leong Chee Whye, were appointed in the last session of Parliament. Parliament has to resolve to have NMPs within six months of the opening of Parliament if we are to have them in this session of Parliament. Once Parliament so resolves, the public will then be invited to submit nominations for consideration by a Special Select Committee of Parliament. The Special Select Committee will then recommend the nominees for the President's approval. The principles underlying the need for having NMPs had been elaborated by the Prime Minister who was then the First Deputy Prime Minister when he moved the Second Reading and reiterated in the Third Reading of the Bill amending the Constitution. Some suggestions and improvements had also been incorporated by the Select Committee on the Constitution (Amendment) Bill after the public had made representations. So I am not going to go into great detail the principles or merits of having NMPs as these had been clearly stated and thoroughly debated in 1989, and NMPs are now provided for in our Constitution. I therefore do not expect Members to re-debate the principles all over again. What is before the Members today is only a motion asking them to decide whether or not we should have NMPs in this session of Parliament. Sir, in spite of the fact that there are now four Opposition MPs in this Chamber, we should still have NMPs. We have seen how inadequately they have performed during the last Budget and Committee of Supply debates. In any case, Opposition Members will always oppose whatever the Government does. Their job is not to help the Government improve but to embarrass it. Whatever they say, therefore, represent a narrow sectional interest, the interest of the Opposition. No doubt people will want to hear the Opposition's views and hear them expressing them in Parliament. But being in the Opposition, they cannot resist the temptation of playing to the gallery and hence not dwelling on the substance of an issue. I do not blame them as this is to be expected of the Opposition. The PAP already has 77 Members in this 81-Member Chamber. It does not need more voices to support Government policies. So NMPs are not here to speak up for the PAP. In the past, PAP MPs also played the role of the Opposition. People therefore were able to see a wide variety of views expressed by the PAP MPs. Now that there are four Opposition Members in this Chamber, the PAP MPs will not play the role of the Opposition but they will close ranks instead. On this issue, however, we will make the exception of lifting the Whip because the Prime Minister in his speech in 1989 had agreed to lift the Whip. But let me say that the public and the Members here should not expect this to happen again because the PAP MPs will close ranks. NMPs, on the other hand, reflect an independent, unbiased view as they are non-partisan. They can concentrate on the substance of the debate since they do not have to play to the gallery. There are groups outside whose views may not be adequately aired in this Chamber, for example, those of the employers. I know there are PAP MPs here who are also employers and there are Opposition MPs who are employers, but they will necessarily, eventually have to reflect the party line. So there is room for those who are not partisan to play a role in this House and NMPs should therefore be part of our system. NMPs do not need to worry about elections or the votes. They can freely speak their mind giving objective inputs and concentrating on the substance of the issues. We have seen the two NMPs in this last Parliament. I believe they have been fairly active despite the fact that they were in Parliament for less than nine months. I therefore commend all Members here to support this motion. Question proposed.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the arguments on both sides of the issue had been made in the last sitting of Parliament and as the Minister urged, I would not go into them again. There were two NMPs in the last Parliament and obviously their performance would be something that Members would want to look at to see whether NMPs should or should not be included this time. The principles apart, I think it is important to look at the practice. I would like to touch on the possibility of NMPs being office holders in future. Sir, are elected Members the ones that make the best Ministers or best office holders? Should we equate elected MPs as good or right as Ministers, or that unelected ones to be no good or not right? If you look at the history of nations, I do not believe there were many countries that were led by Cabinets which were fully elected at the height of their glory. Also, in our neighbourhood, Tun Daim is well known to have been a good Finance Minister. When he first went into Parliament he was not an elected MP. I think we should keep our options open despite whatever pronouncements that have been made on this subject. It will give us the flexibility of bringing in people to manage our country for the long-term good of the citizens should this be required sometime in the future. Mr Speaker, Sir, in the last Parliament we had two NMPs. For this House to vote against NMPs this time would mean that when we want to reintroduce them in future, it would be slightly more difficult. Therefore, I would like to support this motion in order to give ourselves this flexibility. It remains for the Government to bring into this House suitable persons who can and will perform their roles in a manner that will justify the high expectations we place on them. On this note, and with this expectation, Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the motion.

Mr Speaker, Sir, in his Second Reading speech on the Bill made on 29th November 1989, the Prime Minister, then First Deputy Prime Minister, clearly stated the intentions of the Bill and these are, to summarise, firstly, to offer Singaporeans more opportunities for political participation in keeping with his style of consensus government; secondly, to reach out for more alternative views which are non-government and non-opposition which may represent another probably sizeable cross-section of the people; thirdly, to tap those Singaporeans who for one reason or other would not or could not go through the election process and take on the full duties of elected MPs but who, nevertheless, could contribute their experience and points of views on major policy issues; and fourthly, to achieve these objectives with minimum disruption to the present parliamentary system. Subsequently in his Third Reading speech on 29th March 1990, the Prime Minister also elaborated further on the question of whether NMPs should be allowed to hold political office. In his view, the provision will provide future governments the flexibility to secure suitable people to perform specialised complex jobs. This Bill was considered in detail by the Select Committee and passed by Parliament in 1990. In considering the motion tabled before the House today, I think we should consider whether any changes in the past two years have affected the fundamental objectives of this Bill and therefore we need to take a different stand. I would submit that we should maintain the decision to have NMPs in this Parliament. The last General Elections in August last year saw the entry of three more Opposition MPs. If we consider the NCMP in the last Parliament, there is actually only a net increase of two non-government MPs. The need for more non-government and non-opposition views still remains. The appointment of NMPs will therefore fill this gap as was originally intended. Some MPs expressed in the debate on the Bill in 1989 and 1990 their reservations on whether the NMPs could make effective contributions in this House. The two NMPs we have in the last Parliament had just about nine months in this Chamber before Parliament was dissolved for last year's General Elections. This period is surely too short for us to assess the NMPs' effectiveness. I would urge that we should give this new system a further try. It takes away nothing from the proceedings of this Parliament. Far more likely we shall get the benefits of additional views and comments which will help in formulating major Government policies. I would, therefore, lend my support to the motion of having NMPs in this Parliament. 1.45 pm

Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to support the motion standing in the name of the Leader of the House. Sir, the basic aim of having NMPs is to enrich and enhance the political system by giving Singaporeans more scope for political participation through the airing of more alternative views and encouragement of constructive dissent. The NMP provision enables Singaporeans who, for good rea-sons, have no desire or are actually unable to enter politics to make a contribution. Many benefits derive from having NMPs in this House. When NMPs question the Government and argue for alternative courses of action where necessary, their experience, expertise and insights into economic and social problems are tapped. NMPs serve to increase the input of diverse ideas in Parliament, and thus guarantee greater representation. As they are non-partisan, they need not pander to popular whims to win votes. Therefore, by hearing the views of NMPs, people are better able to judge the worth of arguments espoused by MPs of any political party. NMPs promote consensus democracy and dampen adversarial democracy, thus putting pressure on the Opposition to be more constructive in its criticisms of the Government. At the same time, they exert a degree of pressure on the Government itself through their objective criticisms, thereby making it more responsive to dissenting views. Sir, a review of the 1989 House debate on NMPs reveals that there were fewer arguments against the Bill, though some were quite heated ones. Some felt that NMPs would end up being 'stooges' of the Government and that the PAP was simply appointing its own people. On the other hand, some felt that there would be too much pressure on them to criticise the Government simply to avoid being viewed as "yes-men". But the most outstanding argument against NMPs is that they have no electoral mandate; they are not chosen by the people and, thus, have no political clout to wield any influence in Parliament. They have come in through the 'back door' and are seen to have been unwilling to make sacrifices because they avoid the rough-and-tumble of political life. They, therefore, have 'power without accountability'. In fact, NMPs do, in any event, enjoy the indirect mandate as they are selected by the very Members of this House who have already won the trust of the electorate which voted them into office to begin with. Thus, they are accountable to Parliament. Furthermore, let us remember that the NMP provision is subject to a built-in 'self-destruct' clause, according to which the retention of NMPs must be approved by each successive Parliament. This represents a positive step in the evolution of the democratic process as we have known it; it is a good modification, calculated to reap benefits that far exceed the scope of change involved, without contradicting the principle of democracy. Sir, I also think that many of the misgivings levelled against NMPs stem from bigotry. When NMPs were nothing more than an abstract concept back in 1989, fears were already being voiced about how they might well turn out to be ineffective, opportunistic, afraid to speak their minds, afraid not to speak their minds, etc. This was before any NMPs were even nominated or given a chance to perform. And have these initial fears materialised thus far? I think not. Indeed, the record will show that the performance of our NMPs in the last Parliament proved that such apprehensions were nothing more than the groundless prejudices that they were. Ultimately, we must also ask ourselves one basic question: what best serve the interests of Singapore and Singaporeans? All of us, whether PAP or Opposition MPs, must be able to rise above the level of partisan politics, if we are to conscientiously carry out our number one role and, that is, to act in the best interests of our people at all times. And I contend that the presence of qualified and committed NMPs is an important step in that direction.

( In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, let me raise some views for the reference of my parliamentary colleagues. First, the views from the Feedback Unit ( ). On the question of Nominated MPs, the Feedback Unit conducted three dialogue sessions in 1989. From the notes of these dialogue sessions, we could see that the majority of the participants did not support the appointment of Nominated MPs, or were sceptical or had reservations about the Bill that was going to be passed at that time. A few days ago, the Feedback Unit contacted 41 active contributors to the Feedback Unit. Among them, 34, or 59%, felt that there is no need to have NMPs in this Parliament. The reasons they gave were, firstly, there are enough Opposition Members in this Parliament. Secondly, the two NMPs in the past did not make specific contributions. Thirdly, the Government has enough channels for feedback. Another 17, or 41%, felt that there should be NMPs in this Parliament. The reasons they gave were that the NMPs could contribute better by giving views from various perspectives in a non-partisan manner, so that matters could be discussed more thoroughly and, secondly, Parliament should give the NMPs more time so that their performance could be better assessed. Two of the contributors recommended that Parliament should appoint women and community leaders as Nominated MPs. The second point I wish to raise is whether the NMPs should stand aloof in the midst of the elected MPs ( ). My personal view is that there is no need to have NMPs in this Parliament because we have three more Opposition MPs. As the Prime Minister said on 29th November 1989 in this House [Hansard, Vol. 54, Col. 700]: 'The objective or aim of the Opposition MPs has been not to help find the right solution or settle correct policies, but to embarrass the Government and trip it up in order to discredit the Government so that they can win office for themselves. Nominated MPs, unlike Opposition MPs, can concentrate on the substance of the debate rather than form and rhetoric. They do not have to play to the gallery. They can be constructive while dissenting, thus contributing to good government.' This was what the Prime Minister said then. The third point that I want to raise is the representation of Nominated MPs ( ). Nominated MPs do not belong to any party. They are not partisan and they are in a position to raise their own independent views. Let me make an observation: Since 1959, our voters had never voted in any Independent candidates to be Assemblymen or Members of Parliament. The last Independent candidate who was returned was in 1959, Mr A.P. Rajah. That was 33 years ago. In the 1991 General Election, there were seven Independent candidates who received a total of 14,598 votes, taking up 1.9% of the total of 783,612 votes polled. And from the constituencies they contested, the Independent candidates' votes ranged from 1.2% to 24%. Of course, the quality of the Independent candidates is an important factor. The other explanation is that our people do not like to elect Independent candidates to be MPs. Since our people do not want to have Independent candidates to be their Members of Parliament, then why should Parliament insist in appointing independent people to be Nominated MPs? The NMPs do not have the mandate of the people. They are not the voices of the people. So when they speak in Parliament, are they reflecting the views of the people? Or are they expressing their own views? Another point I would like to bring up is the political responsibility of the elected Members ( ). The imminent task of the ruling party is to collect the feedback from our people and to care for the well-being of the people so as to strengthen the relationship between the Government and the people, in order to win back the lost ground. That is a very important task. But the appointment of NMPs has no bearing to this. If a PAP MP and an NMP both disagreed with a Bill and criticize it sharply, but when it comes to voting, the NMP can vote against the motion but the PAP MP cannot vote against it because he is restrained by the Government Whip. So it would look as though he is not voting according to what he has said and this would affect his credibility and the ruling Party's image. So the question lies in the constraint of the Government Whip. It is not that the ruling Party does not have Members who dare to speak up in Parliament. Another point is that the NMPs and the elected MPs, although in the same Parliament, face different degrees of pressure ( ). Our elected MPs have to sacrifice their family life and career. They have to spend a lot of time and effort to work for the people in their constituencies and in the Town Councils. They also realise that despite their hard work, there is no assurance that they will win the next election. This is a political risk that they have to take. At this juncture, if we appoint NMPs who are not willing to face the voters, how would it affect the morale of the elected MPs? Some say that we can appoint female professionals as NMPs. I do not know how Dr Seet Ai Mee and her supporters will feel about this and how are we going to convince more female professionals to take part in the General Elections? How could this contribute to good government? The last point I want to raise is that I agree with the Government that we should attract more talented people to participate in politics and in our nation building ( ). We can encourage our professionals, management staff, trade union leaders and community leaders to contribute their views through the Resource Panels of the GPCs or the Feedback Unit. And on important Bills, they could also contribute by writing to or testifying before the Select Committees on the respective Bills. Some outstanding people can be appointed as Members of the Council of Presidential Advisors, National Wages Council, the Institute of Policy Studies or the National Arts Council. Another argument is that some Ministerial posts, like the Minister for Finance, Minister for Law or the Minister for the Arts, will have to be undertaken by specialists. These people may not wish to take part in elections but they could be competent to take up these Cabinet posts. This argument is irrelevant and meaningless as far as this Parliament is concerned. Our Minister for Law is in his prime, our Finance Minister enjoys good health and our Minister for Information and the Arts has made every effort to promote cultural activities. Apart from that, we have two MPs, namely, the former Education Minister and our Minister for National Development who have sound financial management experience. They are good leaders. Why should we go for outsiders instead of appointing people who are with us? So I hope that my parliamentary colleagues could take these points into consideration, and calmly and objectively discuss and decide whether this Parliament should have Nominated MPs.

Mr Speaker, Sir, at this point of time, it is more appropriate if the Minister could tell us when the by-elections will be held, instead of trying to get this House to make provision for more NMPs. After all, the local press has reported that the PAP is ready for the by-elections and its members are raring to go at it. Surely, the appointment of NMPs is not to get fresh blood into this House. This can be done at the coming by-elections which was promised by the Prime Minister. Neither do I believe that the appointment of NMPs is to bring in women MPs, as has been suggested by a Member. Nor is it to have a third point of view. In fact, there is no such thing as a third point of view. Either you are for or against a motion or an issue in a debate. Was there really a third point of view when we had two NMPs in the last session of Parliament? I do not think so. The last two NMPs were specialists in their fields of work and they tended to speak very narrowly, confining themselves to their expertise knowledge. We do not need such people in Parliament. If Parliament wants experts or technical advice, it could easily obtain them from experts outside the House. In Parliament, we need people who are committed, who have a vision, who have fresh ideas for change for the good of society and for Singapore. These people, if they have the commitment, will go through, as put by another NMP, the agony of an election and get elected, and in that way, to be in this House and contribute to society. The reason for the need for NMPs, in my view, is more likely that the Government has need for potential Ministers. The last Member mentioned that he went through the list and said that there was no replacement. In my view, there is still one area which need replacement, probably the Finance Minister. This was specifically mentioned in the Prime Minister's speech in March 1990 in Parliament, whereby NMPs could be office holders and one of them could be a Finance Minister. Probably the Government feels that they cannot replace one or more Ministers with a person whom the Government has in mind if the person has to go through the by-elections, because the Government probably feels that that person cannot win at the by-elections. I think that is the real reason why we want more NMPs. If this were true, then I am afraid having NMPs in the House is more for political reasons of the Government than to improve the parliamentary system or the quality of persons in Parliament.

Mr Speaker, Sir, Members will recall that this issue of Nominated MPs was keenly debated about three years ago in this House when the Bill amending the Constitution to provide for the appointment of non-elected MPs was read and passed. Consequently, we saw the nomination of Mr Leong Chee Whye and Prof. Maurice Choo to this House. Though their presence in the House was shortlived, I believe they had contributed many a lively debate in the House, with indepth analysis of issues and timely reminders to the Government about the impact and repercussions that its policies might have on the governed. Contrary to what Mr Chiam See Tong has said, I believe they make good sparring partners, much to the love and disappointment of PAP MPs as to Opposition MPs, because they were non-partisan. By their show of knowledge and substance in Parliament, they had dispelled the last lingering doubts that NMPs are simply tools of the PAP, lame ducks that only quack when asked to. Sir, at the debate on the Bill in November 1989, I said that if we did not have good MPs, we could not have good Ministers, Ministers of State and Parliamentary Secretaries. Although we were reminded by the then First Deputy Prime Minister in this House that it was not the intention of Government that NMPs should be eligible to become Ministers or other office holders, I feel that this preclusion from holding office should be re-examined. We should provide for a scheme where NMPs could be office holders. It is a form of safeguard or insurance for the future. Sir, I am aware that my proposal to the Government appears a radical and controversial one, as some people will quickly call it undemocratic. But I would urge these people to look at it from a broader and national perspective, as a natural desire to find and put up the best men for a difficult and, if I may say so, an unenviable job. These men would be a valuable asset to the nation. Sir, I am saying this to safeguard ourselves against a day when we may have difficulty finding, as what some of my colleagues said, a Law Minister or a Finance Minister from amongst MPs, because this is a very highly specialised job. The NMP scheme allows us to tap talent and to appoint well-qualified persons to the job. Sir, this concept of putting a non-elected man into Government is not new, neither is it novel. The Secretary of State of the United States is appointed. Dr Henry Kissinger was a top calibre man. Mr James Baker is of no lesser light. They are good examples of men of exceptional capabilities, testimony of a system that has succeeded in identifying talented men and women and installing them in positions which they would not otherwise be interested, because of the need to go through a political avenue. Sir, lest it be misunderstood, I do see enough good men and women in this House now who are of ministerial calibre or potential office holders who can even become Finance Ministers, contrary to what Mr Chiam said. I do not propose that we get an NMP to be a Minister now. But I do propose that the Government has this possibility built into the concept. We do not need it today, and we may not need to use it at all. But like the saying goes, it may be too late to start digging a well when one gets thirsty. Worse, not one, but the whole entire nation is thirsty. We might need the expertise and services of a maestro, a specialist, one day for a very specific task in Government. And with this possibility in place, we could immediately enlist him for the job when the need arises. Sir, I support the motion moved by the Leader of the House, mainly because we could use the NMP scheme to bring into this session of Parliament other talented men and women in our society. For example, I feel a need to have a representative from the employers' organisations, one from the clan associations, even a representative to help voice the needs and concerns of the fairer sex, and even a specialist in the arts. Sir, I believe these people could fill a niche, contribute and enhance the quality of debate in this House in areas that our existing MPs may not be too familiar with. They will certainly be an asset to the House and help generate new ideas to the Government in the implementation of the many programmes in the Next Lap.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the objective of introducing NMPs is to provide opportunities and an avenue for wider political participation. It is meant as an extension for more alternative views to be heard and the generous accommodation of dissenting voices. It is the paramount duty of this House to ensure that the best brains are galvanised to run the country. I believe the NMP scheme is the best among the available alternatives that we have considered so far. A good yardstick, in my view, to measure an adroit government is in its ability to adopt the past, adjust the present and adorn the future. Singapore is one fine example. It is a responsible Government that will use its initiatives and do what is best for the future of Singapore and its people. The people have elected the Government of the day and have entrusted in its representatives in Parliament to do what this country's future deems fit. The choice of NMPs will thus be made on the "oblique mandate" vested by the electorate. Sir, Singapore is not limited in talent as it is in land. What better way can there be than to have the professionals, lay experts and renowned leaders of institutions, to contribute in this House as NMPs? Perhaps as successful businessmen or surgeons, they might not realise the constitutional contribution to the nation until they are here to be part of the legislative process. Hopefully, by being here, they may change their perceptions as they could then understand the process and the significance of their roles better. These professionals of good standing will keep to their all-time best as they are in their own respective fields. Thus, eluding the notion that they might be easily lobbied or to be seen as opportunists. No person who has reached his pinnacle would jeopardise his reputation and integrity by being here to perform less than what the system expects and to the extent of disappointing the public. As a matter of fact, they deserve all the admiration as individuals who without the privilege of equal monetary allowance and voting would do their homework and shoulder parliamentary responsibility as much as the hon. Members of this House. At this juncture, Mr Speaker, Sir, I find it hard to ignore the statement made by Mr Chiam in yesterday's Straits Times that NMPs will give rise to the new classification of MPs being labelled as "third class" MPs. The PAP, as the governing party through the will and choice of the majority, is undisputably not to be deemed as second class MPs. That in order will leave the Opposition to fill in the gap. Is the unofficial Leader of the Opposition declaring that Opposition MPs are second class MPs? I am utterly positive that it is not in his interest to have the Opposition being seen as second class. If that is so, it will not be wise then to label others what he himself is struggling hard to avoid. Sir, NMPs are not subjected to political Whip and party philosophies. Hence, they would be free to air unlimited but constructive dissenting views. Indirectly, it extends the mechanism of oral checking on Government policies. The quality of their opinion is indisputably free from political affiliations. They would serve the kind of role that some sectors of the population is expecting. I share the purpose of NMPs in having more views to be heard in this House and, as far as responsible views are concerned, we should not worry about its detriment. As has been proven by the last NMPs, their presence proved to be a viable asset to Parliament. This is in tandem with the free market principle that Singapore practises, ie, the allocation of human resource without reservation. I will further illustrate this point. There are tens of thousands of professionals who are aloof to party politics but, definitely, do not fall short in their capabilities to contribute equally as elected Members. For all we know, these non-partisan, independent NMPs could convincingly commit themselves responsibly in debates full of substance equally, if not more. This is possibly so, since they neither toe the Government line nor do they have the biasness of the Opposition. They, without the precedence in perception, may be in a better position to see and judge issues through the eyes of a lay expertise than a pledged politician. In other words, scrutiny of Bills and policies can be done in a way that all of us here might not be able to. This is, to my regard, an upgrading of democracy, far from being the institution that is seen with shredded doubts of mandate and accountability. Sir, democracy should be construed in the Singaporean context. A western defi-nition does not take into account the peculiarities found solely in this country. Are we to adopt democracy for the sake of democracy regardless of the composition and political climate? Adaptation, after all, has been the key to Singapore's success and stability. Sir, in the light of the above and in the interest of this nation, I deliver my confidence and support towards this motion. Mr Chiam See Tong rose ---

Mr Chiam, you had your say already.

I want a clarification from the Member for Ang Mo Kio GRC. In fact, I have two points to bring up. Firstly, he said that an NMP in this House has an oblique representation. I just want him to clarify whether or not he thinks that the elected MPs have a right to appoint other MPs? In other words, have the voters given us the mandate to appoint other MPs? The other point is this. He commented that I have said that NMPs are third-class. If he wants an explanation, I will be too happy to explain to him why I call them "third-class".

Sir, we are elected by the people, and Singaporeans put their faith and trust in us. Therefore, I believe that we have the right to appoint Nominated MPs.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the issue before the House today is whether this House, the Eighth Parliament, should have NMPs. We have debated on this before, and the Bill was sent to a Select Committee. In March 1990, the Report of the Select Committee was debated. The concept of NMP has been accepted by the House, and this still stands. Sir, my personal stand is clear. I have stated on 29th March 1990 that I had reservations on the NMP concept. The fundamental rule of democracy that MPs should be elected must be adhered to. The Prime Minister (then First Deputy Prime Minister) was very persuasive, sensitive to feelings of Members of the House and very accommodating. He urged that we give the scheme a try, and I quote him: "... I urge, give this a try ...". He also said, and I quote: 'And if you are not convinced after trying out this scheme for the remaining period of this Parliament, in the next Parliament you decide.' He went on to reassure us, and I quote: 'The Whip will be lifted and you can decide how you want the NMP Scheme to go in the next Parliament.' Based on these reassurances, many of us agreed to try out the scheme. I am indeed glad that the Leader has announced that the Whip has been lifted for today's sitting. Today is the day for decision for the Eighth Parliament. Sir, I remain unconvinced regarding the need for NMPs in this Parliament. Unfortunately, the concept of NMP has been accepted by this House and is thus not the subject of debate. It is now in the context of this House, that is of the Eighth Parliament, that we are discussing the NMPs. In this House today we have four Opposition Members. They were returned at the elections by their respective constituencies. It is their responsibility now to show that they can do better than the PAP. It is no longer the role of the GPCs to "play opposition" and relieve them of their duties. It is no longer the role of the NCMPs to do this, and we have none in this House. Likewise, it is not the duty of this Parliament to appoint Nominated MPs to play this role. We, as PAP MPs, will heed the Prime Minister's advice, and will express our views, more often, in private and at party meetings. The GPCs will continue to be active but behind the scene. The Leader of the House has reiterated yesterday, and I agree, we will close ranks. I will refrain from giving my own views of the NMPs for very obvious reasons. Sir, let me say that before we agree to nominate NMPs we must consider NCMPs. If this House feels that it needs more views, then the Non-Constituency MPs who stood for elections have more of a right to be in this House than the Nominated MPs. Sir, we should allow this Parliament to show the effectiveness or otherwise of the Opposition Members. One only needs to turn to the Hansard and the media's review of the Budget debate to know how they fared. Let us put NMPs aside for this Eighth Parliament and watch the Opposition perform. Then the people can decide. This will be a good exercise in political education. To me today, the urgency to have the additional NMPs to voice alternative views is not necessary. Sir, today is the most significant day, not because of the issue of NMPs, but because of the lifting of the Whip on a political issue which, I believe, is for the first time. For me, the Prime Minister and the Party's integrity, sincerity and honour have been reinforced even further. Every word that was uttered by the then First Deputy Prime Minister, now Prime Minister, has been delivered today. Some Singaporeans and several foreign journalists doubted whether on a political issue the Whip will be ever lifted. Today, the Whip is lifted and the sceptics will be silenced. The onus is now on us, the elected MPs, candidates chosen by the Party, to respond in a manner which will show all the sceptics (within and outside the Party) that political stability and the cohesiveness of the Government and party can remain intact despite the Whip being withdrawn. Indeed, it will make for better Government. I have mentioned on 29th November 1989 in this House that given "more flexibility in this House" we can have better debate. No one should doubt the PAP MPs' commitment to nation and party. Now that the Whip is lifted, I will not say "Yes", but will close ranks with my comrades in the Party.

Mr Speaker, Sir, most of the pros and cons in respect of NMPs have been well canvassed before, and most of them are stale ones. Of course, mine would not be the exception. Sir, we, in the SDP, are not in favour of NMPs on the following grounds. Firstly, it is repugnant to our parliamentary democracy as it strikes at the foundation of one-man-one-vote system. Secondly, it infringes the principle of delegatus non potest delegare. In law, a delegate cannot delegate. In other words, when powers are given to a person, that person cannot delegate that power to another person. More so, when it involves Parliament. When the people voted for the Members of Parliament, I am quite sure they have complete trust and faith in the respective Members of Parliament. They trust them, they vote for them, and they expect them to carry out their duties and functions as Members of Parliament. You must go back to them to ask them whether they are prepared to give MPs these extra powers to delegate this power to someone else. Quite obviously, NMPs are not the representatives of the people. We are a representative Government. What sort of representative Government can we have when Members of Parliament are not the representatives of the people? Of course, for the time being there is only provision for six NMPs. What is there to prevent this House from amending the Constitution and make provision for 40 NMPs? If you can have six, I say we have no reason not to have more. Where is the check to increase the number of NMPs in Parliament? What is there to prevent an NMP from becoming a Cabinet Minister? If you look at the Constitution, an NMP can become a Cabinet Minister. Sir, imagine for a moment you have an NMP who becomes a Cabinet Minister. Where is the accountability? Would the people accept this NMP if he is in the Cabinet? It is against our parliamentary system, as there can be no accountability in this respect. Sir, accountability is one of the pillars of democracy. If he is elected by the people there can be checks and balances, and the people would not vote for him if he were to stand for election again. Sir, the next point I would like to say is this. With the appointment of NMP, we have created a very dangerous precedent in Parliament. It is the first time in history that we have created a very dangerous precedent. The logic and reason is not difficult to follow. What is there to prevent this House from appointing a non-citizen to be an NMP? It is simply because the Constitution can be amended. At the moment, you require that a candidate must be a Singapore citizen to stand for election. Sir, imagine for a moment you have a Government which is formed of crooks and unreliable people. What is there to prevent this group of people from amending the Constitution and making non-citizens to be NMPs? What is there to prevent this from happening? An hon. Member: We are in trouble.

Of course, we are in trouble. That is why I am speaking against the motion. If we are not in trouble, I would not be speaking against this idea of NMPs. Therefore, we owe a duty to the people who voted us into Parliament, and for the very reason that there must be safeguards that anyone who wants to be in Parliament, anyone who wants to hold the post of Cabinet Minister, must be duly elected by the people, and not nominated by Members of Parliament here. I have heard Members here referring to the Secretary of State in America. One cannot just draw a comparison in that way because America has got a very different system. The President is elected but the rest of his colleagues are all appointed by the President. We do not. We have the British parliamentary system here. Therefore, one cannot draw a comparison and say, "Look at the United States of America." Sir, the next point is, if anyone who is not prepared to be examined in public, if anyone who is not prepared to go through the rough-and-tumble of politics and get elected through the due process of election, he is not fit to be here.

Mr Speaker, Sir, on 22nd November 1990, two Nominated Members of Parliament were sworn in. This was after two heated debates in this House. After some hard bargaining, the Prime Minister, then First Deputy Prime Minister, persuaded this House to accept Nominated MPs and to give it a try or, as he said, we will never know whether Nominated MPs will be useful or not in Parliament. Over a period of eight months, which I consider quite a long time, this House heard and saw the performance of the two Nominated MPs who were both competent and respected men. I do not want to be personal. I have no other way of judging how Nominated MPs perform but through these two people. They put forward their views on a few subjects. And over that period, one Nominated MP spoke only seven times while another Nominated MP spoke four times in this House, and within that period this House sat on 22 occasions. The topics they chose were the same as the PAP MPs. The views they expressed were no different from that of the PAP MPs. On ageing, health, medical technology, cultural and social issues, the depth and breadth of coverage by such elected Members of Parliament like Aline Wong, Dr Vasoo, Loh Meng See, Peh Chin Hua are more than adequate, and they covered most aspects of these subjects. We have also others like Chandra Das, Heng Chiang Meng, Chng Hee Kok, Augustine Tan for their more vocal and in-depth presentations on business and economic problems. These elected PAP Members of Parliament, I am sure, culled their speeches from many expert resources. My question is: has the quality of debate in this House changed because of their presence in this House? My answer is no. Nominated MPs cannot set standards. Elected Members of this House always set very high standards. They know the ground well and they have presented their arguments adequately here. It is not that these two NMPs are no good. They have presented their arguments reasonably well. But what I am saying is that their presence cannot do more than what the elected PAP Members can do. In other words, Nominated MPs have not made any point not covered by elected Members of Parliament. They have not taken up any significant issue not taken up by the elected Members of Parliament. They left very little impact in this House. In essence, their contribution was minimal. I suspect if we continue with this experiment, we will get more of the same, for by their definition or inclination, they are disinterested in real politics and would rather put all their attention and energies in their career, business, or whatever. Mr Speaker, Sir, in the Third Reading of the Constitution (Amendment) Bill on Nominated MPs, the Prime Minister, then First Deputy Prime Minister, asked this House to "approach this from the higher interest of the nation and not on how the NMPs would affect us personally" and urged us to, I quote him: ' ... give this a try and I believe you will see the merits of the scheme and the contributions of the NMPs when they come into this House. And if you are not convinced after trying out this scheme for the remaining period of this Parliament, in the next Parliament you decide [that means, we decide]. The Whip will be lifted and you can decide how you want the NMP scheme to go in the next Parliament.' [Hansard, Vol. 55, col. 1047]. I hope Members are convinced that they have done a reasonably good job in this House. The Prime Minister has kept his word. He knew that some of us had very fundamental reservations on this. He respected our views and introduced a clause allowing future Parliaments a say on whether we want Nominated MPs or not. And as he said, he is prepared to lift the Whip. These are very generous concessions. His generosity and personal style make it more painful for me to vote against. But my own feeling on this fundamental democratic principle of having only elected Members of Parliament in this House is too strong to be compromised.

Hear, hear!

I cannot support this motion.

Order. I suspend the sitting and will take the Chair again at five minutes past three. Sitting accordingly suspended at 2.38 pm until 3.05 pm. Sitting resumed at 3.05 pm

Debate resumed.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Member for Bukit Gombak asked earlier what was there to prevent crooks from becoming the majority in Parliament, and changing the Constitution to suit them. Sir, I agree that there is nothing except the peoples' votes at the General Elections and that is why we, in the PAP, have always emphasised the importance of making sure that the people vote for upright, honest and capable people. The people of Singapore are smart and that is why they continue to vote for the PAP. Sir, the arguments for having Nominated Members of Parliament as part of our Parliamentary system are not new. Similarly, the arguments against are also not new. So I do not wish to go over the old grounds. However, for the purpose of this debate, I feel that I need to reiterate one point. While I agree that there is some merit in some Members of this House insisting that Members of Parliament must be elected representatives, yet, having non-elected Members as part of the Parliamentary system, or elected Houses, is not new. Sir, I can quote several examples. One of the best examples that comes to my mind is in the original Westminster system, the House of Lords. They are all nominated, or they inherited their seats. And the Malaysian Senate is also not elected, and these Members can also become Ministers. In many other Parliaments where there is proportional representation, there are also Members who are not elected but nominees of their respective parties. Some may even be defeated candidates and it can be said that, in fact, they have been rejected by the people and yet they too can become Members. Eventually some of them may also become Ministers. In the US system, Cabinet members are also not elected but nominees. So the concept of non-elected Members and Ministers is not new. Sir, I bring up this point to show that there is nothing wrong, or right, in having NMPs. It all depends on each country's needs. Each country's political system must evolve to suit its own development. We have had two NMPs in the last Parliament. The question now is: should we continue with this modification to our system? When it first surfaced, I considered it an experiment, a modification worth trying. But the question now is: is it still needed for our political system? Should we continue to have it? As Mr Bernard Chen, the Member for Brickworks GRC, has said earlier, the period in the last Parliament was just too short for any conclusion. More time is needed. Sir, I think the reaction of some of my Parliamentary colleagues against the concept of non-elected Members is an emotional gut reaction. But as I said earlier, this concept in the world is certainly not new. So let me appeal to my Parliamentary colleagues, especially my friend, the Member for Ayer Rajah, who are against this motion: let us give this concept a chance. Let us give it more time. Sir, at best, it could provide for good men to come into Parliament. At worst, we can still reject it in the next Parliament. Sir, I support the motion.

Mr Speaker Sir, many of us in this House had the opportunity to listen and to watch how the NMPs performed last year. But they were with us not for long before the General Elections were called in August 1991. So we would not have heard much from them. And it is exactly this fact, ie, that the two NMPs did not have the benefit of a full term to prove themselves, which demonstrates that we ought to nominate some Members of Parliament for this present term. Sir, the question is: have the two NMPs contributed during their short period with us? And if so, were they constructive, or otherwise? I cannot recall that they were negative. But I can recall that they brought up some rather useful points. I have looked through the Hansard and if I may just quote a few examples. True, they were men specialised in their own fields, like many of us here are also. But Prof. Maurice Choo, being specialised in his own field, could speak of "outcomes management" vis-a-vis rising medical costs. He could also speak of the weak and the elderly. And for Mr Leong Chee Whye, he is also specialised in his own field. But in my 13 to 14 years in Parliament, I have not come across a Member suggesting improvement in the debates in this House. He suggested that Ministers change their format in presenting Bills, mainly that more information should be given at the First Reading stage rather than at the Second Reading stage, so that more time could be given to discuss matters. True, not many of us can come out with brilliant ideas all the time. I think this applies to NMPs as well. But the fact that they can bring up one good idea in the short eight to nine months speaks volumes of their worth. Sir, may I now ask what is wrong in a few good minds, with different experiences in life, being brought here to contribute? Nothing wrong, right? What is wrong if the Constitution allows it? Nothing wrong, right? Why must it only be through an election for the Member to be able to come to this House and contribute? In fact, I would go one step further. We should keep evolving Parliament in order to survive competition. Times have changed, Sir, and we must survive competition not only through representation of our constituents' problems in this House but, at times, we need other people to look at problems in a more detached manner and, together with us, help Government to run the country. So why should we be against bringing in a few non-partisan contributors with good minds to contribute? We are all very busy people and I am sure many of you would agree with me. I would be very surprised if some say that they are not busy. The PAP MPs have to run CCCs, they have to run community centres, they have to meet the people, they have to run Town Councils, and the list goes on. If there are people who are not willing to go through the hustings, for one reason or another, and they decide that they would come and help and complement our work, why not? They can help us think through issues and solve problems. Let us welcome them! For after all, we are not just about going to do away with elections, the one-man-one-vote system. We are certainly not introducing third-class MPs, neither are we delegating our powers. We are improving the whole system. We are, in fact, evolving a Singapore system of government. Or if the end result is to bring in people to evolve a more effective governing system to ensure the survival of our constituents, the very people who sent us here, to help us work better, think better and govern better, why not? Bringing in more varied ideas is the product of our thinking. I am proud of it, and I support it.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of the motion standing in the name of the Leader of the House. Sir, I agree with the Member for Bukit Gombak - and it is not very usual that I do agree with him - that in a general election, a bunch of crooks may be elected into this Chamber to form the Government. This age-old warning of the PAP can now be best understood by people coming from the Opposition. Sir, the Member will now understand why the PAP Government felt the need to have an Elected President. It is for this eventuality and possibility of a bunch of crooks coming into Parliament that we feel the need and necessity for an Elected President. Sir, the argument that this bunch of crooks can come to Parliament to change the Constitution also reinforces the argument that Parliament should have Nominated MPs. If such a bunch of crooks comes into Parliament in future, I think the Nominated MPs can then help to check abuses or whatever misdemeanours that may be committed by the government then. Unfortunately, the problem really is that the NMP can only be activated by a motion of Parliament and in such a case, with a bunch of crooks running the Government, it is very unlikely that they will then agree to support such a motion. In fact, going by this argument, the NMP scheme should be enshrined and Parliament should have no more say in whether we should or should not have NMPs. Sir, the NMP scheme was born on the need to widen the representation of the public through a non-partisan viewpoint. The point made earlier by my colleague, Dr Tan Cheng Bock, that the first two NMPs that we had in the last Parliament have made points which were so similar to those made by the PAP MPs. This being so, it goes to show that the views of PAP MPs are, in fact, supported on a non-partisan basis, that means, the views of the PAP are current and are not necessarily wrong. They are quite correct. Sir, the NMP scheme is quite unlike the NCMP scheme. When the public elected four Opposition Members to this Chamber, the NCMP has no further role to play. The NCMPs are, by definition, Opposition Members - MPs whose main task, it seems, is just to take the Government to task, without offering any alternative programmes. In contrast, the NMP is non-partisan and that person may be selected to represent such special interest groups as business or even the arts. The first two NMPs served barely nine months - I think a very short period in parliamentary life and this comes from very personal experience. In their defence, I think we should not judge this need for NMPs on the performance of Prof. Maurice Choo and Mr Leong Chee Whye. What we must do is open our minds to the possibility of Singaporeans like Prof. Tommy Koh sitting in this Chamber as an NMP. I have spoken to a small number of Singaporeans and, if I conclude correctly, the public is not fired or excited by this idea, as they feel that NMPs will not be able to represent their interest. However, when I suggested Prof. Tommy Koh as an NMP, the response was rather different and very positive. I think this is because Prof. Tommy Koh has the intellect, stature and eloquence and Singaporeans listen to him. In short, it is the person rather than the post which will make the NMP scheme work and be acceptable to the people. I therefore look forward to the nomination of Prof. Tommy Koh when this motion is carried in this Parliament. For the long-term, if Prof. Tommy Koh is willing to serve in this Chamber, the NMP scheme will be very much like the NCMP scheme which will become another accepted feature of Parliament. There are other Singaporeans who have the ideas and the eloquence, but do not have Prof. Tommy Koh's advantage of a public platform. If such a Singaporean is not brought into this Chamber, and over time whose views may be listened to, then I think Parliament and the country will be the poorer for it. In an affluent Singapore, not many have the stomach for the hurly-burly world of politics. Their refusal to pitch into the rough-and-tumble of politics has, in many instances, deprived our society of their contribution to good government. It is no disgrace to admit that however wide a net our PAP Government may cast in seeking to recruit future leaders, and however good the catch, we will still miss a number of good people, the ones that were allowed to get away. With the NMP scheme, the many talented people in Singapore who have a wealth of experience in public matters and high intellect will have a platform to air their views. They can help to crystallise the viewpoints and feelings of people on the ground and a wider segment of our nation on sometimes important and critical matters that will affect the long-term future of our society. On such important matters, the NMP scheme does not make the nominated person any less qualified to articulate the concerns of Singaporeans or make their views any less important or relevant. Sir, the 81 Members in this Chamber do not have a monopoly on good ideas or eloquence and I commend to my colleagues to support this motion.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore (Amendment) Bill was debated and passed about two years ago. Then we saw the implementation of the concept with the appointment of two NMPs. During this period, we have more time to ponder about the NMP concept and the possible repercussions. One of the main reasons for introducing NMPs is to allow for a wider representation of views to be expressed in Parliament. On deeper reflection, I am coming round to the view that it may not be necessary to interfere with the democratic process of having elected MPs in Parliament just to allow for more views to be expressed in Parliament. Even if we can attract persons to become NMPs and they have special areas of interest, how can we be sure that their views are representative of their interest areas, as they have not been elected by the members of their interest groups. If we wish to seek alternative views, I believe there are many other and more extensive channels to gather feedback without the need for NMPs. As we know, we have now four Opposition MPs in Parliament who could provide alternative views. Therefore, it is my opinion that there is no need to introduce NMPs just to provide for fuller expression of views in Parliament. As I see it, there is one practical use of the NMP concept, ie, if the Government needs to urgently recruit a very capable and suitable person outside Parliament to fill a Ministerial post, and there may be various reasons why we cannot arrange for this person to become an elected MP, then the NMP process is indeed a very speedy and convenient route for this outside person to fill the Ministerial post. I believe we Singaporeans are quite pragmatic. If we can get a better person to take up an important Ministerial job, it would be better for the country. However, I wish to caution that this route should only be used sparingly and only during an exigency. At the appropriate time in future, the NMP who joins the Government Bench as a Minister should contest in an election in a constituency and seek a personal mandate from the people to become an elected MP. We are all aware of the advantages of subjecting an MP to public scrutiny through an election process whereby people can review his background and make an assessment of his ability before he becomes an elected Member to join this House. Notwithstanding this positive aspect of the NMP scheme, on balance, I would rather take a very purist approach that Members of Parliament should go through the electoral process. Although I have previously voiced some support for this NMP scheme, I am now less enthusiastic and not supportive, as I am inclined to feel that, fundamentally, Members of this House should be elected. 3.20 pm

Mr Speaker, Sir, first of all, let me respond to the question raised by the Member for Mountbatten. He asked, "What is wrong with Members of Parliament being admitted to Parliament without having gone through the General Election, and what is wrong with the Constitution providing for Nominated Members of Parliament?" Of course, the question lies with the fact that the People's Action Party has an overwhelming majority in Parliament. It can amend the Constitution any time it likes. So long as it is necessary, it is, of course, legitimate to amend the Constitution. It can even amend the Constitution to such an extent that it may not have to win a General Election to form the Government. Then, in accordance with the Constitution, it is also legitimate! Mr Speaker, Sir, when the then Deputy Prime Minister, Mr Goh Chok Tong, introduced the Bill on Nominated MPs in Parliament, he gave the basic principles and needs of the Bill. Two of the basic principles were: first, promote political participation and contribution by encouraging talented people who have ideas on how to run the country better to come forward and render their service; secondly, to accommodate constructive dissent and other views. My doubt is: By appointing six NMPs, can it really encourage political participation? Can it spur our Singaporeans into coming forward to serve the people? If the people who are accepting the appointment to be NMPs are sincere in wanting to serve the people, then they should dedicate themselves to the nation, face the people, stand for election, and let the people themselves return them to Parliament directly to be their representatives to serve the people. As for the accommodation of constructive dissent and other views, if the Government is sincere, then it should encourage the various professional bodies and community organisations to express their political views in the names of their respective organisations, and should not amend the law to restrict them from expressing their views. For example, Parliament passed the Legal Profession (Amendment) Act, restricting the Law Society in their rights to express their views. Is this the Government's policy of embracing divergent views? I believe that by allowing the professional bodies and community organisations to express their views, the Government will definitely benefit much more. Political participation will be more active. There is no need to go through the process of appointing NMPs. At that time, Prime Minister Goh mentioned that there were only two Opposition Members in Parliament then, and by adding six NMPS, there will be eight non-Government MPs in Parliament. This would have been quite a lot - equivalent to 10% of the total number of Government MPs. However, the fact remains that the Nominated MPs were MPs nominated by the Government. Mr Speaker, Sir, in this present Parliament, there are four bona fide non-government MPs, albeit still short of Prime Minister Goh's target of having eight non-government MPs in Parliament. I must say it is such a pity! However, if Prime Minister Goh is sincere, then may I suggest to the Prime Minister to create some opportunity at the coming by-elections, so that there will be more elected non-government MPs in Parliament to present divergent views to the government? Would this not be more perfectly justifiable? Mr Speaker, Sir, now let me talk about parliamentary democracy and Nominated MPs. The people go to the polls to return their MPs who in turn formulate the policies to govern the nation. This is the root from where Parliament derives its right to legislate. Members of Parliament have the right to vote when decisions are to be made in Parliament. This is because the MPs are voting on behalf of the people who have voted them into Parliament. This is the meaning of democratic representation. Nominated MPs do not go through the election process, yet they have voting rights in Parliament. This is in contradiction of the true spirit of the democratic parliamentary representation system. Who gave the mandate to the Nominated MPs to exercise the right to vote in Parliament? Who do these Nominated MPs represent? Another important principle is: when the electorate elects their MPs to represent them in Parliament, it does not necessarily mean that they have given their elected MPs the right to nominate other Members to represent the people. Nominated MPs are also Members of Parliament. Yet, they are appointed by Members of Parliament. This is contradictory to the spirit of having to hold a General Election under the one-man-one-vote system to elect Members of Parliament. Mr Speaker, Sir, if we allow the Members of Parliament, as representatives of the people, to appoint other Members of Parliament, and these appointed Members have the rights almost identical to the elected MPs, and even the right to become Ministers, or Prime Minister, then, will it come a day when the people need to return only 40 MPs, and allow the 40 elected MPs to appoint another 41 Nominated MPs to represent the people, thus, making up a total of 81 Members in Parliament? Worse still, under the premise of saving time, money and efforts, maybe just 10 Members will be elected by the people. Then, the 10 elected MPs will appoint another 71 MPs to make up the number of 81 Members in Parliament. This can also be legitimate! Is this going to be the direction of our political development? Or perhaps, this is what some people describe as an oriental and unique style of democracy. This is a matter of concern to me. Generally, ever since the system of Nominated MPs was approved by Parliament, Parliament has appointed Nominated MPs. Today, may I ask all the hon. Members in this House: has the appointment of these Nominated MPs achieved the objectives laid down by Prime Minister Goh when he introduced the Bill in 1989? Have the Nominated MPs made up for the level which the PAP has failed to reach, and for the group of Singaporeans who have been neglected? Ever since the Nominated MPs entered Parliament, has the Government's policy been changed because of their presence? Moreover, by introducing this motion of appointing Nominated MPs, once again, does it mean that the leadership in the PAP feel that among the PAP MPs today, there is still a lack of professional technocrats, or that the PAP has failed to persuade the top talents in the various sectors to serve the nation? Mr Speaker, Sir, in my view, appointing Nominated MPs, who have not been elected by the people and yet enjoy voting rights in Parliament, is in breach of the spirit of democracy. It has also deprived our people of their right to elect directly their representatives in Parliament. I feel that the PAP's motive in introducing Nominated MPs in this Parliament is rather vague. It will not achieve the objectives of the concept of Nominated MPs which were publicly announced previously. For this reason, I oppose the motion.

( In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the motion standing in the name of the Leader of the House, Mr Wong Kan Seng. Sir, when the last Parliament passed the Bill on Nominated MPs, the system of Nominated MPs started a new chapter in our parliamentary and political systems. Regrettably, the term of the two Nominated MPs was a very short one. They had served for less than a year when Parliament was dissolved. Just now, I heard Dr Tan Cheng Bock very eloquently presenting his strong objection to the appointment of NMPs in this Parliament. The moment he completed his speech, he immediately received a warm round of applause from the four Opposition MPs. This led me to some kind of misconception that Dr Tan Cheng Bock seemed to have replaced Mr Chiam See Tong as the Leader of the Opposition. However, I understand Dr Tan Cheng Bock's stand on the NMP. He does not support the People's Action Party's stand on the NMP, neither does he support the Opposition's stand. At most, I would say that Dr Tan Cheng Bock is non-partisan, as far as this issue is concerned. In my view, people like Dr Tan Cheng Bock are the most suitable candidates to be appointed NMPs. The Opposition Member, Mr Ling How Doong, said that this act of the Government was against the principle of parliamentary democracy. He also stressed that it is against the democratic system of one-man-one-vote. In other words, he feels that this is against the Constitution. Mr Low Thia Khiang also said that the Government can amend the Constitution at random. From my observation, psychologically, they seem to have a very strong repulsion against the idea of NMPs. We know that the Constitution has already provided for the positions of the Speaker and Deputy Speaker of Parliament to be assumed by people nominated under the Constitution. Therefore, the system of NMP is just an extension of this foundation. This does not deprive our people of their basic right to elect their own representatives, neither is it against the one-man-one-vote system, because the appointment of NMPs has to be approved by each Parliament, with the support of the elected Members of Parliament in this House. It does not go against the rights of the elected Members. At the same time, it provides the electorate an additional political service in addition to the one-man-one-vote system. Therefore, the Nominated MP system is in compliance with the principle of our Constitution and, at the same time, does not contradict the right of the people to elect their own representatives. The Member for Hougang said, a moment ago, that the Government could amend the Constitution at random, and that some 10 elected MPs can appoint another 70 to 80 other MPs to form the Government. If that is the case, and if the PAP Government is really amending the Constitution at its whims and fancies, then Mr Low Thia Khiang can file a petition at the High Court to take the Government to task on this. Has the Constitution been amended at random? If I were Mr Low Thia Khiang, and I feel that the PAP is amending the Constitution at random, then I will mobilise the people to support the Workers' Party to topple the PAP at a General Election.

Order. Mr Peh, please address your remarks to the Chair.

Mr Low Thia Khiang also pointed out that this act of the PAP was a reflection that the quality of the Members from the political party was in doubt. That is ridiculous. At the last General Election, the Workers' Party fielded 13 candidates, and only one of them was returned. The SDP had nine candidates, and they did slightly better, they won three seats. Out of the 81 PAP candidates, 77 were returned. Does this not show that the electorate, under the one-man-one-vote system, had expressed more confidence in the quality of the Members from the ruling party? On the other hand, I feel that the establishment of Nominated MPs would help in supplementing the inadequacy in the quality of Members from the Opposition. I hope that the Members from the Opposition, as well as my PAP colleagues in this House will not feel psychologically uneasy with the appointment of Nominated MPs, and to repulse them. They should not worry about competition from these NMPs and prevent them from making their contribution to this House. On 24th January, 1990, the Leader of the Opposition, Mr Chiam See Tong criticised the establishment of NMPs, saying that the NMPs were entering Parliament from the back door. He even said that any one who had any self-respect would not accept the appointment as a Nominated MP. I feel that Mr Chiam's remark is an insult to the talented and dedicated Singaporeans who are prepared to serve the people. It goes further to show that the opposition parties are very jealous of the talented. It is precisely because they are jealous of the talented that they are unable to attract good talents to join them. Therefore, let us open the doors of this Parliament to those who are eligible and who are prepared to serve the people to enter this House. In this way, they will be able to help Singapore and provide extra political service to the people. Dr Arthur Beng also mentioned that he was not fully supportive of the NMP system. Yet, he suggested the acceptance of Non-Constituency MPs. I do not understand him. If we do not accept NMPs, why should we accept Non-Constituency MPs? Non-Constituency MPs came in because the people did not want the Opposition Members in this House. At that time, there was only one Chiam See Tong. With only one Member from the Opposition in the House, and if we fill in a number of Non-Constituency MPs, they may serve a purpose. Now, we have four Opposition Members in this House. I do not see why we should need any more Non-Constituency MPs in this House. In short, the continuation of NMPs is in keeping with the need of the country. We must cast our net wider to get more dedicated people, especially the professionals, members of the fairer sex and community leaders, into this House so that they can contribute to the country. As a matter of fact, the NMP system is not a concept unique to Singapore. Many democratic countries in the world, such as the United Kingdom, France and the Scandinavian countries, and even in countries with Lower and Upper Houses, have Nominated MPs. In Indonesia, for example, there are 360 elected Members of Parliament and 100 Nominated MPs. In the Philippines, there are 184 elected Members and 17 Nominated MPs. As such, I feel that we should give this NMP system a try, by giving the NMPs a longer time and a fairer opportunity to prove their worth. Only then can we see the merits in retaining this NMP system. Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the motion. Mr Chiam See Tong rose ---

Mr Chiam, Mr Sinnakaruppan has the floor.

Mr Speaker, Sir, considering that many MPs have spoken up, I shall be brief. Sir, the real question before us is whether NMPs have a role in the new Parliament to make our political process more representative, our policy debates more thorough and our feedback on issues more accurate. The NMP concept has been experimented during the latter half of the last session of Parliament. Though the general sentiment is that the merits of the scheme are not very clearly evident, I feel that we should not be too hasty to come to the conclusion that the concept will not be effective in the context of this new session of Parliament. We must take a fresh approach to the concept to see if it is worthy of acceptance, perhaps with some modifications under the renewed circumstances of the new Parliament. Sir, there are twice as many Opposition Members as there were in the last Parliament. But far from lending themselves to contribute to improving the quality of the debates, the Opposition MPs have chosen instead to indulge in populist deliberations on our policies and our system. This has led to the political process to be somewhat disruptive instead of being constructive. As a result, many PAP MPs, quite naturally, have to close ranks and debunk the Opposition's baseless but damaging remarks. This has taken up significant time and effort which otherwise would have been focused on more thorough policy debates. Nominated MPs would therefore be able to provide for a more balanced and broad based policy debate in the context of the new Parliament. 3.44 pm

When the Bill was first introduced in 1989, our Prime Minister, then the First Deputy Prime Minister, said, and I quote from the Hansard: 'Nominated MPs, unlike Opposition MPs, can concentrate on the substance of the debate rather than the form and rhetoric. They do not have to play to the gallery. They can be constructive while dissenting, thus contributing to good Government.' This statement by the Prime Minister is even more relevant to the present circumstances. Sir, Nominated MPs must be politically non-partisan. This non-partisan, neutral role of the NMPs, should not be restricted only to making speeches in Parliament. The role of NMPs should be enlarged so that they are tasked to play a more pre-eminent role in parliamentary Select Committees and perhaps take a lead role in the Feedback Unit. Their non-partisan role would help to reach out to a wider cross-section of Singaporeans who would perhaps be more forthcoming with their views and feedback on Government policies. As such, NMPs can become more effective and can make a greater impact and would be able to express the views of the people and at the same time voice their own thinking on policy matters. This would help to build consensus, encourage political participation and contribution and thereby strengthen our political process. Sir, finally, I would like to suggest that for NMPs to be regarded as truly non-partisan, it is important that the Special Select Committee, which nominates NMPs, comprises a larger proportion of people who are not linked to any political party. In this way, there will be greater acceptability of the NMPs and their loyalties would not be questioned. Sir, I support the motion.

( In Mandarin): On the issue of Nominated MPs, different people have different views. I feel that the most important point is whether we need to have Nominated MPs. In my personal opinion, we do not need to have Nominated MPs. My reasons are as follows: First, we are a small nation. We have already a lot of MPs. Secondly, in our country, we have trade unions for the various trades and industries, and they can express their views to the Government. Thirdly, we have the Feedback Unit to collect feedback from the people. Besides that, the people can also express their views through the Select Committees of Parliament, newspapers and other publications. I personally feel that MPs are representatives of the people. They do not represent just their own views or contribute their own professional expertise, but, more importantly, they have to reflect the feelings of the people, and state the demands of the people. In my view, professional expertise is not an absolute necessity. It will be better for a Member of Parliament to be an all-rounder. In our Government, there are many professional organisations and specialized people who can help to formulate the Government's policies. Therefore, it is not necessary for us to have Nominated MPs here to assist us in our legislative process. I feel that MPs should be elected directly by the people, and not appointed. When Parliament has to pass an important legislation, it can set up a Select Committee to conduct public hearings, and seek the views of the people. We can seek the views from those people who have the specialized knowledge relating to the subject matter of the legislation. They can be invited to present their views in Parliament, or make a representation in writing to Parliament or any Member of Parliament, or express their views through the MPs. As it is, we have various channels, as Dr Ow mentioned just now. We have many channels for the public to present their views. In this present Parliament, we have four Opposition MPs. All the more, we do not need to have Nominated MPs. I feel that if anyone wants to be a Member of Parliament, or wants to present his views in Parliament, he should be dedicated, and subject himself to the voters through a General Election. In my view, the Government can play a very important role in this matter. The Government should encourage more Singaporeans to participate in politics. One thing the Government must always remember is that: if the Government wants more people to participate in politics, then it should seriously review the existing political culture which is unique to Singapore. It is because of this unique political culture that many people shy away or are afraid to participate in politics. I wish to reiterate that I oppose the motion to appoint Nominated MPs. Just now, we, the four Opposition Members, applauded Dr Tan Cheng Bock because Dr Tan dared to voice his personal opinion and feelings on the issue. He supported our stand.

Sir, I did not support their stand. It is my own personal stand.

( In Mandarin): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, just now, Mr Cheo Chai Chen mentioned that Dr Tan Cheng Bock had supported the stand of the Opposition, and shared their views. I feel that they are in the habit of confusing the issue. Why should they want to do so? You can say what you like, and express your views as the Opposition. But Dr Tan is a PAP Member and he spoke in his capacity as a PAP Member, albeit he did not support the motion. This had led my parliamentary colleague, Mr Peh Chin Hua, to say that he could not help feeling that Dr Tan had appeared to be the Leader of the Opposition. That is because our Party Whip has lifted the whip to allow Dr Tan to express his personal views freely. He belongs to the PAP.

Sir, may I clarify? I am not the Leader of the Opposition, please!

( In Mandarin): Yes. This is a typical PAP MP. When it is "No", he would say, "No!" When it is "Yes", he would say, "Yes!" Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, all the 81 Members of Parliament in this House went through the General Elections to win our seats here. After the General Elections the feelings may be different from individual to individual. Of course, some Members may look at the Nominated MP as someone who appears to have taken a short-cut to get into Parliament, and feel short-changed. This is quite inevitable. But I will appeal to the 81 Members, including myself, in this House to search our conscience. Why do we come into Parliament in the first place? We are here not to quarrel with the Opposition Members, we are not here to throw tables and chairs at each other. No! I feel that the Members of the Opposition, Dr Arthur Beng and Dr Tan Cheng Bock are here to serve the country and the people. So they join their respective parties, contest the General Elections to enter this Parliament. We are here to serve the people and the country. Otherwise, we are not fit to be in this House at all. So if we can really attract these non-partisan people in Singapore, accept their patriotism, accept the fact that they also can make contribution in this House, to serve the country and the people, then what is wrong in allowing such people to come into this House? The Nominated MPs were in Parliament for only nine months. Dr Tan Cheng Bock said that their performance was not good. He went by the number of speeches they made. When they spoke less, it did not mean that they were not capable of good performance. They were like children learning how to walk. Let them have a longer time to learn how to walk, then they will perform better. So let this system have more time.

May I clarify? I did not say that the Nominated Members of Parliament were not so good. I said that the views they expressed were not something so extraordinary that the PAP Backbenchers were not able to express.

( In Mandarin): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, if the views and the contents of NMPs' speeches were similar to those of the PAP Members, then it does not mean that their performance was poor. Right? From another angle, we can see that their performance was as good as our colleagues. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I fully support the motion to have Nominated MPs in this Parliament. When we join a political party, it is like taking on a religious faith. It is a kind of belief. Some believers go through their church or religious organisations to serve the people, to serve the society --- I am just making an illustration. Similarly, there are many people in Singapore who do not want to associate themselves with any political party but, nonetheless, they are equally eager to serve the people and the country. So we must create the opportunities for such people to come in. Are we afraid of them performing better than we do? Are we afraid that they may out-shine us? No! We should not fear that they perform better than we do, so long as they have the sincerity in serving the people and the country. Just now, the Members of the Opposition remarked that one day an NMP may be appointed as a Minister. If an NMP has got the quality to become a Minister, why should we oppose it? If we are really sincere in serving the country, then we look at the long term interest of the people. If the Nominated Members of Parliament can really play a positive role in this House, then I would appeal to all of us here not to repulse or reject them.

Point of clarification.

Do you want to give way, Mr Choo?

( In Mandarin): I am sorry, I am not giving way. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, Mr Chiam See Tong has described the NMPs as Members of Parliament who are being led by the nose by the PAP Government. I do not agree. We should support this motion if we really want knowledgeable people to contribute to the country and to serve the people. If they can play a positive role in this House, and do not create dissension and confusion, then we should give them our full support. For this, I appeal to all the Members in this House, including all the PAP Members, as well as Opposition Members, to support the motion.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I do not know how long this debate will take. Just in case we need more time, I beg to move, That the proceedings on the item under discussion be exempted at this day's sitting from the provisions of Standing Order No. 1.

Question put, and agreed to. Resolved, That the proceedings on the item under discussion be exempted at this day's sitting from the provisions of Standing Order No. 1.

Debate resumed.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the issue of Nominated MPs has been put through a mental sieve by many Members when it was first debated in 1989. The records in the Hansard are testament to the thoroughness in which the issue was debated. I do not intend to quote or reiterate the views that had been stated but rather I will state my personal views. I think there are two main fundamental points to address. Firstly, is there a role for NMPs? My view is that there is. I think NMPs can provide alternative non-partisan views. There is a wealth of talent in Singapore. Members in this House are a microcosm of this wealth of talent. However, there are people who are highly capable and well respected in their fields but fight shy of politics. If inducted into Parliament, they can provide non-partisan views. They will not be handicapped by the need to oppose good policies for the sake of opposition. The NMPs are members who do not belong to the ruling Party and, yet, they provide credible, constructive, alternative views. I refer to the statement made by the Member for Hougang just now. He said that the scenario may arise where you may only have ten elected Members and 70 nominated Members. I think this is an unlikely scenario. He has missed the point. There is no need for the ruling Party to get Nominated MPs to push Bills through. We have more than enough to make up the votes. The point is that we want non-partisan people to be able to provide constructive viewpoints. He said that he did not know what were the reasons for NMPs. I suggest that, perhaps, he goes through the records in the Hansard and the reasons are quite clearly stated there. Until the day comes when the Opposition Members can throw aside emotions and offer constructive viable alternative views and policies, I see NMPs as playing a complementary role in espousing alternative views. Secondly, although I believe that, as a rule, political office should only be held by those who have undergone the electoral process, there may be exceptional circumstances when it may be beneficial for the Government and the country to appoint an NMP to high political office. Although some Members may feel strongly about this, I believe that this would give us another safeguard. One cannot predict when such a need may arise. It is better to be safe than sorry. Thirdly, NMPs can also represent the interests of majority groups. In this respect, I refer to the under-representation of women in this Parliament. Certainly, women are not the minority interest group. No matter how well men try to understand issues regarding women, I doubt that they will ever do it as well as women themselves. I believe that if capable women are selected to be NMPs, the interest of the fairer sex will be better represented. The other fundamental question is: is the NMP avenue an easy way out for those who aspire to be in Parliament? To put this in perspective, we must cast aside emotions. Not all of us are made in the same mould. Those who have stood for elections have the temperament and the disposition to weather the political elections, devote a large part of their time to the community and seek to reflect the views of the average Singaporeans in Parliament. True, this is our strength to know what an average Singaporean needs and how he feels. The NMP may not be cast in a similar mould and he may never be able to fulfil this role. However, the NMP is also a person who is established and well-respected in his profession and is able to use his wealth of experience to offer views that may provide an insight to areas which he is well-qualified in. Being established in his own profession, the public office as an NMP will not do much to enhance his image further. Hence, we must not assume that people selected to assume the office of an NMP are looking for an easy route to Parliament but rather we must be positive and look upon it as an avenue where capable people can also be inducted to play a positive role for the nation and the highest body of the nation, the Parliament. Sir, I support the motion.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, thank you for allowing me to join in the debate. Sir, I support the motion moved by the Leader of the House. The subject of Nominated MPs was thoroughly debated during the last Parliament, both during the Second Reading as well as the Third Reading. In addition, a Select Committee hearing was held when the subject was discussed by members of the public. At the end of the day, the Seventh Parliament accepted the need for Nominated MPs. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, many of the points raised then have been raised once again today. I shall try my best not to go over the previous arguments other than to state that, since the Nominated MP scheme was adopted, the situation in this House has not changed that significantly despite the presence of a few more Opposition MPs. In the last Parliament, there were two Opposition MPs, one elected and one Non-Constituency MP. In this Parliament, the number of Opposition MPs has increased to only four out of a total of 81 Members. However, the presence of these four Opposition MPs and the alternative views that they have expressed in this House so far have really not been so significant that should cause anyone to want to review or withdraw the Nominated MP scheme. Sir, I would like to comment on the point raised that MPs elected into Parliament should represent national interest and not sectional interest. In an ideal world, only candidates that represent national interest should be elected into Parliament. However, the sad reality is that candidates can and some even do get elected into Parliament by just concentrating on majority interests with little regard for minority, or national, interests. In our first-past-the-post system, a candidate needs only one vote more than the 50% to be elected into Parliament. In an ideal situation, elected MPs are also expected to put sectional interest aside and speak up for national interest. In reality, does this happen all the time? I recall that when the House discussed the restoration of CPF cuts during one of the Budget debates, it was not too difficult to predict which MPs would speak up for the workers and which MPs would speak up for the employers. Should the House decide to discuss language and culture, I think it will be even easier to predict which MPs would jump up and speak passionately on these issues. In striving for the ideal, we should never let wishful thinking blind us from reality. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the question of minority representation in Parliament should have been resolved with the introduction of the Group Representation Constituency system. However, examination of the composition of the Seventh Parliament would reveal that, despite the GRC System, a segment of our population had no representation in Parliament. There was no ethnic Eurasian MP in our last Parliament. It is my hope that this shortcoming will be put right during the Eighth Parliament through the Nominated MP scheme. Examination of the composition of this Parliament will also show that there are only two women Members out of 81 Members in this House. But surely this is a gross under-representation of a major segment of our population. Hopefully, in a small way, we can reduce this inequity by adding a few more women Members in this House through the Nominated MP scheme. Finally, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I feel that a total of six Nominated MPs may not make a significant impact among 81 elected MPs. Nominated MPs are also not likely to be able to topple the Government as their powers are limited on certain issues. However, if intelligently selected, Nominated MPs can play an important role in providing a voice for more segments of our population that are not represented, or that are under-represented, in this Parliament. With that, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I support the motion.

First of all, I would like to thank all those Members who have spoken in support of this motion. For those who have spoken against the motion, I have heard nothing new. There is more heat than light. They have gone through some old grounds. Some, in fact, probably did not even look at what was debated in the past and repeated the same old points. I will just take one example, not specifically trying to single out Mr Ling. All the points that he has brought up have been answered in the Prime Minister's speech in 1989. If he had bothered to read the speech, then he would probably have raised a different question and not rehash the same position, same problem and the same questions that were raised previously. The questions raised by MPs actually arise from two aspects. Firstly, that the two NMPs have not been contributing to our satisfaction and, therefore, we have not been able to see the merits of having NMPs in this Parliament. Secondly, Members question whether this is against parliamentary democracy or not, and why do we need unelected Members in this Chamber when we already have enough views been canvassed from the PAP as well as from the Opposition. Let me take the first point on the two NMPs. To be fair to them, they have done a good job. I have looked through the records and I do not agree with Dr Tan Cheng Bock when he said that there were 22 sittings in that Parliament and Prof. Choo spoke seven times and Mr Leong Chee Whye, four times. If he were to interpret ---

It is not that they spoke seven times, or four times. Of the 22 sittings, one spoke in seven sittings and the other in four sittings; and in each sitting, they did cover a number of topics.

That is also not quite a true representation of what had taken place. Of the 22 sittings that we had between 20th December 1990 and 29th July 1991, Parliament sat for 22 days. But if Dr Tan were to take the number of times that Parliament was convened, Parliament actually was convened only seven times. So in a situation like, say, the debate on the President's Address, no Member can speak more than once, yet we have five days of debate on the President's Address. And if he says, therefore, the NMP only spoke once out of the five days and he had not done enough work, this is not correct. This point ought to be clarified, otherwise people may have the wrong impression that NMPs have not contributed much. I have looked at their records in Hansard also. They had spoken on a wide variety of issues, not just in their area of specialisation, like medicine, or business, but many of the issues that they brought up were quite outside their area of specialisation. That is a fair comment if you were to examine the Hansard very carefully. Whether they are inferior or third-class MPs, all of us have seen them and I do not think the NMPs themselves feel inferior to any of us here. I think they have acquitted themselves well. I would even venture to guess that they did much better than the Opposition. On the question of whether this is against Parliamentary democracy or not, I recall the Prime Minister quoting extensively from a book on the Constitution of Britain. He did go through examples of what a Parliament actually consists of. And in the mother of all Parliaments - Great Britain - their Parliament consists of the Queen, the House of Lords and the House of Commons. In the House of Lords, there are 1,192 Members. Do we say that is undemocratic?

Can I seek a clarification? Is the Leader of the House saying that we are going to transform our system into two Houses. If he is going to transform it into two Houses, we are willing to accept all the Nominated MPs. We are comparing different things.

Which means you are not against the idea of an unelected Chamber.

No.

Not at all. Therefore, if you are not against the idea of an unelected Chamber, why are you against the idea of having unelected Members in this one Chamber?

Clarification, Sir. The power of the elected Chamber is restricted. I believe in Great Britain, the Upper House and the Lower House have different functions.

No.

I want to ask the Leader one question. Is he proposing a dual House? Is he proposing that?

That is a different matter which we are not discussing today. What I am trying to explain to you is that in the mother of all Parliaments, they have unelected Members. An hon. Member: Where is the father?

Maybe if you look at the father of all Parliaments, there is another one. Let us take the example of the United States. The United States has a Congress, comprising a House of Representatives and the Senate, the Elected President, and yet the whole Cabinet of the President of the United States is unelected. Mr Chiam See Tong rose ---

Mr Wong, are you giving way?

He brought up a very important point which has to be clarified.

Let him carry on.

Is he going to have a separation of powers like America? If he is, then we will have the same system as them. Then we can have any number of Cabinet Ministers who are nominated. Is he?

I think Mr Chiam jumps to the conclusion too soon.

No, I am not.

In fact, what I am leading to is there is not just one model of democracy. There are different kinds of democracy. We have inherited the Westminster type of democracy. And over the years, from experience, from what we have learnt from other people, from the implementation of our own system, we have evolved a system that is most suitable to our own needs. I think that is a factor which we must all remember. No two countries are the same. We must be able to learn from others, adapt the good experiences and apply to our own circumstances, so that we can do better ourselves. And that is how Singapore stays ahead. We cannot blindly copy other people, and I can quote you examples of countries which have just borrowed wholesale the American system, and they have done quite miserably. So we have to be very careful about this. When we inherited the system in 1962 ---

Can I clarify?

Are you giving way, Mr Wong?

Yes.

By all means, we can evolve our system. But I think it is only fair that the electorate should know that we are going to evolve a certain system. Did you or did you not tell the electorate that you are going to have NMPs before the elections? Some hon. Members: Yes.

That question can quite simply be answered by looking at the records of the Opposition's speeches during the elections. Did they campaign against the NMP scheme? If they were so against the issue, did they say, "No, let us turn this around and have more Opposition in Parliament," and overturn this system and not to have NMPs? That is the key question. In fact, Mr Chiam should examine his records. As I said, we have to evolve our own system. We had a system in the past where MPs could change parties and cause instability in the Government, and we amended the law to make sure that if you change your party after you were elected, you have to go back to the people for another mandate, and that stopped the change. When we had all PAP Members in this Chamber and we wanted to accommodate an alternative view, the Opposition view, we again changed to allow for NCMPs. And that again we learned from experience. And knowing that we may sometimes face difficulties in electing minority candidates, we changed the system to allow for GRCs to ensure that minority candidates are elected. Having two parties in the Chamber necessarily will entail adversarial politics. I think we cannot run away from it. We can see examples of this during debates in this Chamber. The PAP Members and the Government always state one point of view, the Government's point of view, the Opposition another. Having NMPs will provide us with an alternative point of view, which can be unbiased, which can be independent and which just concentrates on the substance of the debate and on the issue without getting emotional about it, without having to go and campaign for votes and speak to the gallery. I think that is the most important point. Some of our MPs here also say that if we really want to have NMPs and if they become Ministers, then how can we have Ministers who are not accountable to the electorate? Again, all we need to do is to look at other countries. There are countries bigger than ours, there are countries wealthier than ours, there are countries with more talent than ours, and these are the countries which are also democracies. The United States, 220-230 million people, the whole of the Bush Cabinet is unelected. In Britain, 50 million people, the whole of the House of Lords is unelected. Maybe Members may not have heard, in Germany, 70-80 million people and yet they have unelected Ministers. You might have heard of Mr Kinkel, the Foreign Minister of Germany, who was sworn in a couple of weeks ago. Up to today, he is still an unelected MP. In fact, when Mr Kinkel became the Justice Minister just about a year and a half ago, he was not even a member of the Free Democrats Party which nominated him as the Justice Minister. Here we have a country, richer, wealthier, stronger, having more talented people and yet they see it fit to have unelected people to take office if the need arises. What more of Singapore? For three million people, we assume that we will be able to find all the talent that we need to form the Cabinet. Today, yes, in future, who knows? Can we predict what may happen in the future? I think it would be foolish of us to throw away that possibility and not to have NMPs become Ministers. For those who say that we must have a mandate, well, MPs are elected as representatives of the people. They are not delegates of the people. They have the responsibility to decide what is best for the nation. They are not people's delegates who have to go back to the people every time there is a question. In that case, we do not have to have a government. We just have a referendum whenever an issue is to be debated and we just seek a public opinion poll and decide on the issue. But that is not the system that we have. We have a system that is based on representative government and therefore we should keep it. Some say there are enough channels of feedback, communication, views are given and so on. Yes, we have. We have Opposition Members, we have PAP Members, we have Feedback Unit and a whole host of other organisations. But what is there to be lost by having NMPs in this House to give viewpoints and opinions that are not necessarily widely canvassed? What do we have to lose? I think for the PAP, there is nothing to lose. For the Opposition, it may show up the inadequacies of their performance and therefore there is a concern that NMPs may undermine their position. Looking at the debate at the last Parliament as well as during the Committee of Supply and Budget debates, we have heard noth-ing very much from the Opposition. And all the more, even though we have only four Opposition Members, we should continue to have NMPs in this House.

We object to the fact that we were not performing well. But the votes did not reflect that. If what you say were true, then the Opposition votes would have been less. Since you say that the Opposition has not been performing well, then we should not have got the votes that we had at the last elections. But the votes prove you wrong.

If the SDP has the majority support, then they should have contested in 81 constituencies and they should be here today as the government. But they have not been able to do so. Why? Try it. I think the next time round, commit yourself to 81 candidates.

We will try.

Commit, not try. Not just trying it, commit yourself that you will field 81 candidates and we shall let the people decide who they want to be the government. I think that is fair.

All right.

Yes, indeed.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, Mr Wong Kan Seng has just said that we need the NMPs to point out the mistakes of the Opposition. Is he suggesting that the present Members have failed in their duty and you need NMPs to come to this Parliament to point out the flaws of the Opposition MPs? Clarify this point for us.

First of all, Mr Ling should listen very carefully to what I say. I did not say that we need the NMPs here to point out your mistakes. I just said that it shows your inadequacies. Inadequacies are not mistakes. And for the PAP, we have no fear about it. As for Mr Chiam's point about contesting in 81 seats, indeed, if he were to say for the record that he will contest 81 seats at the next elections, we shall wait for him. But at the last elections in 1991, he said that he would let the PAP form the Government. Now, will he tell us that in the next elections, he shall contest all the 81 seats?

If the Government is willing to tell us when is the next general elections, we will take up the challenge. You just tell us when will be the next elections. Is it going to be in 1985 or 1986? An hon. Member: 1985?

In 1995 or 1996. If you can just give us the date, we will take up the challenge. An hon. Member: It is three or four years from now.

No, give us the exact date.

Whether it is on the 28th December 1996 or the 25th December 1995, it is irrelevant. Mr Chiam has four or five years to get 81 candidates to contest the next elections. That is what is relevant.

You have put up a challenge. We have rebutted it. You tell us exactly what date it is and we will take up the challenge.

I do not know how many years' notice does Mr Chiam want. If five years is not enough, how many years does he want? What date does he want to have?

Order. Will hon. Members please keep to the subject instead of digressing?

In fact, after every general election, there has always been adequate notice for the next elections. And that is the basis for the PAP governing from year to year, from term to term, because after the general elections, we prepare for the next elections. After the last elections, the SDP should do the same thing and prepare for the next elections.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I thought it is out of order!

Mr Wong, can you carry on, please?

I have finished. Resolved, "That this Parliament, in accordance with section 1(1) of the Fourth Schedule to the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore, resolves that there shall be nominated Members during the term of this Parliament." - [Mr Wong Kan Seng].

Resolved, "That Parliament do now adjourn to a date to be fixed." - [Mr Wong Kan Seng]. Adjourned accordingly at Half Past Four o'clock pm to a date to be fixed.

asked the Minister for Education what type of school is planned for the reserved site along Serangoon North Avenue 4 and when will the school be built.

The site in question is a reserved primary school site. There are no immediate plans to build a school there.