Neither will I be adversarial. Sir, we inherited the British Westminster system of government and made it work. Mr Rai rightly observed just now and he quoted examples of many other countries, particularly the ex-British colonies, which tried and failed. Indeed, many of these ex-colonies went through many constitutions since their independence, from a parliamentary system of government with a Prime Minister to a Presidential system, then military coup and perhaps a Presidential form of government, maybe another coup again, and so on and so forth. I think we can see quite a few of these examples in Africa, even today. And there is no end to the problem for them. But Singapore has succeeded so far because we are willing to adapt and evolve the system that we have inherited according to the changing social and political circumstances and according to the imperatives of our multi-racial, multi-lingual and multi-religious society. If we did not modify our electoral system, say, in 1988, today, we would not have GRCs and perhaps we would have an under representation of minority races in this Parliament. And if, in 1984, we had listened to Mr Jeyaretnam and agreed with him not to have the NCMP system, then we would not see Mr Jeyaretnam here today, and we would not have the NCMP system. Indeed, in 1984 and even before that, the Government envisaged that some of our people may want to see more heat and debate in Parliament. They wanted to see the Opposition heckling the Government, criticising it, commenting on its policies and so on. That is why in 1984, the Government amended the Constitution and also our Parliamentary Elections Act to provide for the NCMP scheme. So we have the NCMP here today because I do not think you can find anywhere else in the world that an opposition, having contested in an election and lost, can find a place in Parliament to criticise the very party that it was opposing. Indeed, had the Opposition parties been really effective in the last 17 years Mr Jeyaretnam came to Parliament in 1981, Mr Chiam was elected in 1984 and Mr Jeyaretnam re-elected in 1984 today we would not have NMPs sitting in this House and giving us suggestions, constructive advice and the various contributions they have made in our debates. Dr Lee's analogy of supply and demand in economics is very interesting. Indeed, I fully agree with her that there is some pressure in some quarters for more discourse on public policy and therefore more people may want to speak up. In my basic understanding of economics, I thought there is a way to clear the supply and demand, and that is the price mechanism. Perhaps in politics, some people may think that there is no price to be paid to be in Parliament. I think there is. If people are really keen on a public discourse in Parliament, then the price to be paid is to contest in the elections. Win the election, and then they can be in Parliament and, hopefully, contribute to the debates in this Parliament. If they do not want to, we have the NMP scheme and it has found a way for people, to contribute to public policy discourse in Parliament. But that does not mean that if other people want to make their views heard and do not want to be in Parliament, there is no place at all to make their views heard. There are many channels which I will elaborate. In fact, the two Members have talked about how people who want to comment on public policy could do so earlier on. So there is a price. In fact, there is even a price for the electorate for that matter. If the electorate really feels that there is a strong demand for some voices to be heard which will be a counter to what the Government would do or that Government policies were not to their liking, then the price they pay would be to vote in the opposition. Then they would have a new party, new government, and that is it. If they do not want to pay too much of a price, then they vote in some Opposition Members. But I think it is very difficult for the electorate to arrange for that. So, happily, the PAP has been elected time and again, because the people really want the PAP to be the government, although they do want some Opposition voices in Parliament. That is how Mr Jeyaretnam found his way into Parliament because of some unhappiness at that time in Anson, and we had Potong Pasir and subsequently at other places. And today, we are back to two elected Opposition Members. I think people knew what elected Opposition Members can really do in Parliament. Sir, Mr Rai rightly also observed that we have built up a political system that is honest and free from corruption. But I think we should not forget that this was not the situation that prevailed in Singapore in the 1950s or even up to the early 1960s. I remember, as a young boy, I followed my mother to the Siong Lim market in Jalan Besar. My mother used to tell me that if a hawker inspector in the 1950s needed food provisions, then all that person needed to do was to drive his car to the back lane of the market, leave his car unlocked and come back to find his car filled with provisions and his marketing needs for the week. That was how it was. Corruption was rife from the top and all the way down to very junior officials. So we have more or less, in fact, I would say almost, eradicated this problem. But if we look around us, I think it seems to be quite natural to have corruption. And here in Singapore, we are lucky that we have worked at it and made sure that this system does not prevail and we must continue to work hard to preserve this value. Mr Rai is also right to say that it is not the Constitution or any law that determines the success of our parliamentary democracy. Indeed, it is not any law or constitution that determines the success of any institution. It is not just Parliament. We need people who are honest, people with integrity, people with the nation's interest at heart, in order to make sure that we have a good and clean system. So no number of independent commissions of inquiry or independent council or Ombudsman will make sure that we will have a good, clean and corrupt-free system. No, not at all. But if the Workers' Party were to be in charge today, I think we would have lots of that. Unfortunately, Mr Jeyaretnam is not here to hear this. In our system, we recognise people with ability. In this meritocratic system, we reward them according to their performance and they get promoted and hence they move up. And that is the social ladder that we provide for all Singaporeans, ie, the equal opportunity that we provide in our system, and we have done that. We have seen many examples of people who have moved up from the lower rungs of society to high positions in Government or in the private sector. I think there are also many examples of these people in this House. So I think this system has worked and we must ensure that it continues to work. Mr Rai said that the younger generation of Singaporeans may want to emulate the Western style of democracy. Well, I have just recounted some examples of how some restless electorate wants to see an Opposition in Parliament. But I think most Singaporeans are sensible. They are rational. They know what it is at stake and what is in their interest. And that is why even though they may want to have heated debates in this House, they know that they cannot just have people here who would criticise or make comments without really contributing to the formulation of good policies. But during an election rally, I am sure Members know that in the last election, for example, thousands of people turned up at election rallies to listen to the Opposition attack and criticise the Government, poked fun at the Government, our policies and so on. I think the people just lapped it up. They enjoyed it. They went there for an entertainment and at the end of the day, when they cast their vote, they know what is at stake when they give that vote to the person whom they voted for. That reminds me of another part of my young childhood. I used to enjoy going to the street corner and watch at the koyok man, the Chinese medicine man, showing off his skills like swallowing steel ball-bearings. Or he may have an iron rod to poke his neck until it bends, and he also carried a drum. At the end of the day, he would say, "This is my koyok. This is my medicine that can really make you feel good. And if something happens to you, this can be a palliative to your problems." I think many people went there for a good show, enjoyed it and some may sympathise with the guy because he would pass his hat round and they would just drop some coins in there. And some people actually bought that story and bought the koyok. So it is like election rallies. People turned up at election rallies, listened to the speeches, enjoyed and lapped them up. They went home, quite happy, but when they cast their vote, they did not buy that story. But still, about a quarter, maybe 30%, maybe more in some cases, of those people who turned up there bought that story. They did buy that koyok of Opposition speakers. Mr Rai, Dr Lee and Mr Sin Boon Ann talked about the various channels that we have opened up in the last many years to allow people to speak up and to contribute to our nation building, to contribute to our policy formulation and so on. Indeed, there have been many such mechanisms and channels and we can, of course, open up more if people want it. And the latest one is the S21 Committee in which two Members here are actively participating and others too have been asked whether they have views and whether there are people who may have views and who may be interested in taking part in the dialogues. And all these channels are outside Parliament and certainly people are most welcome to give all their views. During the 1985 recession, we formed an Economic Committee in 1986 to look into the measures that we needed to take and to devise a new economic strategy for Singapore, and many Singaporeans took part in it. Now, we also have a similar committee and again a lot of Singaporeans are involved. Similarly, the various committees and councils we have had in 1988, 1989, 1991, for example, to write up the Agenda for Action or The Next Lap or the various Advisory Councils' Reports on the Aged, on Youth, on Culture, etc, have involved lots and lots of Singaporeans. And those were not just reports studied and filed away, and left to dry on the shelf. They were reports prepared by earnest and serious people who had spent time and the Government had also spent a lot of time going through each of the recommendations. Eventually, when these recommendations were adopted, we spent money implementing them. And, indeed, today, you see the results of many of these suggestions which have been implemented by the Government. Indeed, as the Prime Minister said last year, he wanted more Singaporeans to participate and there are channels for them to do so. Mr Rai has quoted the Prime Minister and I shall not go into it. Sir, all these measures that we have taken are really for the good governance of Singapore. I do not agree with Mr Rai when he said that we have been subjected to heavy criticisms from the Western press or media on our system of governance. I think not. Indeed, they have praised us, not that we need the praise or we want the praise in order to do a good job. But people looked at our system when they came here, and they went away and say, "Yes, this is a serious place. This is a place where people make decisions based on rational arguments and they implement what they say." So they went away and said the system of governance here is correct and I think we should continue to uphold the system. Regardless of whether there is an opposition in Parliament or not, the PAP Government will continue to devise policies with the interest of the people at heart. It is not a question of staying in power. If it is so, we will not have devised the Elected President system, for example, to check our power. Where in the world can you find a ruling Government devising a system to check its own power? But we did it, because we believe that it is in the interest of Singaporeans that, who knows, some day a profligate government may be elected into power and it just squanders away all the hard earned reserves that we have accumulated over the years. So we should now start a process to ensure that the reserves that we have would not be squandered. Mr Rai quoted the example of the judiciary system and asked us to take a leaf from it. He said that since the judiciary has evolved and been made less adversarial, it has been more consultative and it allows mediation and conciliation, and so on, Parliament should follow suit. I think there is a big difference between what the judiciary does and what Parliament does. What the judiciary does is that it settles disputes for parties. If there is no dispute between parties, then nobody needs to go to the courts. But because there is a dispute, whether it is a dispute between an individual and an individual, or an individual against a corporation, or a corporation against a corporation, or even a corporation against the Government, they need a third party to help settle the dispute. Before they eventually go to court, they get into a process of consultation, mediation or conciliation on the points that they agree, and the parts for which they cannot agree, the judge will listen to both sides of the story and eventually give his decision and verdict. But the role of Parliament and the role of the Government are very different. It is a not a question of dispute between the opposition and the PAP. It is a question of the Government setting out policies and implementing them, or the Government presenting Bills to be passed in Parliament into law and having a full debate of these, and eventually the legislature decides, "Yes, that is the kind of law we should have". Parliament votes on the Bills, and we implement them, and the court will then interpret those laws. At the end of the term, it is the people who will decide whether this Government has done well or not. It is not for Mr Speaker or Mr Deputy Speaker to say, "Good policy. I approve or disapprove, or I reject it, or this is my decision." No. It is for the people. The people will give that verdict. So it is very different from the judiciary and we therefore cannot emulate the judiciary in following a consultative, mediatory, conciliatory approach to our disputes. Because that is actually not a dispute between the Government and the opposition. It is a question of different policies which I will touch on afterwards. Indeed, in our Parliament, the way we have conducted our business has been well reported. Not that we need to seek accolades, but Members may have read of these reports by consultants and other international agencies. My colleague, the Minister of State quoted PERC, IMD, WEF Reports, etc. They speak very well of our Parliament. I would not want to take up too much of Members' time but let me just quote one short passage from what PERC said in their survey in July last year: `The standard of debate [ie, in Parliament] is arguably much better than in many countries in Asia. In fact, by rating the Singapore legislature as the best in the region, the respondents [these are businessmen] in our survey appear to be saying that these factors [earlier on it talked about other factors such as the quality of the police and the quality of our judiciary] were more important to them than the lack of a strong opposition able to act as a check on the government.' It went on to say: `Sometimes, PAP backbenchers also play the role of a de facto political opposition, bringing up issues that in other countries would fall more naturally within the purview of the government's opponents.' That is what is said of this House. So we conduct our business in a dignified and business-like manner and in seriousness, not one where, as the Member has observed in other countries, slippers, shoes, or even water guns are being thrown or fired at one another. Mr Rai specifically talked about the contempt or public perception that some PAP Members have on the opposition. I do not agree with that. We cannot give respect to a person unless that person really earns it. So respect has to be earned. Has success got into our heads or not, just because we have been returned overwhelmingly by the people? I think not. After every general election, the Prime Minister will invariably send a letter to all the PAP MPs (he is responsible only for PAP MPs), and he will remind them of what their responsibilities are. Let me quote from a letter which he wrote to all the PAP MPs on 9th January 1997 after the last general elections. He said: `Victory must not go into our heads. The responsibilities we have to shoulder require us to be humble, not arrogant. Reach out to all your constituents, work hard to win over those who did not support you this time. Seek to understand their aspirations and their difficulties. Address their concerns where you can and meet their needs for better local facilities. Consolidate your position by working harder and winning the confidence and trust. Start working now. For the next general election in 2002, use the next five years to show what we can do to make our people's lives better.' So all our PAP MPs know their responsibilities. In fact, we have always told the people and even the opposition that we do not just prepare for the next election just before or during the nine days of the campaign. We prepare for the next election the very day we win our last general election. Mr Rai suggested that one way to help us evolve into a less adversarial Parliament is to consult the opposition in Parliament whenever major policies are discussed. I do not agree with that. I will tell him why. Parliament is not a forum or a conference room where we host seminars and dialogues. There we can exchange views. We can have IPS, Roundtable discussions, Socrates' Circle, or we can have "Time Square Society", whatever it is for such purposes. But Parliament is not this kind of organisation. Parliament is a serious place. It is a place where MPs who are elected by the people come and contribute to policy making and for them to scrutinise the policies. These include the PAP MPs. They will scrutinise Government policies and make sure that these policies are good for the people and the nation and in our interest. After winning every election, the party in power, in this case the PAP, will put forth its policies and programmes to seek the support of the legislature so that eventually when they are implemented, it will win again at the next election. What is the role of the opposition here? The role of the opposition in Parliament will be to poke holes, maybe even worse, to criticise and to tear down all these policies that we want to implement, or even to question the very need for these policies. That is their role. They will attack us. If they do not do their job, and if they support us, reach consensus with us, then they are not the opposition. So the very nature of party politics that we have inherited, even so in Britain now, will ensure that the proceedings in this House will always be adversarial. There is no running away from that. We can be civil. But civil does not mean that we will not be adversarial. Indeed, if Members look back at the Hansard in the 50s and early 60s when we had an opposition, there were far more bickerings and noisy and nasty debates in this House. As Mr Rai said, the opposition, even till today, will oppose for the sake of opposition, not just because the policy is no good, but even if the policy is good, it will also oppose it. So there is no reason why the PAP Government should consult the opposition in this House whenever we discuss our policies. The only place and time to really debate policies is when the House debates the Bills, motions or statements. Then both sides can properly scrutinise these statements or policies and argue their case and try to convince each other, if not, at least definitely to convince the electorate that "my view is better than yours". That is the nature of party politics. There is no way that we can avoid being adversarial. In any case, even if we want to consult them, I do not think there is much that we can get out of them because they are just bereft of ideas. We heard more than an hour of Mr Jeyaretnam raking up an old issue. He was so predictable. If you listened to Prof. Ho Peng Kee, you know that he has got a speech prepared and all the points that Mr Jeyaretnam brought up have been anticipated. He was so predictable that we know what he was going to say. So there were no surprises. What is new from the opposition? We know that there would not be anything new. Indeed, should we only consult the three opposition Members here, or two elected ones? Should we? Are they the only opposition voices in Singapore? Certainly not. Because we have the PKMS, the SDP, the NSP and many others. Since they are also the opposition, should the Government also not consult these opposition parties in order to carry consensus seeking to the extreme? It seems logical to do so. But I do not think we should do so. Because, in the first place, these people have not earned their place here. Secondly, even when they are out there, I do not think they can even look after themselves. For example, where is the SDP now? They had three Members in this House before the last election. Two were not re-elected because their performance in the previous five years had shown up their performance in this House as well as in their constituencies. Mr Chiam left the SDP long before the election and today he is still here, of course, but he has another party, another platform, another organisation. But what about the rest? Some cannot even look after their own affairs, what about being consulted on national affairs. I think it is not fair to put that burden on them. Indeed, if there are any contributions or improvements to be made to policies, the opposition should make them here in this House. Then we can debate and reach the best conclusions. If their views are constructive, useful and relevant, the Government will acknowledge, accept and implement them. But most of the time, I would say practically all the time, we will not find a shred of it that is useful. Some of them may be helpful in setting us thinking about how to overcome some of their problems or some of their objections. But we know that they have not got the slightest idea as to how to make this place better. I also do not think the opposition parties will help reach consensus in this House. Because, by doing so, they come to agreement with us, and they will diminish their role and the electorate will say, "No use having the opposition because they always agree with the PAP." What about the PAP? Supposing the PAP were to agree with the opposition all the time, then the people will say, "Why do we need the PAP? I might as well vote for the opposition." But let me assure Members that that would not be the case. Indeed, if we have a debate on, say, a Bill that goes to a Select Committee, I think the proceedings of those debates will be less adversarial, which opposition MPs and even PAP MPs will concede, because they are outside for the scrutiny of the public and the media. But the moment we have the public sitting here in the gallery and the press reporting this event, I think both sides, the opposition and the Government, will give their contending views and eventually try to convince the public that their view is much better. This is what party politics is all about. It is inherent in our system because different parties have different ideas, different ideals, different policies and different programmes. Indeed, if they are not different, then there will be no party politics to speak of. The layout of these seats, for example, already shows that we are adversarial. Now, of course, I do not want to be adversarial with you but that is the origin of it. It is adversarial. As regards other suggestions by Mr Rai to enlarge the NCMP scheme or have some percentage of this House be elected by proportional representation, I think they are not workable, especially if his intention is to have a less adversarial Parliament. Just one example of an NCMP, we know that it is already very adversarial. Imagine if we have more NCMPs in this House, I think the mood and atmosphere in this House will be much more adversarial. If we were to have a percentage of our MPs here represented on proportional representation, I think that will also not be good for us. Why? Because then different cause parties, different interest groups, different segments of the society will then form parties to appeal to a certain segment of the people in order to be elected in this House. This will then spawn all kinds of groups and groupings that would not be good for the interest of our nation. So we should not tinker with this electoral system that we now have. In fact, if I look at the contributions made by NMPs and the way they debate policies, even if they do not agree with the Government, I think they are very constructive and very useful. It is a lesson for the Opposition. With their presence, I see really very little need for NCMPs to be here to contribute to the debate in this House. To sum up, Sir, while I note Mr Rai's honourable intention to make this House less adversarial, I do not agree with his proposals, particularly the ones that he suggested that we consult the Opposition or to enlarge the NCMP scheme or to have proportional representation, because these will do us no good. So I do not support his motion in that respect. I cannot just vote partly for it and the other part against it. I say that just in case, and lest that people in future look at the Hansard think that we should evolve that way and be less adversarial. Let us not be misunderstood. We simply do not agree with his approach. It would not happen. The lesson from the British is that they have been talking about having a less adversarial system for years. I went to ask the Librarian to help me research some articles. There were piles of articles written on the British Parliament and how it is doing and how it serves people's interests and whether it should not be less adversarial, etc. Till today, after years of debate, they have not come to a consensus. I do not think they will. Outside Parliament, indeed, the Government will continue with its consultation, consensus building process to get views, canvass views, feedback, suggestions, ideas from Singaporeans who want to contribute through various means, incorporate them wherever possible, feasible, practicable, and we will also continue to co-opt individuals to serve in the Government, in the statutory boards, in our committees, in our councils, and so on, so that these people can also take part in the decision-making process of the Government. One does not have to be part of Government but one can be, as a private individual, sit in our statutory boards, in our Economic Committees, etc., and one's views will still be valued. So the Government will continue to do that. But while the Prime Minister has talked about a consultative, participative process, let us not forget that when the time comes to make firm decisions because of the urgency of the matter, because of the peculiarity of the subject, the Government will not hesitate to make these firm decisions without consultation with the people. I think that is the duty of the Government, that is, to decide in the best interest of the people and when there is no time, we just have to do it, and we will do it. In fact, that is what the people expect of a strong, just and fair Government, which is what the PAP is all about during the last few decades. The test of the effectiveness of this Government really, as Mr Rai suggested, is whether it has improved the living standards of the people, whether it has improved life for the people. Whether Government has done well or not depends on whether its policies are good for the people, and the people will decide. Indeed, the people decided, election after election, since 1959 that what the PAP Government did, and is doing, for them is good for them. And that is why we are here. Singaporeans indeed can be and are justifiably proud of the achievements of Singapore, despite our size, and Singapore does stand tall among the community of nations.