Hansard, 1996-10-28

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 Chew Heng Ching - from 14th to 25th October, 1996. Mr Matthias Yao Chih - from 17th to 24th October, 1996. Mr Teo Chong Tee - from 19th to 22nd October, 1996. Encik Yatiman Yusof - from 20th October to 5th November, 1996. Dr Ker Sin Tze - from 20th to 27th October, 1996. Mr Lim Hng Kiang - from 20th to 21st October and from 4th to 6th November, 1996. Dr Hu Tsu Tau, Richard - from 21st to 30th October, 1996. Mr Charles Chong - from 22nd to 26th October, 1996. Dr Yeo Ning Hong - from 23rd to 24th October and from 28th to 31st October, 1996. Dr Wong Kwei Cheong - from 23rd to 24th October, 1996. Mr S. Dhanabalan - from 24th October to 25th November, 1996. Mr Chng Hee Kok - on 24th October and from 28th to 29th October, 1996. Mr Davinder Singh - on 28th October, 1996. Mr K. Shanmugam - from 28th October to 1st November, 1996. Dr Lee Tsao Yuan - on 28th October, 1996. Prof. S. Jayakumar - from 29th October to 1st November, 1996. Mr Peh Chin Hua - from 29th October to 1st November, 1996. RAdm Teo Chee Hean - from 30th October to 1st November, 1996. Mr Tan Soo Khoon - from 29th October to 2nd November, 1996. Mr Koo Tsai Kee - from 1st to 3rd November, 1996. Mr Peter Sung - from 1st to 30th November, 1996. Mr Zulkifli bin Mohammed - from 1st to 3rd November, 1996. Mr Goh Chee Wee - from 4th to 5th November, 1996. Dr Lau Teik Soon - from 4th to 9th November, 1996. Dr Wang Kai Yuen - from 5th to 9th November, 1996. Mr Chin Harn Tong - from 8th to 10th November, 1996. Dr Koh Lip Lin - from 9th to 15th November, 1996. Dr Michael Lim Chun Leng - from 9th to 15th November, 1996. Encik Sidek bin Saniff - from 11th November to 3rd December, 1996. TAN SOO KHOON Speaker Parliament of Singapore

The following Bills were assented to by the President of the Republic of Singapore on the date stated: 16th October 1996 (i) Economic Expansion Incentives (Relief from Income Tax) (Amendment) Bill 1996; (ii) Skill Development Levy (Amendment) Bill 1996; (iii) Sentosa Development Corporation (Amendment) Bill 1996; and (iv) Countervailing and Anti-Dumping Duties Bill 1996. TAN SOO KHOON Speaker Parliament of Singapore

The following Questions stood in the name of Dr Lee Tsao Yuan - 1. To ask the Minister for Labour what is the percentage of the female work force which is employed on a part-time or flexi-time basis and whether there is a discernible trend in the ratio over time.

2. To ask the Minister for Labour whether it is possible to encourage greater adoption of part-time work for women in light of the need for more workers in Singapore as well as women's family responsibilities.

Question No. 1, Sir.

Mr Speaker, Sir, with your permission, may I take both Question Nos. 1 and 2 together since they are both related.

Yes, you may.

Sir, as at June 1996, 59,000 or 3.4% of employed persons were working part-time. Part-time workers refer to persons whose regular working hours are less than 30 hours per week, including those who work on a flexi-time basis. Two-thirds or 39,700 of the part-time workers are females. This constitutes 5.5% of the female workforce. The percentage of women working part-time has not increased significantly in recent years. Sir, the percentage of women in part-time employment in Singapore is lower than that of the developed countries. My Ministry encourages employers to provide more part-time employment and flexi-work to attract the economically inactive, particularly housewives, to return to the workforce. Part-time and flexible work arrangements would enable housewives to balance work with domestic commitments. The promotion of part-time and flexi-work is therefore the main thrust of the "Back to Work" Programme launched recently by my Ministry, the Productivity and Standards Board, the NTUC and Singapore National Employers' Federation. We hope that this tripartite effort would bring about a greater awareness of its benefits among employers as well as the economically inactive, and facilitate their return to the workforce. Within a month after the launching of the "Back to Work" Programme, a total of 1,655 applications have been received. These applicants are being referred to the participating companies to be interviewed. For those who require core skills training, the Productivity and Standards Board and their employers will send them for suitable training courses. Of the 1,655 applicants, 1,069 or 65% are married women in the 30 to 54 age group. 83% of these women have also indicated their preference for part-time and flexi-work arrangements. This confirmed our observation that married women prefer part-time or flexi-work arrangements. Employers who have difficulty recruiting staff should be aware of the constraints faced by this pool of potential employees and make the necessary adjustments. My Ministry and the Productivity and Standards Board are currently working with employers, particularly those with many vacancies, to examine ways of restructuring some jobs for part-timers, thereby widening their recruitment pool. Over the longer term, we hope to attract more and more married women back to the workforce, with jobs which allow them to supplement their family income and at the same time attend to their homemakers' responsibilities.

Sir, would the Minister consider partial or full waiver of the foreign maid levy to further encourage housewives to come into the workforce?

Mr Speaker, Sir, the foreign domestic worker levy is necessary in order to moderate demand for foreign domestic workers. At today's rate of levy, $330 a month, we already have more than 90,000 foreign domestic workers in Singapore. If we further reduce the foreign domestic worker levy, the demand is liable to shoot up. We may then have a much larger problem to manage and cope with such a large number of foreign domestic workers in Singapore. In order to encourage married women to work, the Government has, in fact, given them a double tax relief on the foreign domestic worker levy that they pay. Whether the woman or the husband employs the domestic worker, they can now claim a double tax relief of the woman's income so that it more or less substantially reduces the woman's real payment for the foreign domestic worker.

Sir, before one can enjoy the double income tax relief it would require a substantial take home salary. If a housewife wants to go to work, then the income she earns would not entitle her to that kind of relief. Would the Minister want to consider this?

Mr Speaker, Sir, I think that is the purpose of giving a double tax relief, ie, to encourage those women who are able to make a substantial contribution to the economy and earning a higher salary to come back to work and, if they need to, then they can engage the services of a foreign domestic worker. That is the whole purpose of it. In fact, if the woman's income is so low that she cannot even afford to pay the maid the wages and the levy, then perhaps the woman should consider alternative arrangement instead of employing a foreign domestic worker to look after the household needs and to care for her children. There are many other such options or alternatives available. In fact, most Singaporean families do not depend upon foreign domestic workers to look after their children. The majority use the traditional avenues like in-laws, parents or other family relatives to care for their young children. So there are other alternatives. The foreign domestic worker is not the only solution to this problem.

asked the Minister for Home Affairs how a 13 year-old educationally subnormal boy who was arrested by officers from the Ang Mo Kio Division/Chong Boon Neighbourhood Police Post on 24th February 1993 suffered physical injuries whilst in the custody of the police for more than 7 hours and whether he will consider appointing a commission of inquiry to inquire into the circumstances.

Question No. 3, Sir. I wish to declare that I have no interest in the case. But my Secretary-General was the counsel for the boy.

Sir, first, let me apprise the House of the facts of the case. On 24th February 1993, at 2.55 pm, the 13 year-old educationally subnormal boy in question was detained by officers from the Chong Boon NPP on suspicion of bicycle theft. While the boy was under Police custody, Police made repeated attempts to contact his family but was not successful. Police only managed to get in touch with the boy's father at about 7.50 pm. The boy was released unconditionally at about 10.10 pm after his father came down to the Police station at 9.45 pm. Sir, on 16th April 1996, Sgt Ong Peng Sim from the Ang Mo Kio Police Division appeared in court to answer to a private summons arising from a complaint made by the boy's father to a Magistrate, for allegedly assaulting the boy on 24th February 1993 while the boy was under Police custody. The allegation of assault was initially made by the boy's father on 2nd March 1993, one week after the boy was released. On receiving the complaint, the Internal Investigation Division (IID) of the Police commenced investigation. The investigation was delayed by the fact that the boy and his father were uncooperative and repeatedly refused to be interviewed by the IID. It was only in August 1995, about two and a half years later, that the boy gave his statement to the Police. The boy's father refused to be interviewed by IID. IID's investigations revealed that the boy's father had brought the boy to the Ang Mo Kio Polyclinic at about 9.15 am on 25th February 1993, the day after the alleged assault, for a medical examination. The boy was then examined by a resident doctor of the polyclinic who found no signs of any physical injury. About six hours later, the boy was again taken by the father to a private clinic for a second examination. This second examination revealed injuries on the boy. On 30th March 1995, the boy's father laid a complaint of assault before the Magistrate, and the Magistrate directed the Police to investigate and submit a report. In its report to the Magistrate dated 4th October 1995, IID concluded that the allegation of assault by the Police could not be substantiated. The main basis for this conclusion was the fact that the earlier medical examination did not reveal any injuries at all. There is therefore no cause to believe that there was any assault on the boy while he was in Police custody, as the first medical report clearly showed the absence of any physical injuries on the boy the morning after he was released from Police custody. Nevertheless, the boy, through his counsel, applied to proceed with the private summons and the case went to trial in April 1996. At the commencement of the hearing in the Subordinate Court, Sgt Ong's defence counsel applied to the Magistrate to expunge IID's investigation report from the court record. The Magistrate therefore did not know of IID's findings. The contents of the IID report were not made known to Sgt Ong or his counsel as IID is an impartial independent body in this investigation. Its report contained references to the absence of injuries during the first medical examination. Although the prosecuting counsel had applied for and received (from the Ang Mo Kio polyclinic) the first medical report, he did not bring to the court's attention that this medical report was inconsistent with the evidence that he had introduced earlier. Sir, after a six-day trial, the court acquitted the accused because it was of the view that the boy's testimony was unreliable and that the charge was not proven. The boy's counsel subsequently appealed against the acquittal of the accused on 17th September 1996. The appeal was dismissed. In the circumstances, I do not see the need to appoint a commission of inquiry to re-open the case.

Sir, I understand from the Senior Parliamentary Secretary's answer at the last sitting of Parliament that a minor would not normally be detained for more than four hours. But I understand that, in this case, the boy was detained for about seven hours. Why was it so?

Sir, I said in my earlier answer that unless there are extenuating circumstances, minors will not be detained beyond four hours. In this case, it was important to contact the father. Since he was a minor, they had to release him to somebody who was responsible for him. The Police tried repeatedly to contact the father but failed to do so until about 7.45 pm which was about five hours after he was first detained.

Is the Senior Parliamentary Secretary satisfied that in this particular case, the procedures of the Police in investigating minors were strictly followed?

Sir, this question was asked previously. Yes, the procedures were followed.

asked the Minister for Labour (a) how many illegal foreign workers had been arrested from construction sites for each of the years from 1994 to September 1996; (b) whether illegal foreign workers had also been found in other industries; (c) what effective measures are being taken to curb the illegal influx into the job market; and (d) whether his Ministry will relax its rules to allow more foreign workers to take up jobs in industries which Singaporeans shy away from.

Mr Speaker, Sir, in 1994, 386 illegal foreign workers were arrested at construction sites. This rose to 932 in 1995. In the first nine months of 1996, 938 illegal workers had already been arrested. Besides the construction industry, illegal foreign workers are also found in service industries, such as foodstalls, cafeteria, coffeeshops, provision shops and cleaning services. As the problem of illegal employment was most serious in the construction industry, the Employment of Foreign Workers Act was amended to hold principal contractors in the construction industry responsible for illegal workers found at their work sites and to facilitate prosecution of employers of illegal workers. Besides the amendments to the Employment of Foreign Workers Act, my Ministry in conjunction with the Police and Immigration Department has also stepped up enforcement action to detect and arrest illegal construction workers. The marine industry and construction industry are two areas which have the most difficulty in recruiting local workers. In view of this, we have allowed higher dependency ceilings for these two industries. The dependency ceiling for the marine industry is one local worker to three foreign workers, while that for the construction industry, it is one local worker to five foreign workers. Currently, 96% of the marine companies and 92% of the construction companies are operating within the prevailing dependency ceiling. There is no need to raise the dependency ceiling at this juncture.

asked the Minister for Health whether there are sufficient doctors and nursing officers in Government restructured hospitals and Accident and Emergency Units at night and whether the workload imposed on doctors, nurses and housemen is reasonable.

Mr Speaker, Sir, doctors and nurses in hospitals work in teams by speciality departments and wards. They are rostered to perform night duties so that adequate patient care is provided on a 24-hour basis. In general, House Officers and Medical Officers form the first line doctors, supervised by Registrars, all of whom stay in the hospital during the night. As a routine, the Consultant-on-call who is overall in charge of the management of patients does not stay in the hospital. But he will do so if the situation warrants it. Currently, hospitals are, in general, adequately staffed. On the average, the manpower shortfall for doctors is 10%, and for nurses 11%. The number of doctors and nurses rostered at night depends on the number of patients and the average level of activity in the hospital. Doctors are rostered on night duty 6-8 times a month. For inpatient care during the night, doctors are only to attend to urgent situations and to emergency new admissions. Treatment and investigations for patients are normally administered during the day, and routine activities for inpatients at night are minimal. As for workload at the A&E departments, doctors and nurses work on a shift system. The number of doctors rostered depends on the number of patients who usually attend the hospital A&E departments. In situations of unexpected demand, there is team work and flexibility in redeploying staff, including senior staff, to cope with the unexpected demand. This will ensure that there are sufficient doctors and nurses to deal with patients' needs, and that their workload is kept at a reasonable level.

Sir, the Senior Minister of State in her reply said that it would depend on the number of patients in A&E departments. How do they estimate the number of patients in A&E departments? Second, I would like to know what are the ratios for doctors and nurses vis-a-vis patients in the ward. Are there fixed ratios?

We monitor the number of A&E attendances very closely. So the kind of manpower we deploy to the A&E departments as well as the wards depends on historical figures and the pattern of usage. For example, in hospitals like SGH where the attendance at the A&E department is larger than other hospitals, we have more doctors in the SGH A&E department. As for doctor and nurse ratios, I have the figures here. The doctor to patient ratio for inpatient wards in 1995 was 1:10.4, nurse to patient ratio was 1:5.

7. At A&E departments, doctor to patient ratio was 1:22, nurse to patient ratio was 1:11.

Sir, is the Senior Minister of State satisfied that the workload for housemen and nurses at our restructured hospitals and A&E departments is reasonable? Will there be overload in a sense and thereby some mistakes are made because of the workload?

I think our staffing ratios are satisfactory. They are not ideal, because there is a bit of shortage of doctors and nurses. Doctors are expected to do night calls for about 6-8 times a month. So there is this norm. Depending on the situation and the speciality department, they would do night duty between 6 and 8 times a month. The figures show that the level of service is okay, not ideal, but acceptable.

asked the Minister for Information and the Arts why certain housing estates are still not equipped to receive cable television.

Sir, the Singapore Broadcasting Authority (SBA) has tasked Singapore CableVision (SCV) with the job of wiring all homes in Singapore. Under its plan to provide cable TV services to the whole island, SCV is wiring over 700,000 homes. Each home has to be wired individually. SCV is carrying out the wiring stage by stage because it is a massive project. It is not possible for all estates to be simultaneously wired for cable TV. SCV is currently wiring at the rate of 23,000 units per month, with the cooperation of residents. By 1998, all HDB estates will be wired up. The wiring of the whole of Singapore will be completed by the year 2000.

asked the Minister for Information and the Arts why the reception for radio, television and telephone in some housing estates is poor.

Mr Speaker, Sir, radio and television reception in Singapore is generally good. SBA ensures that there is good reception nationwide, by setting suitable technical standards. However, there are some pockets of poor reception in Singapore. Poor reception arises because of terrain, high buildings or electromagnetic interferences which block, reflect or weaken radio signals. There are various technical solutions to the problem of poor reception. One solution is to tap-off signals from a nearby tall building. Another solution is receiving the signal through cable. SCV is currently cabling the island and this is expected to be completed in 3-4 years' time. Meanwhile, anyone who experiences poor reception problems can contact SBA or the broadcasters for assistance.

asked the Minister for Communications why certain telephone numbers cannot have Caller-ID facility.

Sir, there are currently a total of 97 switches in SingTel's telephone network serving some 1.5 million telephone subscribers. Over the years, SingTel has progressively upgraded its network and replaced its switches to support more advanced features, such as Caller ID, for its customers. So far, 84% of all SingTel's switches have been replaced. The remaining switches are scheduled to be upgraded within the next three years. Until then, subscribers whose telephones are linked to the older switches do not have direct access to features such as Caller ID. Those subscribers who need to have such features urgently can contact SingTel who will look into special arrangements for them.

Sir, to change a telephone number, a subscriber has to pay a fee. Would the Ministry consider a waiver of this fee if a subscriber changes his telephone number?

Sir, I do not have the details about this fee. But as I explained earlier on, there are options available to the subscribers who want to have Caller ID facility. As I said, special arrangements can be made for the subscribers.

Sir, does the special arrangement mean the waiver of the fees?

Sir, I do not believe that there will be a waiver of the fees. There is a fee incurred in having this Caller ID facility. As I said, I do not believe that a waiver is being planned.

Sir, in a normal situation, when one changes a telephone number to another number, one has to pay a fee. This is what one has to pay if one has an old number and wants to have Caller ID facility. Could this fee be waived?

As I said, I do not have the details about this fee structure. I will ask SingTel to look into this.

asked the Minister for National Development whether 4-room budget flats will be built in the North East Zone estates like Sengkang and Punggol and whether applicants of such flats can choose the unit.

Mr Speaker, Sir, HDB will continue to build 4-room budget flats in all zones including the North East Zone and in estates like Punggol and Sengkang. Applicants in the 4-room flat register whose registration numbers are due for selection of flats will be invited to select 4-room flats, which will include 4-room budget flats. They will select flats in the zones that they have applied for.

Sir, will these applicants be allowed to select their units as well? Second, I understand that currently, applicants are not allowed to choose their locations, because the building programme for 4-room budget flats is only for Choa Chu Kang. Why is it so? And when will the flats in estates like Sengkang and Punggol be available for selection?

Sir, under the Registration for Flat System, the applicant will apply for a flat in a zone, whether he applies for the North Zone, North East Zone or the West Zone. Somebody who applies for a 4-room flat in the West Zone will be invited to select a 4-room flat when his queue number is due. At every selection exercise, we try to put 4-room budget flats available for selection. Therefore, a person who wishes to buy a 4-room budget flat will select a flat in the zone that he has applied for. This holds true whether it is in the West Zone, North East Zone which includes Sengkang, and in the North Zone which includes Woodlands and Yishun.

"to amend the Sale of Goods Act (Chapter 393 of the 1994 Revised Edition)", presented by the Senior Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Law (Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee); read the First time; to be read a Second time on the next available sitting of Parliament, and to be printed.

"to amend the Supply of Goods Act (Chapter 394 of the 1994 Revised Edition) and to make a minor amendment to the Unfair Contract Terms Act (Chapter 396 of the 1994 Revised Edition) in relation to contracts for the supply of goods", presented by Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee; 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. 12.58 pm

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." The Constitution of the Republic of Singapore (Amendment) Bill 1996 contains amendments relating to three issues: (a) Group Representation Constituencies (GRCs); (b) The Elected President's powers; and (c) The Council of Presidential Advisers. GRC Amendments The first set of amendments is set out in clause 14 of the Bill. The amendments increase the maximum number of MPs representing a GRC from four to six. Members may recall that there were two reasons for creating GRCs. The first reason was to guarantee multi-racial representation in Parliament. This was what started us thinking about changing the single member constituency system, and studying schemes like twinning candidates, with one Chinese and another minority candidate in an enlarged two-member constituency. The second reason for GRCs was to fit in with the proposal to set up Town Councils. Our original idea was just to twin two single constituencies. But because of Town Councils, we decided to create GRCs with three members instead. I explained this to Parliament in January 1988, when I moved the amendments to the Parliamentary Elections Act and the Constitution to create GRCs. I said that although Town Councils and multi-racial MPs were tWo different ideas, they were compatible with each other, and the GRC proposal was designed to achieve both. I quote from Hansard, Vol. 50, Col. 184, of 11th January 1988: "The town council proposal and the team MP proposal are two different concepts. One is to give residents more authority, more responsibility, to manage their own housing estates; the other is to ensure that Parliament would always be multi-racial. But though the two concepts are different, they are compatible. After an election three MPs, although they are voted in separately, can get together to form a town council. Also, after an election, a group of MPs, three in this case, in a Group Representation Constituency, can also form a town council. Thus, though the two concepts are different, they can be worked together. That was how Group Representation Constituencies, each about the size of three single-member Constituencies and each to be served by a team of three MPs, came to replace twin constituencies." Both the Town Council and the GRC schemes have been successful. As we gained confidence in the schemes, we adapted and extended them in the light of our experience. Thus in 1990, we changed the maximum number of GRC candidates from three to four, to provide flexibility in dealing with a GRC whose population was expanding rapidly. I now propose to take the ideas of Town Councils and GRCs another step further. Town Councils were set up to give more authority and responsibility to residents to manage their own estates. I intend to devolve still more authority to the local communities, by setting up Community Development Councils (CDCs). CDCs will bring government closer to the people and encourage communities to manage their own affairs. They will take over some work hitherto undertaken by Ministries and Government agencies. CDCs will be given more responsibility and resources to carry out self-help projects and dispense help to the needy, for example, through Edusave scholarships and bursaries and Medifund grants. This will strengthen social cohesion and bonding among Singaporeans. For CDCs to be effective, they need to have responsibility for a critical mass of residents. Increasing the maximum number of MPs in a GRC from four to six will give more flexibility to the Electoral Boundaries Review Committee to configure a GRC which is the right size for this purpose. Not all GRCs need to have six members. But where it will be more convenient to create a 6-member GRC, the Committee will be able to do so. Devolving more powers to MPs in Town Councils and CDCs, and enlarging the maximum size of GRCs, is electorally neutral. It gives no unfair advantage either to the PAP or the opposition parties. But it gives voters a bigger stake in the result of their choice, because team MPs will manage more matters, including some duties of the Government now carried out by MCD, Ministry of Education and the hospitals. As a result, their voting will affect them in many more matters within the constituency. So voters are more likely to scrutinise the candidates, their characters and programmes carefully. Bigger GRCs also put a premium on a strong anchor-man for the team of candidates standing there. Then whichever party wins, the GRC is better off with a strong anchor-man heading a strong team, and not just a glib talker supported by a group of straw men. Therefore, the party which wins the largest number of GRCs is more likely to be able to put together a team of competent Ministers to govern the country. In other words, each constituency election in a larger GRC will become more like a national election. Voters will not only be voting for a team of MPs to manage their constituency, but also for part of the core leadership team of the winning party. This will strengthen the political system. Democracy is about exercising the choice of voting for, rather than voting against, something. At the national level, this means voting for a government which will make sound policies and lead the country into the future. At the GRC level, it means voting for a team who will make life better for the residents of the GRC. Democracy can only work when voters support the candidates whom they really have faith in: able and honest people to whom they want to entrust the country and their future. A system which encourages voters to do this is more likely to promote long term political stability in Singapore and the well being of voters themselves. The opposition have been urging voters to do the exact opposite. When they tout their "by-election strategy", what they all mean is that people should vote for opposition candidates, even though they do not trust these candidates to govern Singapore. If this happens in one or two constituencies, the governing Party loses a few seats, but the harm done is not serious, provided the opposition MPs voted in are honest men, who are not out to destroy the system. But if voters do this across the board, they will deprive the party which they in fact support, of the mandate, or the full team of Ministers, that it needs to govern Singapore. This will destabilise the political system, and lead to week governments or even a freak election result. Some people have expressed concern that this change to the GRC rules will compromise minority representation in Parliament. I have said that this will not happen: the PAP will not field fewer minority MPs as a result of this change. If necessary, it will field more than one minority candidate in some GRCs, especially the larger ones, or field minority candidates in single member constituencies. The purpose of the GRC scheme has never been to prescribe a fixed number of MPs from minority communities. It is to guarantee a minimum representation of minority community in Parliament, so that minorities are never excluded from Parliament, by some chance election result in which no minority candidates at all are elected from the single-member constituencies. The Constitution sets out the framework of the GRC scheme, including the maximum number of candidates per GRC, presently four. The Parliamentary Elections Act specifies that at least one quarter of the total number of elected MPs should come from GRCs. With 81 MPs, this means the Parliamentary Elections Act requires a theoretical minimum of six minority candidates. However, we presently have far more than six GRCs. In fact, we have 15 GRCs, as recommended by the Electoral Boundaries Review Committee before the previous general elections. And there are 17 non-Chinese elected MPs in Parliament today, more than the number of GRCs. All are PAP MPs. There are more PAP minority MPs than GRCs, because Bedok and Toa Payoh GRCs have each two minority members. There is therefore no reason to worry that as a result of increasing the maximum size of GRCs to six, minority representation in Parliament will be compromised. Some people have suggested that if we increase the maximum size of GRCs, we could require the larger GRCs to have two candidates belonging to two different minority communities, instead of one as at present. We may also guarantee a higher minimum proportion of minority MPs in other ways, for example, by requiring a larger proportion of MPs to be returned from GRCs. This is worth considering. But I do not think we are ready to implement it now. We should first gain some experience with the system which allows GRCs to have between three to six members. Only then may we consider writing such a provision into the law. The Parliamentary Elections (Amendment) Bill 1996 will make consequential changes to the Parliamentary Elections Act. The detailed changes will be dealt with later when the Bill comes up for Second Reading. Elected President's Powers The second group of amendments in the Constitution (Amendment) Bill is to fine-tune the provisions concerning the President's veto powers. They affect the President's powers in two areas: (1) Bills which circumvent or curtail his discretionary powers; and (2) Key appointments. I will deal with the President's veto powers as regards Bills first. Veto Powers over Bills On 25th August 1994, DPM Lee Hsien Loong explained to this House a problem with the drafting of the mechanism by which the elected President provisions were entrenched in the Constitution, particularly Article 22H. DPM Lee said that the Government intended to amend Article 22H to remedy the problem, but the question had arisen whether the President already had under the existing Article 22H the right to veto such an amendment. The President had stated that in the interest of testing out the system, he would like this question to be referred to the Courts for a ruling, and that he would accept whatever interpretation of Article 22H the Courts ruled to be correct. The Government therefore put this question to a 3-man Tribunal of Supreme Court Judges headed by the Chief Justice. On 20th April 1995, the Tribunal gave its opinion that: "Although Article 5(2A) of the Constitution has not been brought into operation, the President has no power under Article 22H(1) of the Constitution to withhold his assent to any Bill seeking to amend the provisions referred to in Article 5(2A), and specifically to any Bill seeking to amend Article 22H to restrict the powers of the President thereunder to any non-constitutional Bill which provides directly or indirectly for the circumvention or curtailment of the President's discretionary powers conferred upon him by the Constitution." In view of this opinion, the Government is proceeding with the amendments to 22H as it originally intended. These amendments are set out in clauses 2, 3 and 8 of the Bill. Let me explain the problem with Article 22H. When the Elected President amendments were passed in January 1991, the legislative intent was, firstly, that Constitutional amendments which circumvent or curtail the Elected President's discretionary powers should be subject to a referendum and, secondly, that the Elected President's veto over Constitutional changes which affect his powers should not be brought into effect immediately, but only after we have had several years of experience operating and refining the system. This was to have been achieved by placing the master entrenching mechanism clause in one Article - Article 5(2A), and then delaying bringing Article 5(2A) into effect until we were ready. This was done. Unfortunately, we overlooked another Article - Article 22H, which has been brought into effect. Article 22H was intended to cover non-Constitutional legislation. If such legislation circumvents or curtails the President's discretionary powers, the President can refuse assent, and if the Courts uphold the President, the matter is final. Article 22H does not cause any problem when it is applied to non-Constitutional legislation. Such legislation should never circumvent or curtail the President's discretionary powers. These powers are spelt out in the Constitution. If a Constitutional provision is unsatisfactory, the remedy is to amend the Constitution, not to pass other legislation which contradicts it. The question is whether Article 22H also covers Constitutional amendments. The Attorney-General argued before the Tribunal that it did not. But the Tribunal did not rule on this wider issue. It confined itself to answering the precise question posed to it, that is, whether the President could veto an amendment to Article 22H, which is a core provision. Its answer was no, the President could not veto an amendment to Article 22H. There is therefore still a doubt whether Article 22H applies to Constitutional amendments. If it does, this would give rise to two problems. First, the non-core provisions of the Constitution would be protected by an inappropriate criterion. Let me explain. Under Article 5(2A), if the Government wants to amend core provisions of the Constitution, it can either persuade the President to waive the requirement for a national referendum, or put the question to a referendum and win a two-thirds majority. The final test is a political one of policy, whether we should or should not circumvent or curtail the President's discretionary powers. Under Article 22H, on the other hand, if the President refuses to assent to an amendment to a non-core Constitutional provision, the question is put to the Courts. The Courts must answer a narrow question whether the amendment does in fact circumvent or curtail the President's discretionary powers. If the Courts agree with the President that it does, then the President's veto is upheld. The final test of the Constitutional amendment is a judicial one of law: whether it does or does not circumvent or curtail the President's powers. The Courts do not, and correctly cannot, decide the wider political question whether it is desirable to modify the President's powers as proposed. Article 22H, therefore, is inadequate because it provides no mechanism, such as a referendum, to decide this wider question. That is the first problem. The second problem is that Article 22H would prematurely confer upon the President the power to veto non-core Constitutional amendments. The Government has not brought Article 5(2A) into effect in order to preserve full flexibility to amend the Constitution and modify the Elected President provisions in the light of practical experience. This leads to an anomaly: amendments to non-core Constitutional provisions are subject to Presidential veto, if they circumvent or curtail the President's discretionary powers, whereas the core provisions setting out these powers have, correctly, not yet been entrenched. The solution is to separate Article 22H into two parts, which can be brought into effect separately: One part is an amended Article 22H, confined to legislation other than Constitutional amendments, where the President's veto, once upheld by the Courts, is final. Before or after exercising his veto, the President may, on the advice of the Cabinet, seek the opinion of the Tribunal of Supreme Court Judges as to whether the legislation has the effect of circumventing or curtailing his discretionary powers. A second part is a separate mechanism to deal with non-core Constitutional Bills. A new Article 5A deals with Constitutional amendments which do not affect the core provisions listed in the master entrenchment provision, Article 5(2A), but nonetheless have the effect of circumventing or curtailing the President's discretionary powers. Again, the President may, on the advice of the Cabinet, obtain an opinion from the Tribunal. However, unlike Article 22H, the President's veto under the new Article 5A is not final. If the Tribunal upholds the President's view that the Bill does have the effect of circumventing or curtailing its discretionary powers, the Prime Minister may refer the Bill to a national referendum. If two-thirds of the electorate support the Bill, the President's veto will be overruled. The President will be required under both the new Articles 5A and 22H to expressly state whether he intends to withhold his assent to the proposed legislation. If the President has not exercised his veto within 30 days of the proposed legislation being presented to him, he is deemed to have assented to the Bill. This is the same provision as the existing Article 148A(5) of the Constitution, which applies to Supply and Supplementary Bills. The Select Committee adopted this Article from a Malaysian provision. Its purpose was to deal with a difficult President. This was the reason given in the Committee Report: "... the Committee recognizes that a problem can arise if a President deliberately or otherwise delays conveying his decision on assent ... Such delay or failure to decide will prevent Parliament from trying to override the President's veto ...". No such problem has in practice arisen between the incumbent Executive and the incumbent President since the legislation was brought into effect. However, to prevent a problem from arising in future, we are taking the opportunity to insert this provision as a precaution. Consequential upon these changes, the master entrenchment provision in Article 5(2A) and Articles 21(2) and 150(5) have also to be amended. The amended Article 22H will be brought into effect once this Constitutional Bill is passed and assented to. This is to prevent non-Constitutional legislation from circumventing or curtailing the Elected President's discretionary powers. The new Article 5A will be brought into effect together with Article 5(2A) when we are ready to entrench the Elected President provisions. This is unlikely to be the final set of amendments before we can entrench the elected presidency provisions. We will probably need one or more rounds of amendments before bringing the new master entrenchment provision and new Article 5A into force. Veto Powers over Appointments I now turn to the amendments relating to the President's power of veto over appointments. Presently, the President's veto over appointments to key public officers and to the boards of the key statutory boards and Government companies in the Fifth Schedule to the Constitution is final. It is final even if the President exercises his veto against the advice of the Council of Presidential Advisers. I explained during the Second Reading of the Elected Presidency amendments on 4th October 1990 the reason why we did not provide an override mechanism for appointments. I quote from Hansard, Vol. 56, columns 465 and 466, dated 4th October 1990: "The overriding mechanism by Parliament is confined only to Supply Bills and Supplementary Supply Bills because these Bills originate from Parliament. It does not apply to the budget of a Government company or statutory board, or to appointments in the public services, because these matters do not come under the direct purview of Parliament. If there is a dispute here, the executive and the President will have to resolve it through fresh submissions of budgets and nominees for appointments." However, there will be occasions when the difference in views between the Executive and the President is one of judgement, rather than a black and white case of an unfit candidate. This will be so when the Council of Presidential Advisers actually supports the Government's nomination, but the President disagrees with the Council's advice. If this happens, the present arrangements unfortunately provide no means for the President and the Executive to resolve the impasse, other than the Executive putting up a fresh nomination. Given our limited talent pool, we may well end up with an inferior candidate. In such circumstances, it is better to have a mechanism to resolve the impasse, rather than force the Executive to nominate another candidate. Articles 22, 22A and 22C of the Constitution will therefore be amended so that where the President vetoes an appointment against the recommendation of the Council of Presidential Advisers, the Executive can take the matter to Parliament, and override the President's veto by a two-thirds majority. This is the same override mechanism provided in Article 148D with regard to the Government's Budget. This mechanism has one disadvantage. Invoking it will mean bringing into Parliament matters which do not come under Parliament's direct purview. We will have to discuss the merits of the candidate publicly. The experience of countries like the United States, which hold public confirmation hearings, shows the risks of this approach. Proceedings become politicised and sensationalised, private lives are publicised, and good men are put off from standing for office. But we do not expect such divergence in views between the President and the Executive over appointments to happen often. Most candidates for key appointments will still be considered and appointed outside the glare of publicity. And when the Executive decides to go to Parliament to override the President's veto, it can consciously weigh the disadvantages of the move against the importance of getting the particular candidate appointed. On balance, a Parliamentary override mechanism, although not perfect, is a workable solution. These amendments are part of the continuing process of fine-tuning the Elected Presidency provisions. There has been no impasse between the incumbent President and the Executive over any key appointment. The President has told me that he agrees with the amendments. Council of Presidential Advisers Let me now deal with the third category of amendments. At present the Council of Presidential Advisers consists of five members. Two are appointed by the President in his own discretion, two are appointed on the Prime Minister's advice, and one on the advice of Chairman PSC. The President, in his discretion, appoints one of the members as Chairman. Although the Presidential Advisers are appointed on the nomination of the President, the Prime Minister or the PSC Chairman, they have their own standing. They serve for fixed terms, and once appointed cannot be removed at will. When the legislation creating the Elected President was first passed, the Government had envisaged that as the institution of the Elected President evolved, the Council of Presidential Advisers would in time come to play a larger role. The experience gained with the Council over the last five years shows that the mechanism is workable. It is timely now to consider expanding the Council to further build up its stature. A larger Council will also enable us to tap a wider spread of expertise, so that the Council can better advise the President on the broad range of issues on which he must exercise his custodial functions. An enlarged Council will complement the new mechanism to override the President's veto of appointments. The override mechanism places a heavier responsibility on the Council. Their recommendation will determine whether the President's veto is final, or whether it can be overridden by Parliament. A larger Council is better placed to make a balanced and objective assessment of the suitability of the nominee. And if the President vetoes the candidate against the Council's advice, and the Executive seeks to override the President's veto, the Executive will have a stronger basis to do so. The Bill therefore amends Articles 37B and 37C to enlarge the Council from five to six members. Article 37J provides that in case the votes are tied, the Chairman of the Council will have the casting vote. The additional member will be nominated by the Chief Justice, and appointed by the President. Having the new member nominated by the Chief Justice, instead of by the Prime Minister or President, will build up the Council as an independent body. Finally, the Bill also makes a minor and technical amendment to Article 113 to reflect the authority of the Education Service Commission and the Police and Civil Defence Services Commission with respect to pension rights of officers under their respective jurisdiction. Sir, I beg to move. Question proposed.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the amendments to the presidential powers as it sets out clear-cut procedures for the President to exercise his powers. It also allows the President various recourses to deal with anomalies that he will face. This is a good thing because there are various anomalies which would happen in the process of exercising his powers. Therefore, the amendments have set the right direction to reduce such problems. The other significant point about this Bill is that it allows for a mediatory process which is a good thing. Because there are a lot of things that need to be mediated, this could be resolved effectively through mediation. And I support all these changes. Sir, what I am concerned about are the changes to the Constitution with regard to the GRC provision. If you will recall, when we first made changes to our Constitution to institute the GRC concept, it was to allow for minority representation. This is a good thing because, in the context of Singapore, the changes will ensure Parliament to have representatives from minority groups. There was a fear that, at one stage, if minority candidates were to contest in single seats, there was a likelihood that they may not be elected into Parliament. So the whole concept of GRC is valuable in the sense that we have a balanced racial representation in Parliament. This is important to Singapore, as a whole, and for our nation building. Sir, the proposed changes could, in the worst scenario, if you examine it, provide a leeway for future governments to reduce the number of minority representation in Parliament because the new amendments set the minimum cap at 25%. The existing Constitution allows for a maximum cap of 75%. There has been express concern by the minority groups. The underlying worry is the adequacy of minority representation in future. I see this is the nagging concern that many minority groups have. The issue of adequacy is a highly debatable one. How adequate is adequate is a question which is very subjective. I may say it is adequate. For example, Mr Harun Ghani may say it is not adequate. Mr Chandra Das may say it is more than adequate. Generally, it is an issue that is sharply debatable. There is no wholly acceptable formula. I do not subscribe, in Singapore politics, to having a formula because that is very dangerous and could lead to divisive politics in Singapore. And any move towards a formula must be discouraged. Sir, I would like to ask the Prime Minister to address the nagging concern about future minority representation in Parliament. I would like to ask him what mechanism do we have to ensure that there will be a reasonable minority representation in the future Parliaments of Singapore, now that we have these constitutional changes. This is an issue which I hope the Prime Minister will address. Sir, whilst we need to have minority representation in Parliament, we must not institute a quota system in political representation. I would avoid this and I for one would not support it. Sticking to the quota approach will be socially unhealthy to Singapore and may, in the long run, be ethnically divisive and can erode our nation building and community cohesion. There is nothing to prevent various community and minority groups from asking for special quotas and privileges for various social provisions, such as housing, education, employment and health. When we look at some countries which have instituted this in their Constitution, it has led to serious problems and consequences. This has also led to the breakdown of many of these communities and societies because it allows for acrimonious arguments and debates as to how this quota is going to be fulfilled. This is a very dangerous route for us to take and we should at all costs avoid taking it. Sir, it is important for us to strengthen Singapore's social foundation, as it is in our long-term interest to ensure that our meritocratic principles should continue to be applied in the political arena. This is important. We have evolved a very good system by allowing the best candidate, the best person to be cajoled or encouraged to participate in politics and we should keep it this way. This would prevent our political landscape to be subverted by ethnic strife. This is also a very dangerous route for us to take and if we allow this, there is nothing to prevent us from opening up the ethnic Pandora's box. I would strongly advise against encouraging and allowing this to happen. Sir, what would I like to ask the Prime Minister is that, with these changes, will it make our social and political foundations stronger. This is a fundamental question that we have to ask ourselves, ie, with all these changes that the Prime Minister has suggested, is it going to further strengthen our political foundation?

( In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, my main point with regard to the Constitution (Amendment) Bill 1996 is on the proposed expansion. Mr Speaker, Sir, the PAP Government has always said that its action is in the interest of the people and the country and in the long term interest of all. But if we analyse it, you will find that this is only an excuse. In fact, when they amend the Constitution, it is to create better and greater advantages for the ruling party. From the single seat constituency to GRC and from three member GRCs to four member GRCs and now they try to increase it further to six members. All these actions show that the PAP Government either lacks long-term vision or is trying to protect its own interest to consolidate and continue its rule in Singapore. As far as the GRC system is concerned, the People's Action Party Government said it was intended to ensure that minority interests are represented in Parliament. But its true intention is to make things difficult for the Opposition parties to compete with the ruling party. If you say that minority representation is for quality and not quantity, then the Government can even turn around to say that we can nominate minority representation in Parliament to achieve this purpose. The PAP always says that its candidates have been very stringently selected. Yet, their minority candidates would not dare to stand in single-member constituencies and they have to come under the umbrella of the GRC to get into Parliament. This is ridiculous. Let us look at Mr J.B. Jeyaretnam, the Workers' Party's Secretary-General. On his own strength, he was able to win in a single-member constituency against the so-called quality candidate of the PAP. It is a matter of regret that this Constitution (Amendment) Bill is tabled. It creates yet another advantage for the ruling party and reduces the representation of minority groups in Parliament. This Constitution (Amendment) Bill before us seeks to pave the way for the formation of CDCs and this, in fact, is the real motive of the amendment. I am saying this because the objective of the CDCs is to enlarge the powers and functions of the CCC and the RC through the use of Government resources, and the nomination of their own people to run the show. I think it is unnecessary to set up the Community Development Council. With this establishment, the functions of certain Ministries and Government agencies would be taken over and the effectiveness of the CCCs would be reduced also. Furthermore, the functions of the CDC will duplicate those of the CCCs, RCs and some other Government agencies and thereby wasting our national resources. Our Constitution is to defend democracy. It cannot be amended at random. Otherwise, our democratic system will be undermined. Unfortunately, the PAP Government has always been looking after their own interest, and treating the Constitution lightly by amending and amending it all the time. The PAP Government has said that it wants to win handsomely in the next election. Are they trying to achieve this by this Constitutional amendment? If they do so, how can they say they have won handsomely? If they really want to win handsomely, they should revert to the single-member constituencies and abolish all the GRCs and compete with us, one to one. Otherwise, they would never be able to win handsomely. They would, at best, win ungentlemanly. Mr Speaker, Sir, unless we have a national referendum on this Bill, otherwise I will be against this amendment before us.

Sir, may I seek a clarification from the Member for Nee Soon Central? At one point, he said that the amendment to the GRC scheme was designed to consolidate and prolong the PAP's rule in Singapore. Having ruled Singapore for so long, should the PAP not try to consolidate, grow and provide good government for Singapore? If not, which party does he think should now consolidate and rule Singapore? That is my first question, Sir. I will ask my second question later.

( In Mandarin): Sir, I said just now that the ruling party, ie, the PAP, is moving this constitutional amendment to give themselves an undue political advantage. That is because it enables the ruling party to have all the advantages it wants for every general election. Our Constitution is based on the British Constitution and it is a sound system. There is no need to amend it so frequently. If it is not the intention of the PAP Government to do this, then there is no other explanation.

Sir, I asked him whether he has any other party in mind which he thinks should rule Singapore. He has not answered that. Is he going to answer or not?

( In Mandarin): Sir, as to which party can replace the ruling party, I think it is for the people to decide. If the majority of the people support a certain party, then that party will rule.

Sir, can the Member name any other party which he thinks should rule Singapore? I do not mind if it is only an opinion from him. Because he regrets we are doing this for something that is not sincere.

( In Mandarin): Sir, at this moment, there may not be any party which is in a position to replace the PAP. But it does not mean that this will remain so in the future.

Sir, I have not got a good answer yet, but never mind. If the Member thinks that there is no other party in Singapore at the moment which has done its best to provide leadership for Singapore, then I suppose he should not try to stop the PAP from trying to consolidate, grow stronger and continue to provide leadership to the people of Singapore. My second question, Sir, is this. Mr Cheo also mentioned that he regretted the existence of the GRC scheme in Singapore. This is a statement which I regret, because the GRC was designed specifically, aside from the provision of town councils, to ensure that there would always be adequate, or at least a minimal, representation of minority communities in Singapore - Indians, Malays and Eurasians. Can I ask him to clarify whether he is against ensuring that there will always be minority Members of Parliament in this House?

( In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, to ensure minority representation, there are many ways to do so. The GRC system is only one of them. We can appoint minority Nominated MPs in Parliament to enable them to represent their minority groups, to speak for them and to protect their interests. Under the GRC system, I think the main aim is to ensure that minority groups are included in Parliament and to give them the opportunity to run the town councils. If this is the real objective, then it is not too bad. But why must the Government increase from three to four, and now from four to six? It is not necessary, because at the moment town councils can merge on their own free will. They can on their own form larger councils. The town councils of various constituencies are free to form larger town councils for better utilisation of manpower. So I feel that this amendment is superfluous and unnecessary. I think the amendment is brought about to make it difficult for the small and weak opposition parties with limited human resources to field six candidates in a GRC, so they can only contest the limited number of single member constituencies, thereby giving greater advantage to the ruling party. As a matter of fact, Singapore has always been emphasising on meritocracy and free competition. I think single seat constituencies are the best. Minority candidates should fight the single seat constituencies to protect the interests of the minority groups, otherwise it will create a dependency syndrome among the minority groups.

( In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, Mr Cheo Chai Chen mentioned that apart from single member constituencies, it is not the best way to get the minorities to be represented in the GRCs. They can have Nominated MPs to represent the minorities. I would like to remind him that the NMPs have no right to vote on Constitutional amendments. Does it mean that the minorities should be represented only by second class MPs and not first class MPs?

( In Mandarin): Mr Peh may be right in this sense. But, if that is the case, then why should you increase from three to four, and now to six MPs. Three is enough. The minorities will be well represented. They have a say. When the number is changed to six, then it is one out of six. If you have two three-member GRCs, then we have two representatives from the minority groups. Even then, the minority representatives are only one out of three. They are elected on the strength of the group of three. In a single member constituency, we can say that they are truly represented.

( In Mandarin): Sir, Mr Cheo said that by expanding the size of the GRC to six, the representation of minorities in Parliament is reduced. Does he not know that at the time of a 3-member GRC, the number of GRCs was very small? Secondly, from the experience of past general elections, if we have only single member constituencies, the result will be that there will be few minority representatives coming into this House. Does he want to have a fewer number of minority MPs in this House?

( In Mandarin): Sir, I do not wish to see fewer representation of minority groups in this House. Singapore is a multi-racial society and we must have minority representation in the House. As I said, there are many ways of ensuring this. I am not entirely against the GRC concept. I am not saying that it is not a good way. What I am saying is that if you want to use the mechanism of GRC to ensure minority representation in Parliament, then we should not keep on changing the rules by increasing it from three to four, and four to six, time and again. Because this is totally unnecessary. Why does the Government want to increase the number of GRCs? I have already said that this is to ensure that they can get good political advantage. I think that is the crux of the matter.

Sir, can I come back to the main issue which I raised for clarification by the Member? It is in regard to his statement that he regrets that this Parliament created the GRC scheme in Singapore to ensure minority representation. Although the Member says that he is not completely against the GRC scheme, I wonder how appointing minority MPs in this House is a better system. I would like to ask the Member whether he can recall in the last election or in previous elections, did the SDP put up minority candidates to stand in single member constituencies. Because he said that it is better to continue to compete in single member constituencies. Mr Cheo is from the SDP. Can I ask him whether his party has done so and what was the experience?

( In Mandarin): Sir, I would like to tell this House that in 1988, the SDP fielded minority candidates to contest the election. For instance in 1988, we fielded an Indian candidate, Rasheed, in Punggol Constituency.

Sir, I remember that in the last election, there were some GRC constituencies contested by the SDP and even the Workers' Party.

Single seat.

Yes, I am asking him about single member constituencies because he said that it is better to contest in single member constituencies. There is no assurance that a minority candidate can win. The entire system of GRC is designed to assure - it does not guarantee - as the Prime Minister has explained, that there is a minimum number. There is no assurance that there will be a maximum number. Sir, I do not think the Member has been able to put up a good case to stand by his statement that it is regrettable to have a GRC scheme in this country. I think it is wrong and I hope he will withdraw that statement. I think it is most uncalled for, Sir.

Sir, can I seek clarification from the Parliamentary Secretary who talks about the GRC scheme? I would like to ask him whether Singapore politics has gone to the extent of communal or racial politics whereby minority candidates would never be elected into Parliament if they stand in a single-member constituency.

I did not make that statement. I asked Mr Cheo because he regretted the idea of the GRC scheme. I have nothing to clarify. I am seeking clarification from the Member, Sir.

I wish to remind the Parliamentary Secretary that Mr Jeyaretnam was elected in Anson against a Chinese candidate in the 1981 by-election. Secondly, Mr M.P.D. Nair, the Workers' Party candidate in Jalan Kayu secured 48% of the votes. That shows Singaporean voters are not voting along racial lines. In the first place, why is there a need for GRC?

Sir, is the Member saying that we can be assured that this will be so for the next 10, 20, 30 years? I do not know. Nobody knows, Sir. The PAP also put up minority candidates in single member constituencies before 1988.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I am surprised to hear that the Parliamentary Secretary does not know what would happen in the future. But I do have confidence in the voters of Singapore that they would not vote along racial lines. I am surprised that he does not have the confidence.

Sir, he has learnt to put words into my mouth. It is something that I completely did not say. I only stand here to defend the GRC scheme. I regret that the SDP MP, Mr Cheo, has said that he regretted the GRC scheme although this is one way to ensure minority representation in Parliament. Can I ask whether he wants to withdraw his statement?

Sir, I maintain my stand.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the amendment to increase the maximum number of MPs in a Group Representation Constituency from four to six is yet another important step towards building a more socially cohesive democratic Singapore. Since the introduction of the Bill by the Prime Minister, there have been a number of articles in the press expressing concerns about the dilution of minority representation in Parliament. Some felt that the proposed amendment did not safeguard the existing proportion of minority MPs. Others felt that the original objective of the GRC system to ensure adequate minority representation should not be tampered with and diluted with other objectives. To address the first concern, let us look at what the existing Constitution and Parliamentary Elections Act guarantee. The Constitution sets out the operative framework for the GRC system and the Parliamentary Elections Act stipulates the implementation details. Under the existing Article 39A of the Constitution, the number of MPs in a GRC should be at least three, but not more than four. The total number of GRC MPs, however, is stipulated in section 8A(2) of the Parliamentary Elections Act to be at least one-quarter, but not more than three-quarters, of the total number of MPs. With 81 seats, a simple calculation will show you that the guaranteed minimum number of GRCs and, therefore, minority MPs, would only be six. The Prime Minister has said that. The current electoral divisions, however, were drawn in 1991 such that there are 15 GRCs with four MPs each. This gives us a minimum number of 15 minority MPs or slightly less than 20% of the total number of MPs, a proportion which is way above the guaranteed minimum. This proportion seems to be widely accepted by Singaporeans and many want it now to be guaranteed by law. Sir, this is also what I would like to see as we gradually evolve our GRC system. Contrary to what some have believed, the proposed amendment to increase the maximum number of MPs in a GRC from four to six does not necessarily diminish minority representation. The final number of GRCs in the coming General Election will, as before, depend on how the electoral divisions are drawn. Although the maximum number of MPs in a GRC is to be increased to six, the existing number of GRCs and proportion of minority MPs can still be maintained. There are two reasons why this is so. First, not all GRCs need to have six MPs. Some may have three, four or five. And with a reduction of the number of single-seat constituencies, plus a possible increase of the total number of seats, which is likely because the number of voters has grown throughout the years, the total number of GRCs can be maintained, thus ensuring adequate minority representation. Second, as the Prime Minister has signalled, the PAP is likely to field more minority candidates than the number of GRCs. This will further add to the number of minority MPs. Some people may argue that if that is what we want, why do we not specify the total number of GRCs and their sizes in the Parliamentary Elections Act now? Sir, I think it is too early to do so. This is because our population is still growing and our towns are still expanding. It is, therefore, difficult to specify at present a specific combination of electoral divisions of different sizes. But I believe we will get there someday. And perhaps for the larger GRCs, we can then specify, in the future, that they should have at least two minority MPs and not one. What we can do now though is to increase the guaranteed minimum number. One way to do it is to specify that at least half of the total number of MPs must come from GRCs, up from one-quarter which is stipulated in the Parliamentary Elections Act. Sir, the second concern is about whether the objective of the GRC system is being changed or enlarged and whether such amendments are wise. It is clear to me that the objective of the GRC system to ensure adequate minority representation and therefore racial harmony has not changed under the amendment. But the amendment, as I see it, does enlarge the objective to include community bonding, as mentioned by the Prime Minister, especially under the concept of Community Development Councils. I feel that this is something good for the country, and it is a natural extension of the original objective and I do not see why it should not be done. How does increasing the number of MPs in a GRC to six help in community bonding? Very simply, it will enable a larger town to come under one GRC instead of two or more constituencies whose MPs may not belong to the same political party. Having residents in the same town served by MPs from the same political party will help community bonding tremendously. Mr Cheo thinks that this is not true. But let me share with Members some of my ground experiences to illustrate my point. Bukit Gombak Constituency is adjacent to Hong Kah North. Many of its residents live in HDB flats just across a street from my constituency. From time to time, I receive requests for assistance from Gombak residents such as welfare assistance, enrolment into my PCF kindergartens and the use of some of our facilities. Whenever I receive a request from them, I have to use my own discretion to see whether I should accede to it. My grassroots leaders are not so sure whether we should share our resources with these Gombak residents. This is because our resources are built up with the help of my grassroots leaders and residents. Naturally, priority must be given to them. So should I turn away requests from Gombak residents? It is therefore, in my view, much better if Gombak and my constituency are part of a larger GRC encompassing the natural boundaries of Bukit Batok Town. And if later we are part of a Community Development Council, then we can do much more together to foster community bonding in the town. For the same reason, it is better for bigger towns such as Tampines and Ang Mo Kio to come under one GRC with possibly six MPs. The proposed amendments enable us to do that. Sir, earlier Mr Cheo said that the proposed changes are the PAP's election ploy to entrench its power and that they will benefit the PAP and handicap the opposition. I say the changes are not a ploy. For the reasons I have explained earlier, they are for the long term good of Singapore. The law and the proposed changes are double-edged swords. I agree with the Prime Minister that they are neutral. That opposition parties are at a disadvantage is no fault of the PAP. Opposition parties feel threatened because they are weak. If their candidates are strong, they would have a chance to win a GRC and therefore the multiple seats that go with it. In fact, it was clear from the last General Election that strong Opposition candidates generally obtained a higher percentage of votes. This also shows that the electorate is now more discerning. Therefore, the Opposition should not blame their poor showing on the changes to the laws. With that, Sir, I support the Bill.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to confine my speech to clause 14 of the Amendment Bill which seeks to raise the maximum number of MPs in a GRC to six. Like Mr Maidin, Sir, I too regret that Mr Cheo regrets the formation of GRCs. Either he is naive or he does not really fully appreciate the reasons for the formation of GRCs. Sir, I have no doubt that the GRC concept is an improvement in our political development because ultimately it is the voters and residents who benefit from the arrangement. The GRC Members of Parliament, like any single-member constituency Member, will have to serve the constituents in his division. But apart from this, his continued tenure in Parliament will also have to depend on the performance of his other colleagues in the GRC. In other words, it is to his interest that his colleagues, regardless of their ethnic origins, do their jobs well and with the support of their residents. This provides a self-checking mechanism within a GRC. It means collective responsibility where under-performance by any MP in the GRC affects the votes of the whole cluster. All this makes the MP a team player, ever vigilant of his own performance as well as that of his other colleagues. The all-round effect, Sir, is a raising of the total quality of service to residents by their representatives in Parliament. This shatters the myth that one strong MP can carry other weaker or ineffective MPs in the GRC, especially given the increasingly higher expectations of voters nowadays. It follows, therefore, that in a five or six-Member GRC, the amount of team work and the need for strong leadership increases. If we couple this with the Prime Minister's plan to create CDCs among the GRCs, it at once becomes apparent how clause 14 of the amendment is indeed an improvement to the GRC concept. However, Sir, the proposed increment raises the concern that minority representation in Parliament and therefore in national politics could be compromised. If this is indeed true, then it is a serious concern as it impinges on a fundamental basis of the GRC concept, ie, of ensuring a multi-racial Parliament in Singapore. Sir, I too share this concern, not so much because I belong to the minority community, but because what we are doing is the right thing to do. I have received feedback from concerned individuals and professionals in the Malay, Indian and Eurasian communities on this issue. I have brought them up to the Prime Minister's attention and had discussed the matter with him. He understands and empathises with these concerns and fears. Sir, it is crucial for multi-racial representation in the political life of this country to be preserved. This dovetails our belief and commitment to multi-racialism. The inter-racial harmony that we have enjoyed so far also owes much to the fact that no community feels that its concerns and legitimate interests are totally ignored or neglected or that it feels left out in the political processes in this country. And unless the various communities here find a place in Singapore life and a role in determining the destiny of Singapore, they will not feel a sense of belonging to this still young nation. I am therefore heartened by PM's reiteration of his assurance that adequate multi-racial representation in Parliament will be preserved even with this proposed amendment to the Constitution. Mr Speaker, Sir, I have no doubt that this Government will honour its promises and commitment to ensure adequate minority representation in Parliament. Singaporeans, especially the minority communities, can be assured of this. However, whether future governments or the Opposition will honour this commitment, there is no guarantee. For instance, while the PAP in fulfilling its commitments puts up more than one minority candidate in certain constituencies or even minority candidates in some single member constituencies, the Opposition is not obliged by law to do likewise. It is not easy to find good candidates, not just any candidate, to stand for election; harder still for minority candidates, because of the smaller base. I have been involved with helping to scout for Malay candidates and this has indeed been the case. So it can be tempting for parties interested in forming the Government to use this as an excuse to omit or put up only a token number of minorities in their slate in any election. We have to monitor this situation closely, Sir. I agree with the Prime Minister that it may be worth considering legislation at a future date to further refine the mechanics of minority representation in our Parliament. Sir, I support the amendment.

Thank you, Mr Speaker, for giving me this opportunity. Before I start, can I just briefly mention this. Dr John Chen earlier on has mentioned the fact that the advantage of a GRC is that you have more MPs in the same group. I thought this has been in practice by the PAP Town Councils. For example, the Sembawang Town Council is a GRC, they are taking in Nee Soon South. So I think his argument does not hold weight at all. You can have all the GRCs grouped together and operate even under one GRC. There is nothing to prevent that from happening. In fact, this has been done in a number of the PAP Town Councils.

Mr Speaker, Sir, can I reply to that point?

You want to give way, Mr Ling?

Yes.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I think Mr Ling has mistaken my point. My point is that with a larger GRC, you can then have one satellite town under one GRC. And if that is the case, then all the MPs in that town will be under the same political party. But this is not true now with Gombak and Hong Kah North. So I am saying, because of that, I find community bonding more difficult because the residents across the street interact with my residents also. They go to the same neighbourhood centre. So by increasing the number to six, I believe this is one advantage and it will help us in furthering the goal of community bonding.

As I mentioned earlier, you could achieve the same result without having to increase the number of candidates in the GRC. Mr Speaker, Sir, the Constitution is sacrosanct. This amendment strikes at the foundation of parliamentary democracy in a sense that it has deprived voters the right, the liberty, to choose the candidates they want. This political decision to change our electoral system, through the GRC scheme, is repugnant to parliamentary democracy. True, the feature of the one-man-one-vote is still there but then it deprives the voters the liberty to choose candidates of their choice. And to me it is implied that any amendment that takes away, curtails or strikes at the foundation of the rights of the voters, you would have to refer it by way of referendum. I give a simple example. If that can be done, without referendum, the Constitution can be amended, very soon you can keep on amending the Constitution to say that the people have no right to vote. To follow your argument that far, you can in fact amend the Constitution to say that you have no right to vote at all or rather you will only vote the candidates I put up. It can go that far. That is why I am saying that it is implied in the Constitution. It may not be written but it is implied. Anything that takes away the basic and fundamental rights of the voters, it can only be done through referendum and not otherwise. The GRCs not only undermine this basic and fundamental right but, to me, it is also a scheme to get those rejected and the weak into Parliament. I for one am never against the idea to have minority representation in Parliament. In fact, I would suggest it should be proportional representation, eg, if the Malays make up so many percent, they will be represented in that sense by that percentage or more, in fact. The minimum is proportional representation. In fact, my colleague Mr Cheo mentioned this point earlier. He did not say that GRC is against minority representation. He said that there are other means. Of course, he mentioned the NMP. I would mention one way is by way of NCMP because NCMP is more representative. You stand as individuals. You stand for election and it would be divided into categories - the Malays, the Indians, and whatnot. So when you decide on the NCMP, you cannot put in a Chinese in the same category, because you may have problems. So you put all the Malay candidates, choose the highest number of them and then select them accordingly. Similarly, for the Indians. It is more representative in that sense. One must remember that at every election, be it the Government or the Opposition, invariably you call for a mandate from the people. You are asking for a mandate from the people to continue for the next term and thereafter. It is a question of mandate. Can you be sure that you will get a mandate in the GRCs? My answer is no. Because in a GRC, previously you had three, four, but now you have six. Not all the six of them will be able to get a mandate. Probably you will get one or two. Now, how are you going to decide that all of them have got a clear mandate from the people to be in Parliament for the next term? So the only way to decide would be in a single constituency. Let the people decide. It is only in a single constituency that you will be able to determine whether you get a true mandate from the people. I was a bit surprised when some of the Members mentioned the fact that a minority candidate needs to be in a GRC to come to Parliament. I think you are doing a disservice to your own kind. Please, you should have more confidence in your own kind, rather than having your own people in a GRC, under the umbrella of a strong candidate, to be put into Parliament. You must remember in the early days of the PAP when the people had so much confidence in the PAP, any candidate put up by the PAP went in. Serious! They were voting, not based on the individuals, but under the symbol and the banner of that particular party. So in the early days of the PAP, when they put up anyone, you could safely say it was a walk-over. What happens now? Please, you must have the confidence in your own party, that you can be in Parliament on your own steam, rather than being pulled in. In Mandarin, it says it is a vehicle of convenience passing your way, you just jump on the bandwagon and, there you are, you will be carried into Parliament. Please have more confidence in your own people rather than to have this sort of thing. I am more concerned with this fact. To me, I feel that all MPs, in particular Ministers, should get a clear mandate from the people to be in Parliament. All candidates, ministerial as well as ministerial aspirants, should get a mandate from the people to come into Parliament. And the only way to do so is to be in a single constituency. This amendment is quite different from the previous one in the sense that in the previous GRC scheme, the most important purpose was to ensure minority representation in Parliament. But this amendment is not so, because you have already secured this in the previous amendment. The present one is not about securing or protecting minority interest in Parliament. You are just increasing it. Why? In my mind, this amendment is not so much for the protection of minority interest because there is really nothing to protect. They are protected under the previous amendment. So there is nothing to protect under this amendment. In my mind, this amendment is to strengthen the ruling Party and to entrench its continuous rule. The Government has done so much for the people as they claim. What is there to worry to confront the people? The people can look at the last five years and see that they have performed so much. You know that Singaporeans are no fools. They are very sophisticated. They know who to vote and what to vote. So if you show them and convince them that you have done that much for them, I am sure you will be elected. So why should you have this particular scheme to get more and more into it - three, four, six, very soon 15, 20, and keep on increasing it. As I said, the very basic and fundamental right of the people to have the liberty to choose candidates of their choice is not there anymore. So what are we talking about parliamentary democracy? As I said earlier, if you have done so much for the people, the PAP candidate can sleep in peace. In Mandarin, it says, [gao zheng wu you], just sleep soundly. You do not have to worry about all this. Why is it that at almost every election, new schemes and devices will come in? To me, it is under the pretext of protecting minority interest and communal bonding. To me, it is something else. By introducing all these schemes and amendments, even if you win, what is so much about the honour? There is a Hokkien saying, ya ma ya, ya liao eh sui. An hon. Member: Could you translate it?

If you want to win, win in a very honourable and proud way. That is the Hokkien saying. I come to this conclusion that the introduction of this amendment is a reflection of the acute kiasu syndrome of the PAP.

Can I seek a point of clarification from Mr Ling? If I remember correctly, the SDP's stand on the Non-Constituency MP is that it is against the NCMP scheme and it has reasons for objecting. So for the same reason, you are prepared to compromise and allow for minority representation. Am I right? You are against the Non-Constituency MP. Now, for the same reason, you are prepared to allow the ---

No. I did not say that. We are against the NCMP even. We are also against the NMP. An hon. Member: You are changing your mind.

I am not changing my mind. This is to allay the fear of the minority groups, ie, the Malays, the Indians and the minorities, that they are not represented. When I suggested NCMP, what I mean is that the system should work this way. All the parties participating in the election should put up the candidates in the usual way and if they were defeated, then we can consider the scheme of the NCMP. So it is not so much my endorsement. It is a way of ensuring minority representation. I do not want to be accused of shutting out representation of the minorities. I emphasise this point that you must have confidence in yourself. You must have confidence in the party running for the election. It is as simple as that. When I heard Encik Maidin, I feel very sad because he seems to have no confidence in his own kind. Very sad!

Mr Speaker, Sir, can I ask the Chairman of the SDP why we should participate in a single-seat constituency and come in as an NCMP. It seems that this effort to ensure minority representation has already been built in his mind. Does he have in his mind that the minority candidates will lose the election? Why can we not compete and win? Why must we come in as NCMPs? You already have preconceived ideas.

If you stand in single constituencies you will be guaranteed. It is better than the GRCs. What I mean is that you come in on your own steam and you can be assured. A more equitable aspect is that you ensure both the ruling as well as the Opposition parties. If you consider the GRCs, it is not necessary the ruling party will get the most number of votes, the Opposition parties will also get the votes. So this scheme not only covers the ruling party but also the Opposition parties.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Non-Constituency MP is for the Opposition. It is not for the ruling party. Does he understand the concept of the Non-Constituency MP? It is not for the ruling party. It is for the Opposition who cannot make the grade.

As I said, in substitution of this, you can surely modify and ensure that they also come in a more representative way. At least, we know how many percent of the people support them. Alternatively, you can hold another election and confine it to all the minorities, ie, the Indians and the Malays, and decide who should represent them. Why not? It is better that way.

( In Mandarin): I would like to ask Mr Ling one question. Just now, he kept on saying that the PAP should be relaxed and have confidence in themselves. I feel that the SDP is very worried about the GRC and they have no confidence in the GRC. That is why the SDP wanted to cooperate with the PKMS to contest in the GRC. So are they not trying to contest it?

You have noticed that when I talked of GRCs, it goes against the very basic and fundamental right of the voters. It is the inability to vote for their own candidate, not so much on the minority. It is only a side issue, a supplement to the whole thing. It is the infringement of the fundamental and basic right of the voters to have the choice of their candidate. That is why I am mentioning this.

( In Mandarin): Under this legislation, anyone who votes for the candidates in the GRC is exercising his choice.

So are you saying that if you put up six candidates, I can choose three and forget about the three? Do you mean this can be done under the GRC?

( In Mandarin): But if you do not vote for this group of six, you could vote for the other group of six, representing another party.

Just now, Mr Ling said that Nee Soon South is under Sembawang GRC.

I need to clarify. It is actually --- An hon. Member: Nee Soon Central.

No. Nee Soon South and Toa Payoh --- An hon. Member: Ang Mo Kio GRC.

Ang Mo Kio GRC. I am sorry. It is a single constituency and a GRC. They are actually for operational and administrative purposes under one Town Council. My apology.

Mr Speaker, anyone with a sense of history will know that good government is an accident. In most cases, it is extremely rare. So when we look at these amendments that we are making, we are trying to insure ourselves good government for the future. These structural amendments that we make are not just for today, they are for our children and for our children's children. And for that reason, I think it is a mistake to approach these amendments solely from the point of view of what Singapore is today and look at it from the point of view of what we have today. But we have to consider over the horizon threats as well. The structure that we have put in place for the Elected Presidency is our insurance for good government in future. And the additional hassle that we go through is the premium we pay for that insurance. And I do not think we should skimp from that because it is for the preservation of Singapore as a political entity in the 21st century and beyond. Let me consider first the provisions of the Elected Presidency. The amendments that provide for the override of the Presidential veto on appointments make sense because it avoids the possibility that you will have an unbreakable impasse in a situation where we need good people. For those reasons, I support them. Also, the provisions for the expansion of the Council of Presidential Advisers make perfect sense because by increasing the number of members of the Council to six, it allows for greater degree of specialisation. As far as the provisions for Presidential veto on amendments of the Constitution and other statutes are concerned, I have a little bit of reservation about that. But since the provisions are already drafted and the provisions will work when they are brought into force, I support them as well. But my only concern is that we should not leave out entrenching these provisions for too long. When the Elected President's powers were defined originally, it was envisaged that the entrenchment provisions would come into play fairly soon. That was what the Prime Minister said when he moved those amendments five years ago. We have had five years already. The Prime Minister had said that this is not going to be the last round of amendments. Perhaps to allay the concern, as some of us would feel that the Elected President provisions could be whittled down too much, the Prime Minister might want to say when he expects Articles 5A and 5(2A) to be entrenched. One hopes that it will be before the next Presidential election. The amendments to the Elected President powers are not as controversial as the next set of amendments which is the GRC amendments. Unfortunately, in this area, the arguments tend to get clouded by party politics. I think we have to avoid the temptation to deal with this from a party political standpoint and look at it from how it affects Singapore and how it would affect Singapore in future. Do the GRCs actually improve our political system? There are two things to look at. First, the question of minority representation. I think it is well accepted that we must have minority representation in Singapore. The only thing I can do is to reiterate what Dr John Chen has said about building it into the Constitution because the problem is not with the present Government. The problem is we do not know what future governments would be like. If we can guarantee that future governments would be good and uncorruptible, then we would not have to build in all these elaborate mechanisms. As long as the Prime Minister is the Prime Minister, he has given us the assurance that minority representation will not be diluted. But he cannot speak for the 21st century and that is our problem. And I think that it would be a lot safer if we have these things built into the Constitution so that it is an accepted part of the Singapore political scheme. As for the expansion of the GRCs, this is the one that creates the most controversy from the party political point of view. But looking at it not as a party man, neither as an Opposition member or as a member from the Government, I think, on balance, it will be good for Singapore. There are a couple of reasons for this. The Prime Minister has already said that the idea is to form a larger unit, a larger unit that can be independent, that is co-extensive with the town, and this of course makes governing the town much more efficient. The main objection that some people have is that you have basically a package deal. You cannot vote for individuals within the package. I am not sure that is really a bad thing. In a single-member constituency, things tend to boil down to a duel between personalities, a one to one. It can become a clash of prima donnas. It can become a situation where the plausible actor wins over the competent person who is not so good in public relations. So I am not so sure that the one to one duel is actually the best way to pick leaders. When you have a team of six, you do not have to have six equally good PR people. You need a team that works. Having a team and voting for a team, I think, benefits Singaporeans in the sense that you are not voting so much for personalities any more, but you are voting for policies. It is not the people so much as what the policy is. This can only be healthy for Singapore, because it avoids the possibility of having one-shot or one-theme parties. We have seen in other countries, for example, the rise of one-issue parties, Greens, whatever else it is, capitalising on a single issue to get into Parliament. It is much less likely when you have a team of people that you will have this kind of one-issue party, which has no other idea for the rest of Singapore, but it is only focused on a particular local issue, and that certainly is not going to be good for us. So having a team concept is good. Having a team concept, I think, is also good from the point of view of specialisation. It is always difficult to find a group of six people who are equally competent and equally electable. That is the problem. Sometimes you will find that you have people who are good, people who will be competent as administrators and good at running the country and good at running the towns. But for some personal reasons, because they happen to be shy or because they happen to stutter or because some people may have a personal grudge against them, they are not as electable. Having a team allows, in a sense, a more balanced means of getting leadership in place. The problem that many people are worried about is that it is changing the rules at the last moment. If this amendment had been proposed much earlier than now, perhaps there would be less opposition to it. People have claimed that this amendment stacks the cards against the opposition. Again, I am not so sure about that. If we take the long-term view, let us suppose that we have a situation where the government does, in fact, go bad and that it is not working for the good of Singaporeans. Would it be better to have the present system or would it be better to have the expanded GRC system in place? My view is that having an expanded GRC system in place is actually better for the opposition if the government goes bad. If you have a single ward taken by the opposition, a single ward is economically not viable. They have to create their own surpluses. They do not have the economies of scale to provide services to the constituents. And it is very hard for an honest person to go to the people and say, "I can make your life better" when you know that it is going to be so difficult with a single ward. With a large ward, with a team of six, if you take one ward, it is an independent unit that can be run as an independent unit. And if the time ever comes when the government slips up, it is not competent, it is not honest, then the opposition that takes that six-member ward will be able to run it and provide services to the people without compromising their standard of life. Whereas if they take a single ward out of the town, almost inevitably that is going to hurt the people who voted for them. So, in the long run, I think it will be easier for a competent opposition to get into Parliament with a large six-member ward than it would be on single member wards. There is another reason for that, ie, again, coming to the package deal. People think that the package deal works against the opposition, but actually it does not. If you have six single member constituencies, the opposition has to find six candidates of equal or greater merit than the PAP, and I think it is not an easy task in Singapore to find six people that the electorate will consider to be equal or better than the PAP candidates put against them. But in a GRC of six, you do not need six single members, as it were. You only need one or two people to lead four or five other competent ones. In a sense, it is a very double-edged sword. The government, instead of losing one seat, could lose six on the coat-tails of a single charismatic opposition leader. If you get a person who has got the credibility and the competence, he can put together five other people who may not individually be electable but are acceptable to the population, he can take one of these super wards and he can in fact get a foothold in Parliament where single opposition members would not be able to. And he has the advantage of being able to go to the people and say, "If you elect us, we will have a self-contained town. We can be tested out in this self-contained town."

Are you going independent?

I am not saying independent, not necessarily independent. I myself have no political ambitions. I have said so before. So Mr Low need not fear this. Coming back to the point, I think it will be a mistake to reject the expanded GRC on the ground that it would be against the opposition's interest. In fact, thinking in the long term, looking at the political developments in Singapore, if we want strong checks and balances, a six-member GRC is much more favorable to the creation of a credible opposition than single member seats. As I said right at the beginning of my speech, anyone with a sense of history knows that a good government is not common. Therefore, we should be very careful when we oppose or support amendments like this which create a political structure for Singapore. On balance, having looked at it from a neutral point of view, I think that a six-member GRC is, in fact, better for us than a single member seat. Although I do not have a vote on this, for what it is worth, I support the amendments.

Sir, can I have your permission to distribute a Table to Members?

Yes. [Copies of Table distributed to hon. Members.]

First of all, let me state categorically that the Workers' Party is against the Group Representation Constituency (GRC) system. The GRC system enables the People's Action Party to amalgamate and merge constituencies where the Opposition parties had won higher votes in previous General Elections with those constituencies which the PAP had registered higher votes, thereby causing the Opposition votes to become perpetually in the minority and the Opposition candidates unable to be returned. Take Hougang Constituency, for example. If Hougang had been merged into the Cheng San GRC in the 1991 General Election, then even if the same number of voters had voted for me, I would not win my seat in Parliament. At the 1988 General Election, the PAP used the GRC system to merge all the single-member constituencies where the Opposition parties had won more than 40% of the votes into GRCs. (Please refer to my table. It clearly illustrates the emergence and results of this phenomenon. Percentage of votes cast for the Opposition do not include spoilt votes.) Consequently, although the Opposition camp received almost 40% of the total votes polled in the constituencies they contested, only one Opposition candidate was returned to Parliament. At the 1991 General Election, the number of seats in a GRC was increased from 3 to 4. Similarly, the single-member constituencies which were merged into the GRCs were those in which the Opposition candidates had received more than 40% of the votes. For example, Paya Lebar, Punggol, Fengshan, Whampoa, etc. In 1988, when the PAP introduced the GRC system, the Parliamentary Elections Act was amended to provide for 3 members in each GRC, and the total number of Members of Parliament representing GRCs must not be more than half of the total number of Members of Parliament. This was again amended before the 1991 General Election to increase the number of seats in each GRC to 4, and the maximum number of GRC MPs was raised to three-quarters of the total number of Members of Parliament. Now, it is further amended to provide for 3 to 6 seats in each GRC, and apart from 8 single-member constituencies, all the others can be GRCs. This way, after each General Election, the PAP could make full use of the GRC system to dilute the Opposition votes by truncating and re-arranging all the single-member constituencies where the votes for the Opposition candidates were high, in order to attain its political objectives and to ensure that after the reconstitution of the electoral boundaries the votes for PAP would be in the majority to enable its candidates to win the next General Election. On the other hand, when the GRC system was first introduced in 1988, a minimum of 32 single-member constituencies were required under the law. Now, so long as there are just 8 single-member constituencies, it would be deemed to be legal. The PAP is certainly learning from its experience at the 1991 General Election. At that time, the Parliamentary Elections Act required that at least one quarter of the total number of MPs must come from single-member constituencies. As such, the PAP was unable to transform all the single-member constituencies where Opposition votes were more than 40% into GRCs. Furthermore, some of them were new constituencies which were newly created in 1988. On the one hand, there were no data from previous General Elections to accurately reflect the trend of voting there and, on the other hand, to merge the newly created constituencies into GRCs would make its kiasuism too obvious. Therefore, at the 1991 General Election, the Opposition candidates managed to break through the election system controlled by the PAP and won the single-member constituencies - Hougang, Bukit Gombak and Nee Soon Central. This gave Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong a clear signal that Singapore needs Opposition MPs to check on the PAP Government. Unfortunately, this signal scared the wits out of the elites of the PAP Government. Therefore, they are now trying all ways and means to make it even more difficult for the Opposition parties to win seats at the coming General Election. As such, the main point in this Amendment Bill is to do away with the provision requiring at least one-quarter of the total number of MPs to come from single-member constituencies. This is to be replaced by a provision of a minimum of 8 single-member constituencies. In other words, irrespective of how many GRCs are to be added on in future General Elections, the number of single-member constituencies need not be increased proportionately. At the coming General Election, if a single-member constituency is merged into a GRC, even if the Opposition votes are increased, the total number of voters in the GRC will also be increased, and the voters voting for the Opposition will be in the minority. So long as the PAP wins 51% of the votes, its team will win. This is the trick used by the PAP to ensure its posterity and eternal rule, if God willing! Of course, the PAP wants to win, and wants to win handsomely. In 1988, Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong said, "We don't like to lose. Nobody likes to lose." Yet, the PAP elites who think no end of themselves do not seem to know the meaning of "winning ungentlemanly". Armed with its more than two-thirds majority in Parliament, they are amending the Constitution and the Parliamentary Elections Act to deprive the people of their rights to have Opposition representatives in Parliament, thereby acting against the people's wishes to have the Opposition parties checking on the Government to enable Singapore to have a sound and healthy political system. Mr Speaker, Sir, Singapore is a small country. Yet, apart from having "road bullies" on our public roads, but alas, politically, we even have "political bullies" in the form of the People's Action Party in our political arena!

Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to speak on the Bill to amend the Constitution so that we can have bigger Group Representation Constituencies. Let me get down straight to the point. Whenever a matter is raised in Parliament, my concern is to study it from the viewpoint of workers. How will such an issue affect workers? If it advances the interest of workers, I will support it. If it will have an adverse effect on workers, I will speak against it. Before we go into the Bill, I would like to ask one simple question. Have the lives of our workers improved since the introduction of the Group Representation Constituencies? The answer, Mr Speaker, is quite obvious. GRCs have strengthened our political stability because they have ensured that minority communities will be represented in Parliament. It is because we have such a high degree of political stability that we have been able to attract more and more investments. As a result, more jobs have been created. In many cases, they are better paying jobs. So workers have benefited. But when the Government wanted to enlarge the scope of the GRCs, some critics were quick to point out that this might lead to lower representation in Parliament for minority communities. Going strictly by arithmetic, the critics are right. But our Prime Minister and two Deputy Prime Ministers have come out openly to reassure minority communities that their interests would be fully safeguarded in any constitutional amendment. Our key leaders have indicated in no uncertain terms that arrangements will be made so that the level of minority representation in Parliament is not eroded. In some bigger GRCs, this might mean having two minority candidates for each of them. As a unionist, I see merit in having bigger GRCs. In whatever we do, we need a critical mass. This explains why our trade unions have an ongoing membership recruitment drive. More members mean more leverage. We can speak with a stronger voice. We can get more companies to offer discounts. It is the same with GRCs. The bigger the GRC, the more effective it can be, provided that MPs elected are men and women of calibre and proven integrity. This is where the Government is raising the stakes, as it were, in going for bigger GRCs. But as the Prime Minister has made it clear, the Government is making this move towards bigger GRCs, not with a view of fixing the opposition.

How do you know?

The Prime Minister has disclosed plans for Singapore to be divided into something like 10 zones. Eventually, each of the zones will be run by a Mayor, who must be an elected MP. This is fair enough. Mayors and their team will have to pay attention to bread and butter issues, leaving Cabinet to focus on the wider national interest. Their job is to address local concerns. And to be effective, they have to interact more closely with the masses, most of whom are workers. In my years of serving workers, I know what are their basic needs, their fears, their hopes and aspirations. They get retrenched when their companies restructure or relocate. They may have bags of experience in a particular line of work, but if the company switches to different lines, they will be retrenched. Workers, especially older ones, worry whether they have the ability and the opportunity to be trained for newer jobs. Older workers have families to take care of. In some cases, they have to do overtime to bring home enough money. Faced with training and overtime, they have opted for overtime. Unions need to help these workers adjust to ever-changing situations. Workers worry about whether they will be able to afford medical care when they retire. Indeed, they worry whether they have enough money to last them through their years of retirement. Many workers have bought their HDB homes. They may have paid for them. The value of these flats may have risen astonishingly high, but they know that they can make capital gains only if they sell their flats. What happens after selling their flats? Where do they stay? Sir, these are the concerns of workers. Many hope their children will do better than them and so help them in old age. At the same time, they worry over the erosion of Asian values among the young, values of thrift and filial piety. Of course, our workers do not just moan and groan. They are a pragmatic lot. They know the value of hard work, but they also know how to let their hair down and enjoy themselves. We in the labour movement have set up many social and recreational facilities for the benefit of workers. These facilities complement what has been provided by the Government. With mayors in charge of larger districts, workers can look forward to even better facilities. They can look forward to more bursaries and scholarships for their children. In other words, Sir, our workers are more interested in schemes that can improve their lives and the lives of their families rather than engage in debates on democracy and human rights. American journalists such as William Safire have their own narrow definition of democracy. To our workers, democracy means the right to choose their own leaders by secret ballot, whether it be to run their unions or manage their country. And we have elections regularly. So I cannot understand why the likes of William Safire chose to condemn countries like ours. Singapore has been criticised for not upholding human rights. What kind of rights have been denied to our workers? The right to employment, the right to free association, the right to strike - these rights are there for workers to exercise, but our workers have chosen to seek fulfilment through hard work and to settle industrial disputes through negotiation, conciliation or arbitration. So there is no basis for anyone to pass judgment on us where human rights are concerned. Sir, I have mentioned about democracy and human rights because I know that no matter how the House votes today, there will be critics who say that the Government has changed the rules for political expediency. I do not share such views. I fervently believe that larger GRCs will serve the interests of the workers better.

Mr Speaker, can I seek one clarification from Mr John De Payva? In his speech, he mentioned that the workers in Singapore have the right to strike. I would like to ask him to confirm that the workers in Singapore do have the right to strike and they can organise a strike at any time as they like.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the workers have the right to strike.

Order. I suspend the Sitting and will take the Chair again at 3.30 pm. Sitting accordingly suspended at 3.06 pm until 3.30 pm. Sitting resumed at 3.30 pm

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

Debate resumed.

Thank you, Mr Speaker, for allowing me to join in the debate. I will confine myself to clause 14 of the Bill. In America, there is a saying that if anything can go wrong, it will go wrong. In Singapore, we can say that if anything the PAP can do to make it more difficult for the opposition to win an election, it will do. We have seen since 1984 that there are several changes to the election laws, all aimed at thwarting the opposition or making it more difficult for the opposition to win at a General Election. In 1984, the Non-Constituency Member of Parliament (NCMP) was introduced. Then in 1988 came the Group Representation Constituencies, followed by further amendments to the Constitution and the election laws to get Nominated Members into Parliament. In 1988, there were three MPs in a GRC. Then it was increased to four in 1990. Even with four MPs in a GRC, there is already enough obstacle put in the way of the opposition. Now, we see that this Bill before the House attempts to further increase the number of MPs in a GRC to six and also by subsequent legislation, to slash down the number of single-seat constituencies from 21 to 8, which is a very big reduction in the number of single seats. I believe that these drastic steps are taken as a result of the scare the PAP suffered in the 1991 General Election when the opposition adopted a by-election strategy. The present Bill is a strategy of the PAP to counter or defeat the opposition's by-election strategy, if any, in the next General Election, and to reduce the opposition's chances of winning generally. On the other hand, the enlarged GRCs of six members each do help the PAP in the elections. It is reported that there may be between 20 to 26 new PAP candidates to be fielded in the coming General Election. Most of the new candidates do not have a high public profile and are quite unknown entities. On their own, some of these new and weak candidates may lose if they contested in single seats. However, under the umbrella of the enlarged GRCs, they just need to hang on to the coat-tails of the older MPs and they can easily get elected and each has a seat in Parliament. If this were not the case, then I would ask that all the PAP new candidates be fielded in single-seat constituencies. If the ruling Party did that, then I would be the first one to say that the amendment to enlarge the GRC to six MPs is truly not to ruin the chances of the oposition in the coming General Election. It is unfair of the PAP to be changing the election laws at a time when the General Election is just around the corner. These laws should have been amended at least two years earlier and not when the GE is to take place in two or three months' time. The unfairness is enhanced by the fact that the Electoral Boundaries Delineation Committee has still not published its report. As such, the opposition is in a quandary. They are unable to prepare fully for the General Election as they do not know which single-seat constituencies shall be converted into GRCs and which of the existing boundaries of the GRCs shall be altered. On this point alone, the opposition is put into the most disadvantageous position. The Prime Minister's intention for wanting to increase the number of MPs in the present GRCs from four to six is to eventually make a six-MP GRC into a Community Development Council, headed by a mayor. The formation of the CDCs is a mere administrative exercise. Even with the present four-MP GRCs, CDCs can still be formed by merely splitting a four-MP GRC into two, one half of which could join up with another GRC to form a larger unit comprising six MPs. I do not see any problem to that. At the moment, single-seat PAP wards are joined up with the neighbouring PAP GRCs for the purpose of running their town councils. If that can be done, I do not see any problem for part of a four-MP GRC to be divided so that part of it could join another GRC to form a CDC. The boundaries of these merged GRCs could be arranged to be contiguous, if that is the worry of the Prime Minister. Formation of CDCs is only administrative in nature. Administratively, even under the present election system of four-MP GRCs, the CDCs envisaged by the Prime Minister can be formed. There is no need to so drastically amend the Constitution. The Prime Minister has spoken only about formation of CDCs within the boundaries of six-MP GRCs. He has not mentioned about the remaining eight single seat constituencies. Will each of these eight single seat constituencies be eventually absorbed into a CDC? In any event, if the CDC is such a great thing, it will appear that by the present Amendment Bill, the individual single-seat constituency shall be excluded from any CDC. As far as I can see, the reason given by the Prime Minister to increase the composition of a GRC from four to six MPs with a view to forming CDCs with enlarged GRCs is a weak one. The more plausible explanation to change the present election system is to reduce further the chances of the opposition to win at the next General Election.

Mr Speaker, Sir, many points have been raised and therefore I do not want to go over them, except that I would like to ask the Prime Minister to address two points. The first point is to address the issue brought up by many young Singaporeans that this GRC or team MP concept diminishes the weight of the individual vote and thus it is not democratic. Their argument is that their single vote has to be shared by three, four or six candidates, and some of the candidates may not be of their choice. But I think Walter Woon has put up a very good case on this team MP concept and I fully agree with him. I hope that the young Singaporeans will read what he has said just now. However, I can reconcile this because I believe that this concept of the GRC would entrench minority representation and, to me, this is a very, very important trade-off. It is for the good of Singapore in future and I hope that they would also come to terms with themselves that this sort of arrangement would be for the better good of all of us. But perhaps the Prime Minister can elaborate more on this. The other small point I want to bring up is the boundary of the CDC. I was wondering whether it is possible that we should follow the boundary of the towns that HDB has built. HDB has planned and taken a lot of trouble, I am sure with URA, to plan all our towns. Therefore, if you want to have a mayor, it will be easier for him to run a town and the town must have a nice boundary, and this boundary has already been clearly laid out by HDB. I guess it is more practical and logical to do it this way. Moreover, it will be easier for the residents to identify themselves with this particular town and I hope that the sense of belonging and bonding will be easier. I hope the Prime Minister would take this into account.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to address the amendments relating to the Group Representation Constituencies. The concept of GRCs was first introduced in 1988. One of the objectives is to guarantee minority ethnic representation in Parliament. Although the GRC concept is in conflict with Singapore's established parliamentary democratic system where the people exercise their fundamental right to choose their political representative freely on an individual candidate basis, its promise of ensuring communal peace has been accepted as a strong enough justification to tamper with the basic system. The number of candidates in a GRC was then set at three, which must include at least one member from a minority community. This was increased to three or four candidates per GRC in 1991 with minority representation remaining at one Member. The increase to four Members per GRC was still in line with the objective of ensuring minority representation. A GRC's normal composition of three Members who are of Chinese origin and one from the minority community is representative of the ratio between Chinese and others in Singapore. In this regard, four in a GRC, with the ratio composition just mentioned, would constitute the ideal number to represent an electoral division. The Bill now proposes to amend the maximum number in a GRC to six. This is a retrogressive step as far as minority representation in Parliament is concerned. As the minimum number of minority candidates in a GRC is still maintained at one, it could result in an under-representation of minorities in Parliament. To prevent this from happening, more than one minority candidate needs to be fielded in some GRCs. However, there is no compulsion for any political party to do this. The ruling Party may be committed to having adequate minority representation in Parliament and may field multiple-minority candidates in some GRCs. But there is no guarantee that these minority candidates will be returned in an election. The GRCs may be won by opposition parties who only fielded the minimum number. The Prime Minister may be confident of winning all the GRCs with his full slate of minority candidates in the forthcoming election, but laws should be passed with a longer term view in mind. Sir, GRCs restrict the right of the people to elect precisely who they want. Having larger GRCs accentuates this restriction. Candidates too tend to become faceless in a big group and the electorate is denied making an informed choice of their candidates. They may end up casting their vote based on a couple of prominent candidates in the team and in the process allow the non-deserving ones to have a free ride through. The converse may also happen where an eminently suitable candidate gets dragged down by his less deserving colleagues and depriving the country of a good leader. Both these scenarios are totally undesirable as in a vulnerable economy like Singapore, it is always important to have the right calibre people in political office. This includes members of the opposition if they were to provide an effective check on the Government. Sir, there is no real requirement to enlarge the GRC size from its present level. The formation of CDCs to build social cohesion or the integration of constituencies to build a critical mass for town councils to be effective need not necessarily be conflated with the election process. These plans could still be instituted while still maintaining the GRC size at the present level. Town councils could merge together if it so necessitates. Finally, Sir, many people believe that the proposed Bill is really intended to diminish the opposition's chances in the election. This may not be the Government's intention for introducing the amendments, as the Prime Minister has confirmed earlier. However, whether intended or not, it is quite obvious that the smaller political parties and independent candidates will be disadvantaged by larger GRC size and the reduction in the single-member constituencies. What I am more concerned though is the impact on the election process itself. An election is not unlike a football match which is played on a level playing field with clear rules of play. The outcome of the match will be determined solely by the calibre of the players on the field as it ought to be. The flexibility in the size of GRCs creates a fluidity in the rules of the game which has the effect of tilting the playing field in favour of one side. This makes the match less than fair.

( In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, having heard the Opposition Members, I feel a great sense of regret. First of all, let me say that I am proud of what Prof. Woon said just now. Because in Singapore, we have a very neutral Nominated MP who speaks with great sense and reason. It is a great asset to our whole political system. So I hope that the people of Singapore will listen very carefully to what Prof. Woon said over TV tonight and perhaps read the report in the newspapers tomorrow so that they will understand the long-term effect of this Constitutional amendment to Singapore. Having heard Mr Ling and the other Opposition Members, it gives the impression that the opposition parties just want to remain as Opposition Members forever and they want to support PAP as the ruling party all the time. If you have such an attitude, from the perspective of an opposition party, you feel that by creating this GRC, it is unfair to you, then I can understand your point. But Mr Low Thia Khiang said in the conclusion of his speech that this GRC system in Singapore is a very regrettable one. It gives us the impression that the political system in Singapore is finished. There is no future. This is inconceivable. I feel that Mr Low should think over it carefully and think over what Prof. Woon had said. He had also mentioned ---

Mr Speaker, Sir, can I clarify?

Mr Speaker, Sir, let me finish first. (In Mandarin): At the same time, Mr Low has also said that the PAP is a "political bully". What does he mean by a "political bully"? Are we corrupted? Or have we received money from outside sources? As Prof. Woon had said, this GRC system cuts both ways. If the opposition party, particularly the Workers' Party, one day wants to be the ruling party, then I think it should study from what Mr Ling How Doong said in Hokkien just now. "If you want to win, you must win handsomely." You must show by your action. Do not adopt this by-election tactic to fight this general election. The opposition parties should have a tacit agreement to cooperate and to field their best candidates. They can also participate in the GRCs as well as the single-member constituencies so that they can let the people of Singapore give them a clear answer as to whether or not they want the opposition to represent them. If they concentrate only on the single-member constituencies and if they feel that the single-member constituency is the only way to reflect the choice of the people, I think they have been very narrow in their view. Every vote counts. It decides the government for the next five years. It decides the Member of Parliament for that constituency for the next five years. It does not imply that every vote that is cast is not directly linked to who should rule Singapore. I think the voters are very clear in their minds. They know what they want. So when they vote, they know what they are looking for. Just now, what Mr Low said gives me the impression that he was very arbitrary in his speech. It is like a very unreasonable man making such unreasonable comments. So I hope that the opposition parties should not look at the whole thing narrow-mindedly. They should look at the whole system and look at the long-term benefit that this system will bring to Singapore.

Mr Speaker, Sir, there are two groups of amendments to the Constitution. The first group refers to changes relating to the Elected President's power, the second to our proposal to expand the GRCs from a maximum of four to six. On the first group of changes to the Constitution, I take it that the House supports the changes unanimously. There were no criticisms and no clarifications required of me, so I would not have to go into that particular category of changes. On the second group of changes, I could divide the comments into three categories. The first category is whether the proposed expansion of the GRCs from a maximum of four to six deprives the basic right of voters to choose the individual candidate they want. The second group of comments from Members refers to whether it affects the minority representation, ie, whether the minimum will be reduced, and there were suggestions as to how we could ensure an adequate representation of minority candidates in Parliament. The third category of comments refers to the fact that the changes will benefit the PAP. Let me deal first with the first group of comments. It is not correct to say that by changing the system, we are depriving the voters of a basic right to vote for the candidate they want. Mr Ling may not be aware that most European countries have proportional representation in Parliament. They run a system where the parties field a slate of candidates and parties contest on the basis of a slate of candidates. The voters have no right to choose who they want to be in Parliament. The people who are returned to Parliament will be decided by the number of votes received by each party and their position on the party list as the name of the candidates at the top will be the first to be returned. So voters do not have the right to choose a particular candidate they want. In New Zealand, they have a mixed system where some candidates are returned on a single-member constituency basis and others on a proportional basis. Likewise, for Japan. So it is not right to say that when we change the system, we therefore do not allow voters this fundamental right of choosing the candidates they want. In our case, we are moving from the concept of a single-member constituency to a mixed concept of single-member constituencies and GRCs. In Luxembourg, they divide the country into four zones - North Zone, South Zone, East Zone, West Zone, that means, North, South, East, West. Each zone will be required to return a certain number of candidates. The largest zone will return 23 candidates. So each contesting party will field a maximum of 23 candidates, and voters will decide which party they want to represent them in Parliament. And the voters can vote either on a party list basis or to choose the candidates they want. So this is a variation of the proportional system in other countries where you have no choice of the candidates. And if they give a vote to a party, all 23 candidates will be considered, in accordance with the votes received by the parties when all the votes are tallied. The point I am making is that there are different systems of electing people into Parliament, and ours is different from the others. Ours is evolved from the basis of our experience that we want to have a multi-racial slate of representation in Parliament and also we want to encourage team work which is why we have moved into Town Councils and also CDCs. Basically, it is to encourage team concept, to encourage cohesion in our communities and to encourage team work in governing and in constituencies. You may also wish to know, and this is what we have learnt from Luxembourg, that you can actually give two votes to one candidate, although each voter would have the number of votes which is similar to the number of seats for the zone. For example, if the zone is required to return 23 candidates, each voter will have 23 votes. But the voter can decide to give a maximum of two votes to one candidate, that means, you do not have to give all 23 votes to 23 people, but you can give two votes each to several candidates. So what we are doing over here is therefore not really unusual in the democratic processes of the world.

Mr Speaker, Sir, can I clarify? The Prime Minister said they can give two votes to a candidate in other countries. From the point of view of the candidates, there are six candidates in a team whereby the voters vote for the team as a whole. Therefore, in that case, each member in the team will have only 1/6 of the vote from the voters. So the representation may not be as much as a candidate who is given two votes in other countries. What is your view?

I am a little confused by that. I do not quite follow the point. In our case, you have a vote and you vote in a party of six. In the Luxembourg case, each voter has 23 votes. You can give all 23 votes to one party and the party will decide to whom the votes go to. Or you can select the candidates you want, or you can give a maximum of two votes to each candidate. In our case, it is one vote for six. So it is not really one-sixth.

It is one-sixth.

No. It is one vote for six. It is not one-sixth of the vote. Each voter has one vote. It is not one vote divided by six. It is one vote for a team of six. Basically, what we want to achieve is to move towards a new form of selecting representatives and to build cohesion within each community. As you would have noticed, we have gone into town councils. Our experience tells us that town councils work very well. There is much more autonomy to the town councillors, much more authority and responsibility to the Members elected by the people. And from the experience gained from town councils, we therefore thought we should have this new concept of Community Development Councils to complement the town councils. It is our intention to give more responsibilities, more authority, more power, to the CDCs, so that they will actually bring Government closer to the people. The people will then be able to have a team whom they want to look after their interest, town councils and CDCs. Mr Chiam made a point that we could actually do all this without expanding the GRC from four to six. The answer is yes, we can actually do so. We can actually have a GRC of four combining with two singles to form six, for the CDCs and also for the town councils. But what happens if, as in the case of Toa Payoh, a single member constituency belongs to the opposition? You cannot group it under Toa Payoh even though it is perhaps ideal for Toa Payoh to have a larger town council to look after its interests. Likewise, Dr John Chen made a point that he actually thought the residents of Bukit Gombak are using the services of Hong Kah and it could be part of Hong Kah. I think under the present rule, we cannot just get the town council from the opposition camp into the PAP camp. So I want to move into this concept of a larger GRC so that in time to come, you will find that the people whom the voters elect will be in charge together with the grassroots leaders of each enlarged constituency. That way, over time, I believe that they can evolve a sense of working together between the people and the Members of Parliament. The important point is you must have the right people for the scheme to work. And we are trying to force the system to produce the right people. The PAP has no problem in identifying people, screening them, putting them through two or three hurdles of interview before we select them for the choice by the people. But this is completely absent in the case of opposition parties. They do not screen their candidates very well. They catch hold of anybody who they could do so or they allow anybody to walk into the party and field them. And they capitalise on the sentiments and the mood of a particular time, agitating the ground on cost of living and other issues and touting the by-election strategy. There is a danger that in some seats, we will lose them to people whom the voters do not actually want to be in charge of their lives, but in that mood, they elect as opposition MPs. And as I explained in my speech, if we do not pre-empt this and we allow this by-election effect to take place, you are going to end up one day with a very weak government, because the party that is elected to form the government may be deprived of some key digits for the Cabinet, and in the extreme you may end up with a freak election result.

A point of clarification, Sir.

Could I finish before you raise your clarification? Otherwise, you are upsetting my trend of thought. Mr Low Thia Khiang resumed his seat.

Would a referendum be required for this? This is not such a major change. It is an expansion of the current scheme that we have. I do not think that we require to go to the people for this, because the Constitution provides that the changes have to be made with a two-thirds majority in Parliament. So we have that mandate from the people in the last election to make changes to the Constitution, provided we are able to carry them with a two-thirds majority. How will this affect the minority representation? Actually, the change does not affect the minority representation in any way. Under current law, the theoretical minimum for the minority communities is six, as provided for under the Parliamentary Elections Act. This change does not alter that at all. The minimum number of six GRCs or a minimum number of six candidates from the minority communities remains unchanged. So it does not affect them in any way. I think the fear perhaps stems from the fact that the larger size GRCs may lead them to conclude that there will be fewer GRCs. But no matter how few it is, it will not go below the current minimum as provided for by law. This is actually more a political exercise than a legal exercise. I am not in favour of fixing a quota for representation in Parliament. I think it does Singapore no good. It does nobody any good because if we fix a quota, you have got to fill the quota. And you are not going to have candidates competing on the basis of their strengths. It will be perhaps on the basis of filling in numbers. And also having a fixed number, a quota to reflect this adequate representation, we will tie our hands. It becomes too rigid. I am more in favour of the current situation where there is a theoretical minimum but each party that wants to win the hearts and minds of the people must be able to appeal to all communities. I think that is more important. The PAP will continue to field more than the minimum of six. We are going to field the same number of MPs that we have from the Indian, Malay and Eurasian communities in the coming election. There will be therefore no reduction in representation as far as the PAP is concerned when we change the scheme. In the future, for some perhaps strange reasons, we have a change of government, the government of the day wants to change the law back to single member constituencies or to reduce the number of representation for the minorities in Parliament, it can do so, provided it has won more than two-thirds of the number of seats contested in an election. But for that party to do so and win the coming election, that party must be able to win the support of the minority communities. I do not think it will be so easy for a party that swings to single community contest will be able to win the support from the minorities. So the political exercise is more important. And from our point of view, we think it is wise for parties which contest in the elections to exercise this political judgment that we have a minimum. In fact, I would advise the opposition, if it wants to ever form the government, to begin to build up a multi-racial slate. If you do not have this multi-racial slate, you would have no chance ever of forming the government, because I do not think you will get the support of the minority communities. The third category of comments refers to the fact that the scheme is designed to benefit the PAP. That is wrong entirely. The scheme is neutral. It is like playing badminton or tennis. First, you have a singles court, one against the other. Then we decide to play doubles. We enlarge the court. We add one more player. How does that help one party against another? The team that has a stronger pair will win the tennis match or badminton match. And if later on we have a new game, we want to have a foursome for tennis or badminton, we will double the size of the court. But both would then have four players. And whether one or the other wins depends on the strength of the players. So the scheme is objectively, theoretically, if you like, scientifically, neutral. The key is who can produce the better team. I take it that it is a compliment to the PAP when you say that the scheme is biased in favour of the PAP. Because what you are saying is you cannot match us and that we are going to beat you in the GRCs. I think the answer is yes, it is so for now. It benefits the PAP for the coming election because we have got a stronger team. And we have got stronger teams for the different GRCs. Is that the fault of the PAP or is it something which we want to consolidate? I think we want to build up the system which produces strong teams to be in charge of constituencies and in charge of the country. Again, over time, if the opposition is able to build strong teams, I do not think it necessarily favours the PAP. Mr Chiam talks about the PAP bringing in new candidates with strong people in charge in the team. The answer is yes. I think it helps the new candidates that we will bring in. Again, is this for the benefit of the PAP or for the country? Do we bring in new candidates for our own purpose? Or is it to prepare for succession in government, succession in Parliament, good, honest and able people coming into Parliament so that in time to come, they will gain the necessary experience to take over the governance of Singapore? Yes, the coat-tail effect of the Ministers helps in bringing in these new candidates for the PAP. But I am sure Mr Chiam will not deny that he also has some coat-tail effect. And perhaps Mr Low Thia Khiang too, I think, would recognise that he has some coat-tail effect. If he says he does not have, then I will be very sorry to hear that after so many years he does not have any coat-tail effect. So again it is neutral. If it benefits the PAP now, it is because our coat-tail is bigger than yours. And I think there is nothing wrong in having a large coat-tail. I have been to Bukit Gombak and I went quietly to Hougang last weekend. For what purpose? It is to make sure that my coat-tail will bring in some support for the PAP advisers and PAP candidates there. Mr Chiam commented that the opposition is unable to prepare fully because of the late changes. But in the nature of things, concepts always take a long time to refine. And in this case, it took us quite some time, first, to have the idea, gain experience and then for us to refine the idea and, lastly, to put it to Parliament for consideration. But the opposition parties know that an election will be due within five years and from day one, after the election, they should start preparing for the next election, like we do in the PAP. The moment an election is over, we prepare for the next election. Likewise, had the opposition parties been doing that, they would not have to worry about all these changes, because, in the ultimate, when you face the people, it is your quality of people that counts, the programmes that you offer, and your ability to persuade people to your candidates, to your programmes. I believe I have covered most of the points under the various groupings. And if I have missed out any points, I will be happy to answer your clarifications or queries further.

A clarification, Sir. May I confirm with the Prime Minister, as he mentioned just now, this amendment to enlarge the size of GRCs will benefit the PAP?

Yes. As I said just now, I think for the coming election, by enlarging the size of the GRCs, because we have a much stronger team than the Workers' Party, it will benefit the PAP. But it does not mean that the scheme is not neutral.

Sir, I am glad that the Prime Minister took the analogy of playing badminton and tennis because there are fixed rules and the players know exactly what they are going in for. But in the case of elections, the opposition are still in the dark. Where exactly are 3-, 4-, 5-member GRCs going to be? Can the Prime Minister clarify how many 4-member, 5-member and 6-member GRCs will there be? Do we have all 6-member GRCs or some 5-member GRCs? So we are at a disadvantage. The other matter is about boundaries. Can the Prime Minister announce which are the eight single-seat constituency boundaries? Then it would be like playing badminton and tennis. As for the number of GRCs, how many will there be? If we do not know these things, I do not think it is a game of tennis and badminton.

Mr Speaker, Sir, it is a game of tennis and badminton, except that we do not know where the courts are at the moment. But once we tell you the venues, you will go there and the rules are fixed. They can play badminton and tennis once the venues are known, and whether it is hard court, grass court or clay court, once they are announced, you should be ready to play. I see no difficulties in that.

So when will they be announced?

That is the question which everybody wants to know. We will announce them fairly soon.

A clarification, Sir. I understand that the CDC's boundary will be drawn according to the enlarged GRC boundary. I presume that will be linked closely politically in terms of the functions of CDCs and the purposes of the CDCs. If it is for fostering community cohesion, will it be better to have an independent boundary for CDC where it is non-political?

Ideally the boundary of the CDC should coincide with the boundary of the Town Council. But it need not be so because of this requirement that the town councillors must be Members of Parliament. So you can have opposition Town Councils next to the PAP Town Councils and CDCs may include the opposition wards. It may not quite coincide. But this is the present stage. My own vision is for the CDCs and Town Councils to evolve into one, as suggested by Dr Tan Cheng Bock, that over time, as our population becomes more settled in the various new towns and old towns, they should have a situation where a CDC and Town Council would be in charge of an organic town. At the moment, it is not possible. You will find that the Electoral Boundaries Review Committee has configured the towns in such a way which suit the election purposes but does not quite suit the natural organic town for purposes of administration. But my own ideal will be to move to that situation where you have the Town Council and the CDC coinciding with the town and you have a mayor in charge of a fairly big town. So we have got to let the system evolve because the population movements are not quite yet settled. In my own calculation, it might perhaps take three or four elections before we can have a fairly stable pattern for CDCs and Town Councils. So I would expect quite a few changes in the next one, two, or three elections.

I have a clarification for the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister says the CDC will bring the Government to the people. What does he mean by that?

It is the social aspect of the Town Councils. Town Councils are also like bringing Government to the people. The elected MPs are now in charge of certain municipal functions. For the CDCs, I have in mind of allowing them to handle funds to assist the residents in the community. Take, for example, educational bursaries. Bursaries are now handled by the schools or by the universities or the polytechnics. Of course, many CCCs have their own bursary fund. But that is rather inadequate. So my scheme will be for the CDC to give financial assistance to poorer students. For example, university bursaries. Instead of the students from poorer families applying to the university for the bursaries, in future they apply to the CDC for the bursaries. The CDCs will be required to raise some funds from within the community or from without to support the bursary scheme for the poorer students. Of course, the Government will be generous enough to contribute in the ratio of $3 for every dollar raised by the CDC. That way, we have this community effort for the better off to support the less well off because the leaders within a community are required to raise funds to help those who do not have the means to go to university. This is one example. A second example would be in the rendering of financial assistance to poorer families under Medifund. At the moment, they have to apply to the hospitals for their Medifund assistance. Under this CDC scheme, in future, poorer families who cannot afford to pay for their medical care in hospitals will apply to the CDC for assistance. The CDC will be assisted by social workers and the decision whether to give the assistance or not to the applicant rests with the CDC, ie, the local authority and not with the hospitals, which is part of the Government. So we bring this particular function down to the community level. That way, over time you build up this relationship and understanding between the people and the members of the CDC will be in charge of the social development and the requirements for assistance in some of these cases. Again, we start off on a modest basis. If the scheme works, with experience, it is my intention, and the Government's intention, to identify more such responsibilities to be handed over to the CDCs.

A clarification, Sir. As regards the CDCs, the Prime Minister has mentioned about what he had in mind of their functions. He also mentioned in his speech just now of allowing voters to have a bigger stake when they elect a team who will probably be managing a CDC. Is he implying that where an opposition is elected in a GRC, these functions and the fund which the Government has given will not be given to an opposition ward which probably will form a CDC?

For the time being, CDCs and Town Councils are two different organisations. When you have a larger Town Council and the town is won by whichever party, that party will be in charge because those are municipal functions which we are quite happy to pass on to the Town Councils. But CDCs are part of the governmental functions. So we are not intending to hand over this governmental function to the opposition. We will hand over to the CDC which can be, in the case of opposition wards, handled by non-MPs in charge.

Second Adviser.

Second Adviser in charge. But, again, this is for the foreseeable future. I do not know in future how the system will evolve. Again, it is theoretically possible that when we are more confident, in fact, some day in the future, we will merge the two Councils.

Who will handle the funds?

The funds will be handled by the CDCs. They would not be handled by the opposition. But in cases of education and financial assistance, as I have said before, the CDCs are there to forge this community bonding. So even though applicants come from the opposition wards, if they are really poor and they can prove that they are very poor and need assistance, the CDC will handle their case. But that function will be handled by the Government.

May I seek clarification from the Prime Minister? As regards the funds handled by the CDC, would there be discrimination as to PAP or opposition ward, or would it be based strictly on merit? In other words, when an applicant comes forward and applies for medical assistance or bursaries or grants, would it be considered on the basis of merit? A man will be sent out to carry out investigation and when he is deserving, that is it, assistance will be given.

Yes, the CDC will be in charge and the CDC will decide. So whether there is merit in a particular case or not will depend on the judgment of the CDC for that particular constituency.

I have some more clarifications, Sir.

Some more?

Yes. The Prime Minister is not clear when he said that the judgment will rest with the CDC. Can the Prime Minister assure that this judgment in terms of assessing the merit of the case will solely be based on the circumstances rather than political consideration?

I said it depends on judgment because I do not want to draft a set of rules for the CDCs to decide. If I want to draft a set of rules, I might as well let this function be handled by the hospitals or by the universities. The set of rules, if it is left to the Government, will be: if they earn below a certain figure they qualify, and above a certain figure they do not qualify. There is a margin where you require judgment. I will leave it to the people handling the case to judge. Because when you pass this function down to the constituency level, it is likely that somebody in the constituency will know the circumstance of a particular case, whether it is genuine or not. Sometimes his case can be above the financial guideline for giving out assistance but the people in charge will argue for a case and they decide. The Government does not decide. The question is, if such question comes before the CDC from a resident of an opposition ward, how would the CDC decide. I think the CDC will decide fairly.

The Prime Minister in his speech just now mentioned the reason for enlarging the GRCs. One is flexibility, because it will have more members in the team and the second is about a critical mass. I would like to know from the Prime Minister whether it will be possible that, one day, based on the principle of enlarging the GRC, Singapore would become five big GRCs - North, South, East, West and Central?

They have this in Luxembourg. So theoretically it is possible.

Would it be better off?

If we move into these theoretical five big GRCs, whoever is in charge at that time, must come out with strong arguments to convince the Members of Parliament.

Why does the Prime Minister think that the person will need to have strong arguments to convince Members of Parliament? I thought he would use the same principle to enlarge the GRC from four to six.

Yes, if he wants to enlarge it to that size, I think he will build on the same principle which I have when I initiated it over here and whatever reasons he has for enlarging it from six to 20-odd. It is again like badminton and tennis. If you want to double the size of the doubles-court, then you have to give the reasons why.

Is the Prime Minister saying that the GRC should not be enlarged to oversize?

No, it depends on the particular situation. If you look at the system in other countries, they change with time. New Zealand has a first-past-the-post system for many years. In the last election, they have changed it to a mix of single-member constituency, first-past-the-post plus a proportion basis on a party basis. So it is a mix for first-past-the-post plus proportional representation. Japan used to have multi-member constituencies. That means for each constituency, it would have several candidates fighting for several seats in Parliament and you can have several candidates from the same party contesting for the seats in the constituency. Over time, Japan, for its own historical or political reasons, changed that system to a mix of first-past-the-post, single-member constituency plus the proportional representation. So politics has to change to suit the particular time and to anticipate the future. What is the main purpose of any changes that we make? It is to ensure that there will be political stability for the country and, most importantly, to ensure that there will always be good government for the country and for the people.

It seems to me that the countries that the Prime Minister cited about having big constituencies or returning multi-candidates, would also have proportional representation to ensure the views of minorities are represented. Will the Prime Minister consider some form of representation in case the minority views are not represented, not only the minority races?

We have already made changes for that through the Non-Constituency MPs. It is meant for minority views to be represented in Parliament should the situation arise when no party, other than the ruling Party, wins a seat in Parliament. Or if it wins less than three, it would also be entitled to one or two NCMP seats. And we have also introduced the Nominated MPs. Again, it is to allow views, other than those of the ruling Party, to be reflected in Parliament. We are against proportional government for the simple reason that it will quickly degenerate into votes along racial line. Because if you specify, say, a certain percentage which will qualify a party to have a candidate returned to Parliament, you are going to have some parties appealing to a particular racial group, because you have got to fix the percentage at a fairly low level, say, 5% and above. Then you begin to compete along racial line. Secondly, even if you solve that problem, you will end up with a weak government, a coalition government, as you can see in the case of many European countries. Because if you go on proportional government, the first few are likely to be elected. So the candidates will judge for themselves. If they stand for election for a particular party and that party is unlikely to win more than a certain percentage of votes, they may not get elected. So they may form their own party. And you will end with a coalition party which will be a much weaker form of government for the country. In the case of Singapore, we have always believed that you need strong government to run the place. You need a strong government to come out with strong policies, which may be unpopular, in the coming election but which we know are right for the future of Singapore. So, in our case, we therefore would not go in for a system which will throw up very weak governments.

The Question is, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." A Division will be taken to ascertain that the Second Reading of the Bill is supported by the votes of not less than two-thirds of the total number of elected Members of Parliament, which is 54 Members, pursuant to Article 5(2) of the Constitution. The Clerk will ring the Division Bells. Question put, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." Division taken: Ayes, 64; Noes, 4; Abstention, Nil. Ayes Abdullah Tarmugi Ahmad Mattar Beng Kian Lam, Arthur Chandra Das, S. Chay Wai Chuen Chen Koon Lap, Kenneth Chen Seow Phun, John Chew Heng Ching Chin Harn Tong Ch'ng Jit Koon Chong, Charles Choo Wee Khiang Goh Chee Wee Goh Chok Tong Goh Choon Kang Harun bin A. Ghani Ho Kah Leong Ho Peng Kee Ho Tat Kin Ibrahim bin Othman Jayakumar. S. Ker Sin Tze Koh Lip Lin Koo Tsai Kee Lau Ping Sum Lau Teik Soon Lee Boon Yang Lee Hsien Loong Lee Kuan Yew Lee Yiok Seng Lee Yock Suan Leong Horn Kee Lew Syn Pau Lim Boon Heng Lim Chun Leng, Michael Lim Hng Kiang Loh Meng See Low Seow Chay Mah Bow Tan Mohamad Maidin B P M Ong Chit Chung Othman bin Haron Eusofe Ow Chin Hock Peh Chin Hua Sidek bin Saniff Sinnakaruppan, R. Tan Cheng Bock Tan Keng Yam, Tony Tan Soo Khoon Teo Chee Hean Teo Chong Tee Umar Abdul Hamid Vasoo, S. Wan Soon Bee Wong, Aline K. Wong Kan Seng Wong Kwei Cheong Yao Chih, Matthias Yap Giau Cheng, Eugene Yeo Cheow Tong Yeo Toon Chia Yeo, George Yong-Boon Yu-Foo Yee Shoon Zulkifli bin Mohammed Noes Cheo Chai Chen Chiam See Tong Ling How Doong Low Thia Khiang Abstention Nil

The Second Reading of the Bill has been carried by the votes of not less than two-thirds of the total number of elected Members of Parliament. Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House. The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. - [Mr Goh Chok Tong]. Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment.

Third Reading, what day?

Now, Sir. I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Third time."

The Question is, "That the Bill be now read a Third time." A Division will be taken to ascertain that the Third Reading of the Bill is supported by the votes of not less than two-thirds of the total number of elected Members of Parliament, which is 54 Members, pursuant to Article 5(2) of the Constitution. The Clerk will ring the Division Bells. Question put, "That the Bill be now read a Third time." Division taken: Ayes, 64; Noes, 4; Abstention, Nil. Ayes Abdullah Tarmugi Ahmad Mattar Beng Kian Lam, Arthur Chandra Das, S. Chay Wai Chuen Chen Koon Lap, Kenneth Chen Seow Phun, John Chew Heng Ching Chin Harn Tong Ch'ng Jit Koon Chong, Charles Choo Wee Khiang Goh Chee Wee Goh Chok Tong Goh Choon Kang Harun bin A. Ghani Ho Kah Leong Ho Peng Kee Ho Tat Kin Ibrahim bin Othman Jayakumar. S. Ker Sin Tze Koh Lip Lin Koo Tsai Kee Lau Ping Sum Lau Teik Soon Lee Boon Yang Lee Hsien Loong Lee Kuan Yew Lee Yiok Seng Lee Yock Suan Leong Horn Kee Lew Syn Pau Lim Boon Heng Lim Chun Leng, Michael Lim Hng Kiang Loh Meng See Low Seow Chay Mah Bow Tan Mohamad Maidin B P M Ong Chit Chung Othman bin Haron Eusofe Ow Chin Hock Peh Chin Hua Sidek bin Saniff Sinnakaruppan, R. Tan Cheng Bock Tan Keng Yam, Tony Tan Soo Khoon Teo Chee Hean Teo Chong Tee Umar Abdul Hamid Vasoo, S. Wan Soon Bee Wong, Aline K. Wong Kan Seng Wong Kwei Cheong Yao Chih, Matthias Yap Giau Cheng, Eugene Yeo Cheow Tong Yeo Toon Chia Yeo, George Yong-Boon Yu-Foo Yee Shoon Zulkifli bin Mohammed Noes Cheo Chai Chen Chiam See Tong Ling How Doong Low Thia Khiang Abstention Nil

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

Order for Second Reading read.

Mr Speaker, Sir, on behalf of the Prime Minister, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." Mr Speaker, Sir, we have to continually update our election laws to ensure that they remain relevant to our times and changing circumstances. Amendments are now proposed to further improve our election system, so that it becomes more effective and efficient to serve our present day needs. This Bill proposes the following amendments to the Parliamentary Elections Act: (1) Increasing the maximum number of MPs in a Group Representation Constituency (GRC) from four to six; (2) Providing a minimum number of Single Member Constituency (SMC) at eight; (3) Allowing the Minister to vary by order in the Gazette the cut-off date for the preparation and revision of any register of electors; (4) Creating electoral divisions through the redistribution of existing polling districts; (5) Using the current certified Registers of Electors to prepare Registers for the newly created electoral divisions instead of preparing afresh new Registers; (6) Limiting the presence of polling agents and counting agents at polling stations and counting places respectively to one per group of GRC candidates; (7) Allowing the sealing of ballot boxes instead of requiring the boxes to be sealed and locked; (8) Permitting the counting of votes by polling station or polling stations and setting out the procedure for the decentralised counting of votes; (9) Providing for the appointment of Principal Election Agents; and (10) Amending the Third Schedule of the Parliamentary Elections Act to increase the maximum expenses a candidate can incur at an election. I shall now explain in greater detail the reasons for these amendments. Increasing the maximum number of MPs to be returned in a GRC Sir, clauses 2 and 4(a) amend sections 2 and 8(1)(a) of the Act to increase the maximum number of MPs to be returned in a GRC from four to six. The Prime Minister has earlier on, in moving the amendments to the Constitution, explained in great detail the need for this. I will not repeat them here. Clauses 7 and 8 make consequential amendments to sections 22 and 27A of the Act. Providing a minimum number of SMCs at eight There is no intention to eliminate SMCs altogether from our electoral system. The Bill ensures that there will be a minimum of eight SMCs. Clause 4(b) provides for this by creating a new section 8A(1A) in the Act. Eight is roughly 10% of the current number of seats in Parliament. Since this amendment provides for a minimum number of Members to be returned by SMCs, there is no need to provide for a maximum number of MPs to be returned by GRCs. Clause 4(c) therefore proposes to delete the words "or more than three-quarters" from subsection 2 of section 8A of the Act. Some people might say that the reduced number of SMCs is against the interest of the opposition. There is no reason to feel this way, as the opposition can contest in GRCs. In fact, they did contest in five GRCs in the 1991 general election. If they cannot contest in a GRC, it is because they do not have enough candidates, not because there are fewer SMCs. Sir, the Prime Minister has asked me to make a clarification of what he said during the closing remarks when he moved the Constitution (Amendment) Bill. He said that, with the proposed changes to the Constitution, there is no reduction in the minimum number of GRCs from six. But actually, there will be a reduction. He has asked me to clarify this. And the reduction will be from six to four. But, as he has also explained, there is no intention of the PAP Government not to field enough minority candidates for the GRCs. Cut-off date of Registers of Electors Clause 3 amends section 5 to allow the Minister to vary the cut-off date for the preparation of Registers of Electors by order in the Gazette. In the absence of any such order, the current cut-off date of 1st July applies. Registers of Electors are prepared in different months of the year. Under current law, irrespective of which month any Register is produced, a citizen's name will be put on the Register if he is 21 years old on 1st July of the year when the Registers are certified. For example, if the 1996 Registers of Electors were certified on 1st January 1996, at the time of certification (ie, 1st January 1996), the Registers of Electors will contain the names of electors who will turn 21 years old between January and 1st July 1996. On the other hand, if the Registers of Electors are to be certified on 31st December 1996, then citizens who are 21 years old and above on or after 2nd July 1996 will not have their names included in the Registers of Electors. The amendment is therefore intended to address this anomaly. A new cut-off date will better reflect the number of voters to be included in the Register when it is certified on a date other than 1st July.

4.54 pm Creating electoral divisions by amalgamating polling districts Under the current provisions, new electoral divisions can be created only by amalgamating whole electoral divisions. Clause 6 introduces a new section 20A to enable the creation of new electoral divisions by the amalgamation of whole polling districts from different electoral divisions. Polling districts are distinctive components of an electoral division. Their boundaries are clearly demarcated in the electoral maps and are gazetted. Such being the case, the polling districts, even from different electoral divisions can be grouped together to form an electoral division so long as they are contiguous to one another. This new provision will facilitate the creation of new electoral divisions and save costs and time. A polling district can be taken out of an SMC if the SMC has become too large or be included in a GRC if the GRC has now become too small. Using the current and certified Registers of Electors for the newly created Electoral Division without the need to produce new Registers of Electors The new section 20A also allows the Registration Officer to use sections of the latest certified Registers, corresponding to the amalgamated polling districts, to compile the Register for the new electoral division. Since the Registers have been certified, there is no need to prepare afresh new Registers even though an electoral division may have incorporated a polling district or polling districts from another electoral division. This will save time and allow new Registers to be compiled expeditiously. The relevant provisions are in the new section 20A(2), (3) and (4). Limiting the presence of polling agent and counting agent to one per group of GRC candidates Under current law, each candidate in a GRC may appoint a polling agent to a polling place and a counting agent to a counting place. If each of the candidates does so in a GRC of four, then there will be at least eight polling agents in one polling place or in a counting place if the GRC is contested by two political parties or groups. If the GRC is contested by three political parties or groups, then there will be 12 polling agents in a polling place. But in a polling station, there is only an average of six staff. The presence of too many polling agents will inconvenience the staff, and may intimidate the voters. Moreover, the role of the polling agent is to observe the voting proceedings. There is no need to have more than one polling agent representing each political party or group of candidates in a polling place to do this. The same also applies to counting agents. They are not in the counting station to do the counting, but only to observe the process. Clauses 9, 13 and 16 therefore amend sections 39, 49 and 72 of the Act to provide for this. Sealing of ballot boxes Currently, ballot boxes are to be locked and sealed before the commencement of the poll. They are made of aluminium. These aluminium boxes are secured by sealing so that tampering can be detected if it should occur as the seals will break if they are peeled from the box. At the close of the poll, the slot in the ballot box is closed and also sealed. However, from experience, the current aluminium ballot boxes have several disadvantages. First, the seals affixed onto the aluminium boxes are easily broken because the seals are made of paper and are perforated. Paper seals tend to be inadvertently damaged during the day when the poll is in progress or during delivery of the boxes from the polling stations to the counting centres. They can also be inadvertently damaged when transporting or storing the boxes in the Supreme Court vault at the end of the elections. Second, the aluminium boxes are difficult to store when not in use. Finally, when they are to be used, the boxes need to be thoroughly cleaned to remove any remnants of the used seals. To remove these disadvantages, it is therefore proposed to replace aluminium boxes with carton boxes made of cardboard. The carton boxes will be sealed by adhesive paper tapes coupled with security self-destruct seals instead of being locked. They are not only fully secure but also cheaper. The present aluminium box costs about $100 each and has to be stored and maintained. There is no need to provide space for storage of carton boxes as they will be burnt together with the ballot papers after they have been kept in the Supreme Court vault for six months. Clause 10 therefore amends section 41 of the Act to provide for this. Long ago, we used to have wooden boxes. They were replaced by the black tin boxes which were in turn substituted by the aluminium boxes. The aluminium boxes have become obsolete. Now we have to move on to carton boxes for the reasons I just mentioned. However, with carton boxes, the main features of sealing and protecting them with security seals will remain. We propose to use carton boxes in a Presidential election too. So a related amendment is made by clause 18 of the Bill to the Presidential Elections Act. Permitting the counting of votes by polling station or stations and setting the procedures in the decentralised counting of votes Under current law, vote counting is conducted on an electoral division basis. All the ballot papers of an electoral division are brought to one counting place before they can be counted. Clauses 11 and 12 of the Bill will amend sections 48 and 48A to authorise the Returning Officer to count votes by polling station or a combination of polling stations belonging to the same electoral division. The results of the whole electoral division are tallied centrally. This will save some time in the counting process as there will be no need to wait for all the ballot boxes from a electoral division to arrive at one counting place before counting can begin. This is especially so in large constituencies where many polling stations are spread over a large geographical area. With decentralised counting, counting can start as soon as all the ballot boxes of a polling station have arrived at a counting place. In practice, each polling station will be counted individually, and each counting centre can accommodate an average of six polling stations. This will speed up the counting process, and enable the results to be made known earlier. The candidates and their counting agents will be informed in advance, not less than two clear days before Polling Day, of the name of the counting centres, the counting place numbers together with the names of the polling stations where the votes are to be counted, and an announcement will be made to those present on that day before counting commences. A candidate or a group of candidates will be allowed to appoint one counting agent to witness the counting at each counting place. This new procedure is provided for in clause 13 which amends section 49 of the Act. The counting agent will also know the results of each counting. In the Principal Counting Centre where the announcement of the overall results of the constituency is to be made, candidates and their principal election agents are also allowed to be present. After the counting at each counting place, the Assistant Returning Officer will announce the results of the count to the candidates or the counting agents who are present. When the count and any authorised recount of votes at a particular counting centre are completed, the results will then be conveyed to the Returning Officer at the principal counting place for him to tally the votes of a particular constituency. The Returning Officer will make public the results by electoral division, as well as declare the elected candidate or candidates returned for the said constituency at the principal counting place. This Principal Counting Place will be commonly referred to as the Announcement Centre. Providing for the Appointment of Principal Election Agents Clause 14 of the Bill amends section 62 of the Act to provide for the appointment of a Principal Election Agent from among the election agents of GRC candidates. The amendment to section 49 prescribes that the Principal Election Agent appoints the counting agents for the GRC candidates. Clause 15 amends section 64 to allow the Principal Election Agent to appoint polling agents. The amendment is necessary so that paper-work and other duties required of other election agents, counting agents and polling agents of the GRC candidates can be coordinated by the Principal Election Agent. Amending the Third Schedule of the Act - Election Expenses Over the years, the cost of materials and other expenses for election campaigning have gone up. Clause 17 of the Bill proposes to amend the Third Schedule of the Act to increase the maximum expenses each candidate or group of candidates can spend in respect of an election to $2.50 per elector in his or their constituency. Other Amendments (a) Changes to Definitions Clause 2 deletes the definition of "Parliamentary Secretary" which is superfluous in this Act. To reflect existing practice, it also specifies a Register of Electors for an electoral division to comprise sections corresponding to the polling districts of that division. (b) Restoring names of the voters who failed to vote in a Presidential Election Even when the Registers of Electors have been certified, persons who failed to vote at an election (commonly known as non-voters) can apply to have their names restored in the Registers of Electors. Clause 5 amends section 20(2) to make it clear that the restoration of names of non-voters includes those from a Presidential Election also. Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, we will continue to make adjustments to the procedures for elections from time to time where necessary but transparency will be maintained. Our elections are and will be seen to be conducted in a free and fair manner. Question proposed.

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for allowing me to join in the debate. Sir, the changes to the Parliamentary Elections Act will provide at least a quarter of the elected Members to come from GRCs, which is the minimum guarantee, but it does not prevent it from going up to at least 90% of the elected Members coming from GRCs. With the reassurance and support from the Prime Minister himself, you have heard that the PAP Government will ensure minority representation. This augurs well and, in future, any Government worth its salt must be able to carry the minority groups in the community. This has been the Government's policy and I hope that this will be continued with future governments. Sir, the maximum cap has been removed. We may ask, what is the rationale for this removal. The opposition may continue to argue that it is not in their favour. I would say that they need to find good and equally capable candidates. There is nothing to prevent them from putting up good candidates for the electorate to elect. Their arguments are therefore not really valid and they will use this as a tag line to argue that it is not in their favour. But I am sure that the electorate would be wise to choose honest and able people to represent them. Sir, the rationale, as I see, to remove the cap is to allow for flexibility and this is very important because Singapore is a dynamic society. Things change. Singapore is a small place. Therefore, we must make provisions which allow us to respond and to meet changing needs. We can ask ourselves whether such a flexibility is useful. It is very useful to allow us to respond to various changes. The concern about minorities has been addressed by the Prime Minister and he has given reassurance that minority representation would not be reduced. With the amendments, I am sure that the minorities in Singapore would see that their representation in Parliament will be continued. Sir, the changes to the Parliamentary Elections Act do provide more flexibility to deal with changing demographic circumstances faced by various constituencies. For example, in my area, the population has been reduced. People have moved to new towns. Therefore, in older areas with declining population, we need to realign the constituencies and this allows for the realigning of old constituencies to provide for a better representation of Parliamentarians. Whereas in the case of newer areas, the population has increased and some realignment has to be made. Therefore, the amendments provide such a flexibility to meet these changes. The flexible provision is good as it addresses the demographic and other related changes. Sir, in the final analysis, we must ask ourselves whether the amendments would do good for Singapore. Is it going to build a more cohesive community? Does it strengthen our nation-building efforts? In short, my own appraisal of these changes is that it would bring about a socially healthier and more cohesive Singapore. We should, at all costs, support such an amendment. For the opposition, the problems will remain because the issue is for them to find honest people to meet the challenges. If they cannot find honest people, then I think they are to blame. Mr Chiam is not here. He cannot find honest people to join him and therefore he is left in a dilemma. He was turfed out of the Central Executive Committee of SDP, because he did not choose the right person. Sir, the crucial issue is that we need to find honest people to participate in the elections and be voted in to help in the nation-building process. On that note, Sir, I support the amendments to the Parliamentary Elections Act.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I would like to comment on clause 4(b) of the Bill which provides that there shall at all times be at least 8 single member constituencies. At present, the law provides that there must be at least one-quarter of the total number of MPs representing single member constituencies. I support the proposed reduction of this minimum number to eight and, if need be, we should further reduce this number in the future. Singapore is a multi-racial country. But racial biasness is primeval and we should do whatever we can to minimise the chances of it spreading. The GRC system would prevent those political parties which contest in GRCs from engaging in racial politics. The single member constituency system is what we have inherited from the British. It has an inherent racial problem in a multi-racial country. Political parties which contest only in single member constituencies or single independent candidates can exploit racial sentiments to their advantage, but to the detriment of racial harmony of the country. Take, for example, the Australian independent MP, Pauline Hanson. Her speech in the Australian Parliament attacking Asians and criticising the Australian immigration policy has done some damage to the country. She has done that partly because she does not belong to any political party and she, presumably, does not need the votes of Asians. Minimising the number of single member constituencies therefore minimises the chances of such problems. Sir, clause 4(c) deletes the words "or more than three-quarters" from section 8A, subsection (2) of the Act, not because of what Dr Vasoo said that we want to remove the cap, but because the maximum number of members now to be returned by all GRCs is now determined by the total number of seats minus eight. So that is the cap. The minimum, however, is still stipulated to be not less than one-quarter of the total number of MPs. This figure, I feel, is too low and not too meaningful. Should we not increase this gradually and perhaps, as a first step, to half. With that, Sir, I support the Bill.

( In Mandarin): Mr Deputy Speaker, with regard to the Parliamentary Elections (Amendment) Bill 1996, I hope the Prime Minister will clarify the following two points. First, in clause 9 of the Amendment Bill, in a single-member constituency, each candidate is only allowed to have one polling agent to be present at each polling station. I think this is not appropriate, because polling starts early in the morning and goes all the way right to the evening. So if this person were to leave the station either for lunch or to go to the toilet, there will be no one to supervise over the polling. I feel that for single-member constituencies, every candidate should be allowed to have at least two polling agents to supervise over the polling. The second point I wish to raise is that in the Amendment Bill, counting of votes can be held in several places. If this is the case, then the candidate will not be able to be present at all the counting stations. Will the Government consider retaining the existing system where all the countings are done at one centralised counting station?

Mr Deputy Speaker, I just want to seek some clarification from the Minister regarding the Amendment Bill. First, you only allow one counting agent per group in a counting centre. That may not be sufficient because in a GRC there would be a lot of people doing the counting work. I believe you need at least three counting agents to satisfy yourself that the votes are properly counted. Second, the Amendment Bill also proposes to have carton box to replace the existing aluminium box. Can we have the specifications of the box? What is the structure and construction like? Is it secure enough to use as a ballot box? I think the voters as well as the opposition candidates will have to be satisfied that it is secure and no hanky-panky business can be done. The last clarification I wish to seek from the Minister is that the amendment will have the effect that the counting process can start before all the ballot boxes arrive. My question is: how would the candidates know that all the boxes have arrived and all have been counted? What is the procedure like to ensure that there is no confusion when all the ballot boxes have arrived at a centre and how do we confirm that all the boxes have arrived and have been counted?

There are only two points for me to answer. Dr John Chen and Dr Vasoo support the Bill and they ask for an increase in the minimum number to be returned by a GRC from a quarter now to more than that. The Prime Minister has already said that we have to study all these changes we are making and in time, when it is necessary, we will review and put these changes into the law. Whether we should reduce the current proposal of eight single-member constituencies to less than that, I think we will have to wait for the future. But right now there is no intention of doing that. For both Mr Cheo's and Mr Low's question on the polling agent and counting agent, they might not have fully understood the process. No doubt, we say here that there will only be one polling agent per group of GRC candidates. It means that at any one time we can have one polling agent there. If that polling agent wants to take his meal, another polling agent can go there and take his place. So there will still be one polling agent. But the current law provides that if you have a GRC of four, then a GRC candidate can send in one person and the other three can also send in three other polling agents into the same polling station. So in that polling station, you can have four polling agents. This is not necessary. All you need is only one polling agent at a time. So there is no need to worry. You can still find enough place for your polling agents if they want to help, but only one can be present at that polling centre or station at a time. Similarly for the counting. In the current process, all the votes are counted by the electoral division and there is only one counting agent per candidate.

One counting agent per candidate.

Yes, but then they are divided. In this new process, there are many counting places and every polling station can be a counting place. If there are, say, in a single-member constituency, four polling stations, there will be four counting places. And if the counting places are different, there can be four counting agents to observe the process. So that is more than enough. In any case, the counting agent is not there to do the counting. He is there to watch the process. He is not there to do the counting. So long as there is one counting agent watching the process in that particular counting place, that will be adequate. We do not want to have a situation where in the polling and counting place each group of candidates sends in a number of polling or counting agents corresponding to the number of candidates. It would be like a market. We just want to restrict the number so that only one polling agent or counting agent is present in the polling place or counting place. On carton boxes, certainly they must be secure enough. They must be designed such that there will be no hanky-panky, as Mr Low suggests. As the Member knows, we have conducted elections for more than nine occasions since 1959, and nobody has alleged any hanky-panky business in the counting or voting process. So the Members can be assured that the carton boxes will certainly be secure. How would the candidates know that all the boxes have arrived? Before counting actually begins, the ARO, who is present there to supervise the counting, will tell the counting agent or the candidate present, "Here, these are the boxes and counting will begin." In other words, an announcement would be made before counting actually takes place. You will know how many boxes there would be and again here you can be assured that there would be no hanky-panky. The whole process is transparent.

A further clarification, Sir. Where there is one counting centre, for instance, in a GRC, and because all the votes are counted there, if you have only one counting agent plus one candidate present, you may not be able to sufficiently observe the whole counting process. But, of course, in cases where you have different counting centres, I presume the votes counted there will not be many. Therefore, one candidate plus one counting agent are sufficient. That is why I say that in the case where you centralize all the counting in one centre, perhaps you should consider allowing at least three counting agents to be appointed by the group.

Again, Mr Low did not probably quite understand this. When you have a GRC and, say, there are 20 polling stations, there could be 20 counting places.

20 counting places?

Yes, 20 counting places. They will not be centralised. They will all be decentralised. In one centre where they would do the counting, that one centre could accommodate six counting places. For every counting place, the counting agent would be there to make sure that he can observe the counting. So you do not need to have every candidate in a GRC appointing one counting agent, otherwise there will be multiples of counting agents in one counting place. So let me explain that again. There will be many counting places in a GRC and they will be widely distributed. They would not be centralised as in the old process.

Can I ask the Minister this question? With this new amendment, from this election onwards, will all the counting of ballot papers be decentralised? Is that so?

Yes.

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

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I beg to move the motion* standing in the name of the Minister for Law as it appears on the Order Paper. That this Parliament, in accordance with Section 4 of the Foreshores Act (Cap 113), approves the reclamation by the Government of that portion of foreshore/seabed and reefs at the islands of St John's, Lazarus and Renget and the islet of Kias containing an area of approximately 34 ha as shown coloured pink on the plan marked "LAND OFFICE RECLAMATION PLAN NO. 1/96" which is deposited in the Land Office, Singapore.) Sir, the Ministry of Trade and Industry proposes to reclaim about 34 hectares over the foreshore and reefs of the Southern Islands. Together with two causeways which will be constructed, this will link up the islet of Kias and the three islands of St John's, Lazarus and Renget. This is shown coloured pink on the plan marked as "LAND OFFICE RECLAMATION PLAN NO. 1/96". A copy of this plan is displayed in the Library of this House for the information of hon. Members. The proposed reclamation will create the critical mass for a canal-laced marine village with recreational and mooring facilities, and waterfront housing. The proposed development will not only enable us to maximise the potential of the islands which are currently under-utilised, but also to better meet the demand for these facilities among Singaporeans. In addition, it has the potential to be a major tourist attraction. The reclamation is estimated to cost $144 million. The reclamation works will commence in June 1997 and will take about two years to complete. HDB will be the Government's agent for the reclamation.

Question put, and agreed to. Resolved, That this Parliament, in accordance with Section 4 of the Foreshores Act (Cap 113), approves the reclamation by the Government of that portion of foreshore/seabed and reefs at the islands of St John's, Lazarus and Renget and the islet of Kias containing an area of approximately 34 ha as shown coloured pink on the plan marked "LAND OFFICE RECLAMATION PLAN NO. 1/96" which is deposited in the Land Office, Singapore.

Resolved, "That Parliament do now adjourn to 7th November 1996." - [Mr Wong Kan Seng]. Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-nine Minutes past Five o'clock pm to Thursday, 7th November, 1996.

asked the Prime Minister if he will consider initiating action to ensure a minimal representation of women in all publicly funded commissions, committees and councils.

There is no need to do so. Individuals are appointed to such commissions, committees and councils on their own merit, to represent particular interest groups, or for other reasons specific to the panel concerned. The Government should not interfere with these arrangements. Some countries have gone far in requiring proportional representation of a wide range of "minorities" in university admissions, employment, advancement, political office, etc. They call this "affirmative action" and "equal opportunity". The results have not always been happy. Singapore should stick to the system of meritocracy which has worked well and is fair to all citizens.

asked the Prime Minister why gender is not considered as important as ethnicity in the composition of a well-represented Parliament and why the under-representation of women cannot be considered within the same framework as that of ethnicity as a consideration in the composition of Group Representation Constituencies.

The Government found it necessary to create GRCs because with all constituencies racially integrated, but with voters still preferring candidates who belong to the same race as themselves, minority candidates were finding themselves at a disadvantage compared to Chinese candidates. There was a risk that one day no minority candidates would be returned to Parliament. This would have caused grave disquiet to the minority communities and threatened the stability of our political system. Women candidates do not face the same problem. The difficulty with getting enough women MPs is not so much getting them elected, as it is finding suitable female candidates in the first place. This is a worldwide phenomenon. Even in the US and Europe, except for Scandinavia, most legislators are men. The Nominated MP scheme has helped us get more women into Parliament, because the demands on Nominated MPs are less onerous than on elected MPs. The PAP will make greater efforts to find suitable women to field in elections. But setting a quota on the number of women MPs, through the GRC or a similar scheme, will neither encourage nor help qualified women to enter politics.

asked the Minister for Education, in relation to the admission of Christian children to mission schools, whether he will consider increasing the number of places available under Phase 2B of 1997's primary school admission exercise to 60% of the places available after Phase 2A and, if not, whether he will consider introducing a Supplementary Phase 2B so that children who do not get admission to the mission school of their choice under Phase 2B may be admitted to other mission schools which have places remaining.

The 50% cap at Phase 2B was introduced in the 1995 Registration Exercise. The objective of limiting the available places at Phase 2B to 50% of the places available after Phase 2A is to give both groups of parents viz those with and those without school connections, an equal chance to register their children in popular schools. During the Primary One Registration exercise this year, balloting was carried out in only 4 out of 30 mission schools at Phase 2B. They are CHIJ (Toa Payoh), CHIJ (St Nicholas Girls'), Methodist Girls' School and St Anthony's Primary School. Only 79 children failed to gain admission to these mission schools during the ballotting at Phase 2B. Except Anglo-Chinese Primary School which closed registration at Phase 2A, all the other mission schools had more places for Phase 2B than applicants. At the end of Phase 2B, there were more than 1,000 vacant Phase 2B places in these mission schools. The Ministry will not therefore increase the number of places at Phase 2B for Christian children from 50% of available places to 60% or introduce a Phase 2B (Supplementary) for the unsuccessful children.

asked the Minister for Home Affairs what is the number of documented cases of children who have died or suffered serious injuries from abuse or neglect from 1991 to 1995.

There has been a total of 5 documented cases of children who died and 45 cases of children who suffered serious injuries from abuse or neglect between January 1993 and June 1996. No statistics are available prior to January 1993.

asked the Minister for Trade and Industry whether he will provide the number and percentage of domestic users who use the following units of water per month categorised by type of dwelling: (i) 1 to 20 cubic metres; (ii) 20 to 40 cubic metres; and (iii) 40 to 60 cubic metres.

The number and percentage of domestic users by type of premises in the various consumption blocks for September 1996 are provided in the attached table (Cols. 851 - 852). table - NUMBER OF DOMESTIC CUSTOMER ACCOUNTS BY TYPE OF PREMISES IN THE VARIOUS CONSUMPTION BLOCKS AS AT SEP 1996 (Cols. 851 - 852)

asked the Minister for Health (a) how many persons have registered their objection to the removal of their organs under the Human Organ Transplant Act (HOTA); (b) how many Muslims have pledged their kidneys for donation under the Medical (Therapy, Education and Research) Act; (c) how many persons have become recipients of organs under HOTA since its incorporation and how many of them are Muslims; and (d) how many Muslims who died from accidents had their organs transplanted over the same period as in (c) and how many of these victims had not pledged their kidneys for donations before their fatal accidents but had their kidneys subsequently donated by their next of kin.

As at 30th September 1996, there were 7,499 persons who had registered their objections to the removal of their kidneys under the Human Organ Transplant Act (HOTA). b) As at 30th September 1996, there were 5,988 Muslims who had pledged their kidneys under the Medical (Therapy, Education and Research) Act. c) There were 147 kidney recipients under HOTA since its incorporation, of whom 8 were Muslims. d) Four Muslims who died from accidents had their kidneys harvested for transplant. All of them were not kidney pledgers and consent for kidney donation was obtained from their next-of-kin.

asked the Minister for National Development if his Ministry will consider constructing a temporary walkway shelter with lighting for the footpaths between Yishun MRT station and Block 749 at Yishun Street 72.

The footpath between Yishun MRT station and Blk 749 Yishun Street 72 is a temporary footpath across a piece of State land reserved for future development. There are no plans, as of now, for the reserve site. However, it will be a waste of public funds to construct a temporary walkway shelter with lighting over the footpath and demolish it in a few years' time to make way for development.

asked the Minister for National Development whether the following walkways or shelters were constructed using funds from the Community Improvement Projects Committee and, if so, how much was funded individually: (i) Block 151 Yishun Avenue 5 to bus stop; (ii) Block 174 Yishun Avenue 7 to bus stop; (iii) Block 201/202 Yishun Central to bus stop; (iv) Block 220 Yishun Avenue 2 to bus stop; (v) Block 322 Yishun Ring Road to bus stop; (vi) Block 419 Yishun Avenue 11 to bus stop; (vii) Block 776 Yishun Avenue 3 to bus stop; (viii) Block 838 Yishun Avenue 2 to bus stop/overhead bridge; (ix) Block 858 Yishun Ring Road to bus stop.

Except for the covered walkway linking Block 838 Yishun Avenue 2 to bus stop/overhead bridge, all the other covered walkways named in the question were constructed by the various CCCs using funds from the Community Improvement Projects Committee. The covered walkway at Block 838 Yishun Avenue 2 was constructed by the Land Transport Authority at the request of a CCC. The requested data are shown in the table below: Project CIPC Covered walkway at CCC Cost Funding $ $ Blk 151 Yishun Ave 5 Chong Pang 53,286 47,957 Blk 174 Yishun Ave 7 " 44,954 40,459 Blk 201/202 Yishun Central Nee Soon East 84,404 75,964 Blk 220 Yishun Ave 2 " 97,482 88,462 Blk 322 Yishun Ring Rd " 61,889 55,700 Blk 419 Yishun Ave 11 " 54,994 50,385 Blk 776 Yishun Ave 3 Nee Soon South 21,756 19,580 Blk 838 Yishun Ave 2 " NA NA Blk 858 Yishun Ring Rd " 30,858 27,772 table - NUMBER OF DOMESTIC CUSTOMER ACCOUNTS BY TYPE OF PREMISES IN THE VARIOUS CONSUMPTION BLOCKS AS AT SEP 1996 (Cols. 851 - 852)