Hansard, 2008-08-27

Mdm Ho Geok Choo asked the Minister for Health (a) why is there a recurrence and worsening of the chikungunya disease since the January outbreak in Little India only infected 13 people compared to the 28 infected by the recent outbreak in Kranji; (b) whether there are weak points in the system for curbing the disease; and (c) if so, what is the Ministry planning to do to tighten measures to fight this recurrence.

Sir, chikungunya is a viral disease which originated in Africa. But, with globalisation, it has now spread to different parts of the world. It is transmitted by the bite of an infected Aedes mosquito. These mosquitoes, which also spread dengue fever, are commonly found in Singapore and the region. Unfortunately, there is no vaccine yet against chikungunya.

The first case of chikungunya in Singapore was reported in 2006. There were three cases then. It increased to 10 last year. All cases were imported. The first cases of local transmission of chikungunya were from the outbreak in Little India in January this year. By now, a total of 150 cases have been reported. Seventy were imported cases, and 80 through local transmission. Most of these cases occurred recently in July and August.

Chikungunya is endemic in our region, including Indonesia and Malaysia. In the last few months, cases of chikungunya

have been increasing in Malaysia, especially in Johor. This development, combined with the large volume of travellers between Singapore and Johor, is a major reason for the recent surge in the number of chikungunya cases here. About 80% of the imported cases had a recent travel history to Johor.

The key strategy to controlling chikungunya and preventing it from becoming endemic here is better control of mosquito breeding. But this requires full cooperation by all and constant vigilance. The NEA has worked hard to control mosquito breeding for a long time. However, they continue to find mosquito breeding sites upon investigation of places of residence or work of local cases with chikungunya fever. My Ministry will continue to work with the National Environment Agency to facilitate rapid vector control of Aedes mosquitoes upon notification and detection of cases of chikungunya fever. We will also continue to reduce disease transmission through active case detection and measures to protect cases from further mosquito bites.

The public has an important role to play in eliminating the breeding of Aedes mosquitoes and taking sufficient precautions against mosquito bites while travelling overseas. This will help minimise the risks of disease importation and transmission. We have to work together to prevent chikungunya from taking root in Singapore.

Sir, just a follow-up question to the Minister. Since this disease is being transmitted by travellers, are there any plans on the part of the Ministry of Health to issue a travel advisory to Singaporeans so as to avoid contracting this disease?

There is no formal travel advisory. But we did periodically

warn Singaporeans about the risk of getting chikungunya in endemic regions. At this point in time, Johor is a major problem area. As it also coincides with the durian season and I know that many Singaporeans go to durian plantations there, my advice is that Singaporeans should protect yourself with mosquito repellants. That may help.

2. Mr Baey Yam Keng asked the Minister for Transport (a) if he will explain the rationale for building 16 new ERP gantries along KPE when it is not even fully operational; and (b)whether the same rationale will be applied to all new and existing expressways to build gantries at all possible junctions in anticipation of slower traffic flows.

Sir, when fully opened on 20th September 2008, the 12-kilometre long Kallang-Paya Lebar Expressway (KPE) will stretch from the East Coast Parkway (ECP) in the south to the Tampines Expressway (TPE) in the north. Of the 12 kilometres, nine kilometres of the expressway are constructed as an underground tunnel.

Congestion in long underground tunnels, such as the KPE, poses safety concerns. Incidents occurring in long underground tunnels are more dangerous than if they occur on surface roads. In the event of an incident, especially if it involves a fire, vehicles in the tunnel may be trapped and the severity of the incident will multiply many fold, if there is traffic congestion in there. Hence, it is prudent that we install ERP gantries as part of the infrastructure of such tunnels, so that we can act in a timely manner to prevent congestion from building up so as to enhance the safety of motorists.

This rationale is unique to the KPE, in view of the safety concerns, and it is not applied to arterial roads or other expressways on the surface. Instead, LTA will continue to monitor the traffic conditions over an extended period of time, and will only set up new ERP gantries and levy charges if traffic speeds, taken over a period of several months, consistently fall below the minimum threshold speed.

Sir, I thank the Senior Parliamentary Secretary for his answer.

I would like to agree that ERP is effective in controlling traffic congestion. I understand that the cost of constructing a three-lane ERP gantry, based on a report in the Straits Times in July, is about $1.5 million per gantry. While ensuring the smooth flow of traffic is important, I would like the Senior Parliamentary Secretary to share how the Ministry is balancing the need for upfront infrastructure investment – in this case, about $24 million for the 16 gantries along the KPE – with the need for prudent use of public funds to solve a potential need in future.

I would also like the Senior Parliamentary Secretary to clarify if there is now a dual function of the ERP to ensure safety on expressways; and

Would this rationale also be applied to other underground expressways, like the CTE tunnel?

On the first question on balancing cost and installation, I have mentioned in my answer that safety is of paramount concern. For the KPE, we are taking a very proactive approach to install the gantries, because the lead time of activating them has to be short due to the safety concern and the higher risk in the long tunnel. This is the longest tunnel we

have ever had. It is nine kilometres long, and there is a higher risk in the tunnel compared to surface roads if there is congestion. So, we wanted to take safety precautions and installed the gantries first. But it does not change how we activate it. We will only activate it when the speed is below the threshold level. The activation rationale and policy do not change, but the installation consideration may be different.

Sir, my second question is about the dual function of the ERP while the third is on whether it will be extended to the CTE tunnel.

The CTE tunnel, as Members know, is shorter. The installation for the KPE is due to the fact that this is a very long tunnel. There are safety concerns. Where the CTE is concerned, it does not pose that kind of risk at this point in time. But we will continue to monitor. We will look at how we have been installing the gantries in terms of timing and how we are activating them so far. But the activation is still based on the threshold speed of 45 kilometres per hour. As for installation, when there is paramount concern to the safety level, we will install it proactively.

May I ask the Senior Parliamentary Secretary what is the rationale for having 16 gantries, since it is only one tunnel?

Why install 16 gantries? It is based at the entries and exits of the KPE. We have installed them, but that does not mean that we are activating them. As I have explained, it depends whether the speed falls below the threshold level. There were three gantries installed along the KPE before its opening in October 2007, but only one has been activated. This is because it is a gantry that mirrors the ECP gantry for traffic going up the Benjamin Sheares Bridge. The other two gantries are not

activated because their speeds have not gone below the threshold level. So, these two are separate. We might install them so that we have a faster reaction time for safety reasons, but we may not activate them unless their speeds go below the threshold level.

3. Mr Liang Eng Hwa asked the Minister for Transport why it is necessary to impose ERP charges on Saturdays and whether there is a need to extend the ERP cordoning strategy to Saturdays as well.

Sir, the Members of this House and most members of the public understand that the purpose of the Electronic Road Pricing (ERP) is to manage congestion on our roads. The need to manage congestion is applicable not just to weekdays, but also to Saturdays as well, and the extent to which we need to implement ERP would depend on traffic patterns.

The Saturday ERP was first implemented at the Orchard Cordon in October 2005, and it serves to demarcate the Orchard Road area from the Central Business District (CBD) to better reflect the different traffic conditions along Orchard Road, which is predominantly retail, from the commercial developments in the other parts of the CBD. Since its implementation, the Orchard Cordon has successfully reduced the through traffic using the Orchard area as a by-pass route from more than 30% to about 20%. Now, motorists heading for Orchard Road do not have to compete with those whose destinations are outside of Orchard Road.

The Bugis-Marina Centre Cordon is conceptually similar to the Orchard Cordon, and it serves to separate the

shopping area, such as Suntec, from the commercial office-based areas, such as Shenton Way and Robinson Road. Prior to its implementation in July this year, LTA had found that the traffic conditions within the Bugis-Marina Centre Cordon had deteriorated below the optimal speed threshold on Saturdays. In the first four weeks of implementation, LTA has found that the traffic volume has reduced by about 20% on average, and speeds have risen to above 20 kilometres per hour.

LTA will continue to monitor the traffic conditions in this area closely, and will adjust the ERP rates accordingly, if traffic conditions warrant it.

Sir, many motorists who drive through Fullerton Road on Saturdays would agree with me that there is actually no congestion to manage there. So, I would like to ask the Senior Parliamentary Secretary whether:

the slow speed that was measured by LTA could be because there is a certain stretch of road where the traffic junctions are at close intervals; and

LTA can go a bit easy on Saturdays, since it is a non-working day and, hence, the impact on our economy will be much lesser.

If the LTA decides to put in the gantries and levy ERP charges, all the conditions on the road would have been considered, whether it is a traffic junction or car movements. Basically, when the speed has consistently gone below the threshold level, with all these factors being considered, that is when it would be activated.

I understand Mr Liang's concerns that the traffic flow itself might not be as heavy as it would be compared to weekdays. The ERP is a responsive system. It takes in all the changes in

driving habits or lifestyle. We will also look at whether our benchmark today at 20 kilometres per hour for the arterial roads there would still continue to function as well as it should. So, all this feedback is necessary, and I would encourage Members to let us know so that we can use that and continue to monitor and consider all this feedback in future.

I would like to ask the Senior Parliamentary Secretary whether LTA would be prepared to publish how LTA obtains its data or calculate the travelling speed, because the feedback from the ground seems to suggest that not many people agree with the way LTA derives its travelling speed and hence implements its ERP. Would LTA be able to produce or publish the data on its website?

The monitoring is conducted over a period of time. If there is a request for it, we will certainly be willing to share that. I urge and encourage the Member to let us know which period he will be looking at and what data he will be looking for and we will be willing to share.

4. Ms Eunice Elizabeth Olsen asked the Minister for Finance whether the global market turmoil is putting our reserves and investments at risk.

Ms Eunice Olsen asked whether the global market turmoil is putting our reserves and investments at risk.

Slower global economic growth, coupled with the financial crises in US and Europe, has hurt most financial assets globally. Since the start of the year, most

of the key global indices are down, for both equities and bonds. The MSCI World (Equities) is down 15%. This has inevitably affected the investments that constitute our reserves, like it has for other global investors. However, our investment managers had actually taken some precautionary measures early in the downturn. This has helped to mitigate the risks to the overall investment portfolio during this downturn.

Sir, we have to expect global markets to remain volatile, until the risks arising from slower growth, higher inflation and financial stresses subside. However, we can ride through the cycles of upturns and downturns in the financial markets.

Let me explain why we are able to do this. First, because our reserves are invested with a long-term horizon. This long-term orientation will keep us from selling or having to sell in panic in a market downturn. The downturns also offer opportunities for our agencies to invest in good quality assets at prices that are attractive from a long-term perspective.

Second, our investments are well diversified across a wide array of assets and currencies, which help to mitigate risks to the overall portfolio. Third, we require sound governance and proper risk management procedures in investments by both GIC and Temasek.

I thank the Senior Minister of State for her reply. Can I just ask if these are long-term investments, does that mean that MOF only asks questions as a shareholder years after the investments are made?

Both the GIC and Temasek make regular reports to MOF as a shareholder. So at these reporting sessions, the performance to the point of reporting would always be taken into

consideration. So we would not wait till a long period after the investments have been made.

Sir, I understand that Temasek has gained a record profit of $18 billion, but that was for the financial year ending 31st March 2008. However, the shareholder returns by market value fell to 7% from 27% a year ago. My question is: does MOF have as much confidence in our investments this year?

Sir, what Ms Eunice Olsen has highlighted is precisely the reason we are able to take and we should continue to take a long-term perspective. Government is not in a better position than Temasek and GIC to assess these investments and Government has entrusted both agencies to undertake these long-term investments because they are better placed to do this. As I have said earlier on, the performance of both agencies will be assessed on a regular basis but the monitoring measures would be done on a frequent basis, not on a long-term perspective.

5. Mr Gautam Banerjee asked the Minister for Finance given that the Auditor-General's Report has highlighted the under-utilisation of land and buildings by certain Ministries and statutory boards for the second consecutive year, what specific actions will the Government take to ensure that land and buildings are managed more effectively to ensure more accountability in the management of public assets.

Sir, land and buildings like other resources have to be managed

effectively by Ministries and agencies who have been allocated those resources. All Ministries and agencies are charged with this responsibility. The non-office properties that were reported by the Auditor-General's office as under-utilised were built for certain purposes that had now been overtaken by events. There were also some constraints on their alternative use. Nonetheless, the Ministries and agencies concerned should have exercised greater consciousness in managing these properties.

My Ministry has recently introduced a framework to encourage better management of office space in the public sector. Firstly, MOF has reviewed and reduced office space norms. We will be imposing surcharges on agencies which exceed the stipulated norms, as well as imputing rental charges to highlight the opportunity cost. We will also be looking to extend this framework for office space to other types of uses such as staff apartments, chalets, and institutional buildings. The framework will also strengthen the monitoring of vacant space.

Secondly, vacant properties that are not required for the use of public agencies will be put out to the market for lease where possible. We have in fact done this in the past two years to meet the growing demand for office space. However, as regards the quantum and pace, we will need to take into account the market situation. Non-core Government properties, such as the Atrium@Orchard, have also been divested.

Thirdly, to instill greater discipline in the reservation and holding of Government properties pending development, the Ministry of Law will be introducing a reservation framework applicable to public sector agencies. Under this framework, a charge would be imposed on agencies for reservations of State properties for planning and feasibility studies. This would encourage

agencies to make land reservations only when necessary and for the optimal period of time.

MOF and MinLaw will continue to review and enhance our systems and policies to raise the effectiveness and accountability of public sector agencies in the management of land and buildings.

Thank you for the very comprehensive answer, Senior Minister of State. I notice from the Auditor-General's Report this year and the previous years that whenever he looks at the value for money areas, whether it is land and buildings, surplus cash, he has always got many recommendations. I just wonder whether there is enough of a culture of looking at value for money within statutory boards and Ministries and perhaps the Auditor-General should focus more on this sort of engagement across various Ministries. One example is surplus cash that many Ministries and statutory boards hold. Perhaps we should have a policy of sweeping up all the cash and keeping and investing it through other means, rather than just leaving it on the balance sheets of statutory boards who are not able to do very much with it.

Sir, I wish to inform the Member that, over the past few years, the Ministry of Finance has been working closely with all the different Ministries, precisely in the areas that he has raised concerns in. As I mentioned in my reply, apart from raising the awareness and encouraging Ministries to optimise the use of resources, my Ministry has also introduced a framework where we would actually, first of all, for example, in the area of office space, impose space norms as well as to impute a rental charge, so that there is a real cost to the decision.

As regards the holding of surplus cash at statutory boards, the system has

already been in place where statutory boards are actually charged the cost of capital and there will be the net economic value that will be computed and for which there is a real charge to the budget for the respective years. In other words, if they continue to hold on to surplus cash, this will exact a certain carrying charge.

One further question on economic charge. This levy on cash is not consistently done. For example, in the same report of the Auditor-General, the Health Services Authority had something like $50 million or so cash which was sitting in its balance sheet and the Auditor-General raised a point on it. I think it is when statutory boards have to do some new activities, that is when –

Mr Banerjee, please ask your question.

May I just finish this point?

No need to elaborate the question. Ask your question.

Is it being consistently done for both past cash as well as new funds?

Sir, I wish to assure the Member that this is applied consistently for all equivalent of the shareholders' funds that are being held in the statutory boards. What the Member might be referring to could be on the deposits that statutory boards might be holding, which do not technically belong to them. There are also moves to ensure that these are returned promptly to the rightful owners.

6. Mr Christopher de Souza asked the Minister for Health in view of some foetuses being viable before 24 weeks

and given that the Abortion Act of 1974 was introduced when curbing population growth was a social priority, whether he will consider amending the legislation to lower the 24-week limit for unrestricted abortions since Singapore now needs to increase her population.

7. Mr Siew Kum Hong asked the Minister for Health whether his Ministry will (i) affirm the fundamental right of women to choose, subject to objective considerations of medical safety, whether to have abortions, which has been accepted in Singapore for the past four decades without question; (ii) confirm whether there is reason to change the current prevailing objective medical evaluation of independent foetal viability; and (iii) focus on influencing societal attitudes towards abortion and counselling persons seeking abortions, instead of the 24-week-limit for unrestricted abortions and women's legal right to choose.

8. Mr Christopher de Souza asked the Minister for Health what would be Singapore's annual total fertility rate from 2000 to 2007 if (i) no abortions were carried out during those years; and (ii) abortions were only permitted on an unrestricted basis for foetuses up to 12 weeks of age.

9. Mr Christopher de Souza asked the Minister for Health whether he will consider the promotion of adoption as a serious alternative to abortion to increase our total fertility rate.

Sir, may I have your permission to take Question Nos. 6, 7, 8 and 9 together?

Yes.

The Termination of Pregnancy Act was enacted in 1974, to provide for the safe termination of

unwanted pregnancies by trained persons in appropriately equipped facilities. It is to safeguard the health and well-being of the woman who has, for various reasons, decided to terminate her pregnancy. This is intended to ensure that all children born in Singapore are wanted children, who will be properly cared for, and will have opportunities to develop to their full potential.

The Act was not introduced to curb population growth. Neither will its restriction or cancellation help to grow the population. It is simplistic to assume that one fewer abortion equals one more baby. Hong Kong and Poland do not allow abortion for social reasons or on demand, but their birth rates are among the lowest in the world, not better than that of Singapore. Among the many countries which legalise abortion on demand, there is a wide range of birth rates. So, clearly, there are other factors at play which determine the birth rate of a population.

As for the time limit for unrestricted abortion, it is determined on objective medical grounds, based on the doctors' assessment of the survivability of the foetus outside the womb.

The Act requires all women contemplating abortion to be counselled. The counsellors will advise the women of the full implications and the risks of an abortion, and of the alternatives available, including adoption.

The issue of abortion is an emotive and divisive one. It has been debated at length and decided in Singapore. The decision respects the different views that some community and religious groups hold on abortion. It is not useful to talk about abortion in absolute terms as there are practical human, medical and social issues involved. It would not be wise to reopen the debate and introduce into Singapore the divisive battles going on in the West, especially in the US.

We will continue with the other efforts in public education, such as sex education to school children and the public, as well as in providing assistance to married couples to have more children.

I thank the Minister for his response and I agree that in 1974, the Termination of Pregnancy Act was not introduced as a curbing population mechanism. It was, nonetheless, introduced as being consistent with the Government's policy then of population control.

I have four supplementary questions. First, given that the Government's position, as I take it, is that viability is at 24 weeks, will the Minister review this limit if future research shows that viability is before 24 weeks? Second, in light of the Minister's reply, will the Minister consider setting up a soft and caring regulatory framework to put couples, struggling with fertility or couples seeking to adopt, in touch with pregnant ladies considering abortion? The purpose would be to see if the pregnant ladies are willing to give their babies to the couple for adoption, thereby, creating a win-win situation. Thirdly, given that the Ministry of Health is thinking out of the box in regulating organ trading, would the Minister consider this adoption proposal?

Unlike organ trading, no payment for profit would be involved in this proposal. Fourthly, Sir, would the Minister consider this proposal, given that this particular proposal envisions that the lady considering abortion would still be able to terminate her pregnancy if she decides not to give the baby up for adoption, making this proposal beneficial to the ladies as well as the couples.

Sir, although there are four supplementary questions, there are really two because the last three are related to adoption and I will address them.

First on the 24-week time limit. The Member is quite correct. As stated in my reply, this is purely based on science, and we are advised by the medical experts on the viability of the foetus outside the womb. While preparing for this Question, I decided to ask the experts again for the latest assessment on this particular issue and they gave me a statement, which I would like to read it here, and I quote:

"We are quite confident that babies born after 24 completed weeks of gestation should have a very good chance of surviving intact and the most optimal care should be offered to them. Between 22 to 24 weeks gestation, survival rates dip sharply, even in the presence of the latest technologies, and the disability rates will also climb sharply, especially disabilities in the moderate and severe range. Therefore, it is recommended that the legal limit of abortion should be kept at 24 weeks at this moment. The dividing line can always be redrawn when future survival and disability statistics on children born in the threshold of viability warrant a review."

So, this is the position that I take. Let us base our decision purely on science so that we take the emotion out of this particular subject.

As for adoption, the current arrangement is like this: the law mandates pre-abortion counselling. These involve trained counsellors who will talk to the pregnant mothers of the various options available to them besides the risk of abortion procedures. And one alternative is adoption – to consider keeping the pregnancy to term and then pass the baby to the couple who are interested in adopting him. Over the years, a small percentage of the mothers would agree to continue with the pregnancy and to consider adoption. In such cases, the SOP will require us to get the pregnant mother in touch with MCYS (or NGOs because some parents would prefer to deal with

NGOs), and arrangement is then made to match-make the couple who are interested in adopting with the pregnant mother who may then decide to continue the pregnancy to term. This is the current arrangement and we will continue with it. In fact, our experience is that the mothers who decide to keep the pregnancy often decide to keep the babies as well. So, not 100% of such babies will end up being adopted.

Yes, Mr de Souza, last question from you.

I would just like to thank the Minister for answering very objectively and his answers were very helpful.

Your question?

I just want to thank him, Sir.

10. Er Lee Bee Wah asked the Minister for National Development (a) when will his Ministry introduce a dedicated telephone hotline for private estate residents in Ang Mo Kio GRC that will assist them to liaise with Government departments and agencies on non-emergency estate maintenance matters; (b) how much funding will be provided for this project; and (c) whether Community Improvement Projects Committee (CIPC) funds can be used for projects in private estates.

Sir, I believe that Mdm Lee Bee Wah is referring

to the Aljunied Connect for Estates (ACE) project launched by Aljunied GRC on 6th July this year. This two-year pilot project arose from a recommendation by the Committee on Private Estates chaired by Mrs Lim Hwee Hua last year. The Committee had recommended that resources be allocated to Citizens' Consultative Committees (CCCs) to help private estate residents coordinate estate maintenance issues with the relevant Government agencies. As part of the scheme implemented by the CCCs in Aljunied GRC, public education and a telephone hotline are provided for private estate residents to help them address estate maintenance matters.

This pilot programme will also be implemented in two other GRCs with a large number of private estates – Tanjong Pagar and Holland-Bukit Timah GRC. At the end of the two-year pilot programme, the Committee on Private Estates will review the scheme and assess if it should be extended to other constituencies and, if so, in what form.

Notwithstanding this pilot programme in the three GRCs, residents in private estates can continue to approach the various Government agencies directly to provide feedback on or seek resolution of estate maintenance problems.

On the use of CIPC funds for projects in private estates, the Government had earlier announced that the CIPC scheme would be extended to private estates to allow for timely and small-scale improvement works in these estates. In order to cater to the specific needs of the private estate dwellers, we have decided to expand the Estate Upgrading Programme to allow small-scale upgrading works that will complement the EUP. Similar to the EUP, the small-scale improvement works will be funded by the Government, but subject to stipulated cost caps. MND will be announcing the implementation details of the scheme shortly.

I thank the Parliamentary Secretary for the explanation. I have two supplementary questions:

Just now the Parliamentary Secretary mentioned that it will take two years before deciding whether or not the programme is to be extended to the other GRCs. That would mean that Ang Mo Kio may be getting it in 2010. My question is: why is it is in two years' time?

Can the CIPC funds be used to build barrier-free access in private estates, which is a very common request from the private estate residents?

On the first question on when Ang Mo Kio will get it, as I have mentioned, it is a pilot project and is recommended by the Committee on Private Estates. The Committee felt that it will take some time for them to assess the viability as well as ascertain the potential effectiveness of the programme. Mdm Lee's question is whether it can be brought forward. We will refer back to the Committee on Private Estates to assess whether a shorter period will be sufficient for them to assess the viability, or even to ascertain whether that pilot project can work. But, at this point in time, the Committee's assessment is that it will take two years, at least, for them to assess that project.

On CIPC and usage of CIPC funds for barrier-free access facilities in private estates, as I mentioned earlier, the Government announced earlier that we are considering using CIPC funds for private estates. But having considered the matter further, we are looking at implementing or expanding the EUP for small-scale private estate projects. And we are looking into various aspects on the needs of the private estates and will announce details of that programme shortly.

11. Mdm Halimah Yacob asked the Acting Minister for Manpower (a) whether he will provide an update on the employment situation in view of the recently downgraded GDP growth forecast of 4% to 5%; (b) which sectors will continue to see job growth; and (c) what is the projected unemployment rate for the year.

Sir, employment growth in the first half of 2008 has been healthy, with 143,800 jobs added. MTI's full year GDP growth forecast is now between 4% and 5%; this means that the economy is still expected to grow, albeit slower, in the second half of 2008. We, therefore, expect continued employment growth, but probably at a slower rate in the second half. With the slowdown in major external economies and global concerns with inflation, some businesses have become more cautious in their hiring. This has contributed to an increase in the overall unemployment rate, from 2% in March 2008 to 2.3% in June 2008. This is at the same level as it was a year ago in June 2007. Unemployment might rise in the second half of the year. If the slowdown in export-dependent sectors such as electronics continues, retrenchments might also edge up above the record-low in 2007.

Nevertheless, with continued employment growth, there will be sufficient jobs created for Singaporeans. The bulk of the new jobs will be in the services sector, especially the tourism-related industries. Driven by big-scale events as well as the upcoming Integrated Resorts in 2009 and

2010, we should see continued demand for workers in many types of jobs in these industries, ranging from restaurant managers, waiters and chefs to retail assistants and event organisers. We expect 50,000 jobs to be created in the tourism sector between 2008 and 2010.

We also expect job growth in other industries. For instance, the robust growth in the aerospace industry driven by new projects announced by industry giants such as GE Aviation and Rolls Royce will translate into continued demand for technicians and engineers. In the finance sector, various segments such as wealth management and consumer and corporate banking are expected to continue growing and over the next five years, an average of 7,000 new jobs are expected to be created annually, ranging from financial analysts and risk managers to private bankers.

As we continue to create good jobs, we will need to prepare our workers through the CET programmes to refresh and renew their skills, so that they can enhance their mobility and employability and take advantage of emerging opportunities in new growth areas.

Two supplementary questions, Sir.

The Minister said that 143,000 jobs were created in the first half of this year. I would like to ask the Minister how many of these jobs have gone to Singaporeans and how many have gone to foreigners.

My second supplementary question, Sir, is this: in view of the slower economic growth and the projected higher unemployment rate, would the Ministry consider reviewing the current quotas on foreign workers, which have been liberalised over the last few years?

Sir, with regard to the employment statistics between Singaporeans and foreigner employees, this data is collected over a year and this data will be available on an annual basis. The next set of data will be available early next year.

With regard to the second question on whether we will review the foreign quota, as I mentioned yesterday, we monitor the employment landscape very carefully but we have to take into account the availability and the presence of foreign workers creates flexibility for our employment market. In fact, it is this flexibility that has allowed us to continue to create new jobs, and many of these new jobs do go to Singaporeans. So, it is important for us to continue to ensure sufficient flexibility in the labour market. At the same time, we also want to ensure that Singaporeans will continue to find good jobs and will continue to be able to upgrade themselves. To do this, it is more important for us to focus on giving them skills, providing them with training, so that we can enhance their mobility. I think as we create new jobs, if Singaporeans do not have the skills for these jobs, I think unemployment rate will go up. So, while we create new jobs, the strategy to manage unemployment is to ensure that Singaporeans who have been displaced by retrenchments or economic restructuring will be able to find new jobs quickly. And the way to that is to give them training, give them skills, give them capability and enhance their mobility and employability.

The Minister mentioned some new jobs to be created in the new sectors. I want to ask the Minister what is his assessment of our programme so far, and its ability to gear our workers towards these new sectors that have been mentioned.

I think we have put in quite a lot of effort. Earlier this year,

we announced the Total plan, which is our strategy towards training manpower for tourism sector in view of the oncoming

major events as well as major projects, like the Integrated Resorts. These programmes have progressed quite well. Our target was to train 74,000 workers in the area of hospitality and tourism-related jobs. Until today, we have trained close to half of that number. So I think we are making good progress in many of these programmes. But I would agree that there is a lot more that we need to do and there is a lot more effort that we need to put in to reach out to the workers who need upgrading and training for this purpose.

Can the Minister, perhaps, explain to this House that since our economy has changed quite a lot from some years back and the fact that the economic growth figure has come down in a particular month or quarter, does it not translate to loss of jobs in the same proportion? We are a much more capital intensive economy now and some particular sectors like pharmaceutical and electronics can be affected by exports to overseas countries. This would have a disproportionate impact on the GDP figures, but not on employment, and we have also developed the service sector. So I think some of the concerns that the MPs have may be a little bit misplaced on job creation. We must not take knee-jerk reactions on longer term employment policies that we have in place. I think you need to –

You are answering on behalf of MOM, Mr Banerjee?

Sir, I must thank Mr Banerjee for the comments. In fact, that was a very important point. Many of the industries today are capital intensive. They have invested in infrastructure and these investments are huge. They themselves would not retrench workers just at the spur of the moment because orders

have come down. In fact, many of them would hang on to their workers in anticipation of recovery of their business. Sometimes, you will find that the economic and employment cycles may not be totally in phase, so this is something that we have to bear in mind.

Mdm Halimah, last question.

I would like to ask the Minister whether there is a mechanism in the Ministry of Manpower to monitor the situation when there are a lot of requests for foreign workers in a particular sector or company, to determine whether they have indeed made efforts to try and encourage more Singaporeans to go into that sector, including providing them with the skills to do the job, and whether they are amenable to employing older workers and women who want to go back to work. While we may be seeing a lot of employment generally, we also need to ensure that these two groups are not affected. So is there a mechanism in the Ministry of Manpower to monitor that?

Sir, the Ministry of Manpower works very closely with our tripartite partners, both the employers' federation as well as the unions, and Mdm Halimah knows very well that we have very close cooperation with them. And every time, when there is a problem in the employment market, whether it is a request for foreign workers, the need for job redesign or the need to train our local workers, we will work together and reach out to them and we will monitor the situation very closely. We get feedback from the unions whether these employers are indeed putting in efforts to retrain their workers. We will also monitor very closely their actual need for foreign manpower.

For the tourism sector, for example, there is currently a working group formed

among the tripartite partners as well as among Ministries to work together with the various players in the tourism and hospitality industry to make sure that with the increase in the demand for workers, given that a few new projects are coming onstream, how do we coordinate to make sure that there is a sufficient supply of workers, both local as well as foreign, not only the number that we can supply but the quality and the skills that they need. So I think these are things that the Ministry of Manpower will continue to do on a very regular basis, in consultation with our tripartite partners.

12. Mdm Ho Geok Choo asked the Acting Minister for Manpower in light of the recent call for working women to be given paid leave to care for sick parents, whether men will be considered for paid leave for the same purpose.

Sir, we should be quite careful about increasing the statutory leave burden on companies to meet every new and emerging personal need of employees. While we appreciate that many working adults might have elderly parents to take care of, we should leave it to them to decide on how best to meet these commitments, including using their annual leave where necessary. The suggestion to mandate statutory family-care leave, on top of annual leave, for working adults to take care of their aged or sick parents will increase business cost and undermine our overall competitiveness. Instead of mandating it, we should leave it to the discretion of employers who can afford to do so, to grant such leave as part of their personnel benefits.

A more sustainable approach is to help companies implement work-life arrangements that can better help their employees meet their needs at work and in their personal life, such as taking care of the elderly or sick parents. This promotional approach is adopted by the Tripartite Committee on Work-Life Strategy, which I chair. Employers could introduce work-life programmes, such as flexible work arrangements, part-time employment and telecommuting. This would allow greater flexibility for their employees in their work schedules to better meet both their work and personal responsibilities. The Government has programmes in place, such as the WOW! Fund and Flexi-Works! scheme, to help companies implement such flexible work arrangements.

13. Ms Eunice Elizabeth Olsen asked the Minister for Community Development, Youth and Sports given the increasing elderly suicide rate, what is being done to promote early intervention amongst the elderly, for example, those under the Public Assistance Scheme.

Suicide rates in Singapore have declined significantly over the years. However, suicide rates among the elderly are still comparatively higher than the younger age groups. In fact, the suicide rate for those aged 75 years and above is almost two times that of those aged between 40 and 54 years old. And this is worrying.

Suicide is due to the interaction of a number of factors. There is no one root cause. It follows then that intervention efforts need to be multi-pronged, and involve different players including the family, the community and the state.

Depression in the elderly can lead to suicides. Loneliness and social isolation, sickness and ill-health, the loss of a beloved spouse – all these can trigger depression and a sense of hopelessness or lack of meaning in life among the elderly.

Family has a very crucial role to play. Family support can help to strengthen the emotional and mental well-being of an elderly person. There is no substitute for family in giving the elderly or, in fact, every one of us, a sense of purpose, meaning and joy in life.

Beyond the family, the community also has a role to play. This is why we launched the Wellness Programme in November last year and started the Council for Third Age (or C3A) to promote active ageing. Through the Wellness Programme and C3A, we hope that seniors will form social interest groups, stay physically active to delay the onset of illness, and keep mentally alert as they pursue hobbies and interesting activities.

When the elderly come and do things together regularly, the bonds among them strengthen and deepen. And if some of these interest groups and activities help to make friends out of neighbours, they not only reduce loneliness amongst the elderly, they also lead to mutual help and support. This is why it is important for seniors to age actively, be socially engaged and join in community and interest groups.

There also needs to be increased public awareness of mental health issues of the elderly, including depression. We should reduce the stigma. Family, friends and neighbours who suspect the elderly may be depressed, should encourage them to seek help early or call for help on their behalf.

The Health Promotion Board (HPB) will continue to raise awareness of mental health issues among the elderly. They will

also work with Voluntary Welfare Organisations, such as the Singapore Association for Mental Health (SAMH) and the Samaritans of Singapore (SOS) to organise regular outreach programmes that include talks, discussion forums and workshops, to raise public awareness on mental health and suicide.

MCYS and NCSS work closely with various community organisations to help vulnerable elderly cope with crises or stressful periods of their lives. Some of the services available include:

Counselling services provided by the Family Service Centres, the SAGE Counselling Centre, the Samaritans of Singapore and a hospice helpline and hospitals;

Support network programmes by Seniors Activity Centres for those living in rental flats and befriending services to lonely elderly. I think this is the particular focus of Ms Olsen's question.

Lastly, financial assistance is available for elderly persons without family who face financial difficulties through the ComCare Fund.

Here, I would like to inform the House that, to date, we do not know of any Public Assistance recipient committing suicide.

Sir, elder suicide prevention is complex. It requires the elderly to lead an active life and stay socially engaged. Family, friends and neighbours also need to help support the elderly, and encourage them to seek professional help if they are depressed. Suicide prevention cuts across the work of various Government agencies and many voluntary welfare organisations. With a comprehensive approach to mental wellness, we hope that the number of suicide cases, especially among the elderly, will come down.

Thank you, Minister. I have three supplementary questions. Firstly, what are the current resources available to address this issue and, moving forward, does the Minister see this as a priority in the whole gamut of ageing issues? Secondly, is there any target to bring down the suicide rates? And, thirdly, what the Minister thinks is the best way to address this issue?

As far as resources are concerned, I have already mentioned some of them. MCYS and NCSS have provided support for various voluntary welfare organisations to look after, particularly, the poor aged. The Health Promotion Board is also providing funds for public education. With respect to a target, I think it is very difficult for us to set a target about how low the suicide rate you can set. But what I think we should do, which comes to her third point, is that we should address the issue of loneliness among the elderly and since we are going to have more elderly amongst us in the years ahead, then we need to do as much as possible, work on the ground to get our seniors to come out of their homes, and not to stay at home and therefore be isolated, leading to depression. It is a massive effort. We are doing this through the Wellness Programme, and there are encouraging results. But after a period of two years, we will be able then to say what works and what does not, and therefore roll it out across the country.

Thank you, Minister. I just wanted an answer to my first question, whether or not the Minister sees this as a priority in the whole gamut of ageing issues.

To reduce social isolation is indeed the top priority. So for the various ageing issues that we are dealing with – financial security, healthcare funding and the social engagement of seniors – and if we are successful in

making life more pleasant for seniors and getting most of them, if not, all of them, to be active, then I think the incidence of suicide will certainly fall.

14. Mr Baey Yam Keng asked the Minister for Community Development, Youth and Sports why Singapore Sports Council stadiums are open for public use only till 8.30 pm, and whether the opening hours can be extended so that more members of the public can benefit from the facilities.

Sir, the opening hours of Singapore Sports Council (SSC) stadiums are based on public demand. A demand survey conducted in 2006 reflected that the public supported opening stadiums as early as 4.30 am for early birds to exercise before going to work. The survey also indicated that the number of joggers to the stadiums decreased significantly by about 50% after 7.30 pm. SSC has therefore decided that an appropriate closing time would be 8.30 pm. And SSC has, so far, not received any call from the public to extend the closing time beyond 8.30 pm.

In considering the opening hours of the stadiums, we have to ensure that there is a consistent demand, which has to be balanced against the cost outlay.

Sir, I would like to ask the Senior Parliamentary Secretary if he could share with us the figures of the 2006 survey to establish the demand in the morning hours as early as 4.30 am and whether that is reflective of demand across the island or only of specific stadiums. Without the need of increasing

the financial burden on SSC by extending the opening hours, I would like to ask if the SSC could consider shifting the opening hours from 4.30 am-8.30 pm to 6.00 am-10.00 pm. My gut feel is that there are potentially more public users between 8.30 pm-10.00 pm than during 4.30 am-6.00 am. To maximise public infrastructure with changing lifestyle habits, I would like to ask if the Senior Parliamentary Secretary could request the SSC to do another review and to assess the need for changing the opening hours.

Yes, I have the statistics for the different stadiums, from 7.30 am to 8.30 am, 5.30 pm to 8.30 pm. These figures show that, after 7.30 am, significantly, there is a reduction of the utilisation of stadiums and the number of joggers who go there to jog before 8.30 am, and then subsequently there is no request after 8.30 am from the users to open up later than that.

I agree that maybe lifestyles have changed, people may be working late or working very early and they want to schedule their exercise timing or routine at different time slots. We are definitely willing to consider. If we look at what happens in other countries, there are also stadiums that are open 24 hours. Obviously, we are more than willing to look at letting the stadiums or other sports complexes stay open, if there is a demand in that area. We definitely want the utilisation to be better, as compared to today.

So, we are open to that idea. We will definitely review that. In different areas and locations, there may be different levels of demand. We are open to that.

Would the Senior Parliamentary Secretary not entertain the possibility that fewer people go to stadiums after 8.00 pm because they know it is going to close at 8.30 pm?

Yes, we are all a very obedient lot.

The SSC and our sports policy objective is to encourage sports participation, and we want to build a sports culture. As I have mentioned, if lifestyles have changed the habit of putting sports within their everyday life and the timing needs to be more flexible, we are more than willing to be open about it. So, there could be stadiums where we know there is a higher demand after 8.30 pm, eg, maybe a stadium that is nearer to an industrial area that operates irregular hours that need us to open at different times and we know that the workers around there need that flexible time to go to the stadium to work out, we are happy to consider that and to open it. At the end of the day, our objective is to have better utilisation of the stadiums. That is what public sports facilities are for.

15. Ms Jessica Tan Soon Neo asked the Minister for Transport what can be done to make cycling on our roads safer for cyclists.

16. Ms Jessica Tan Soon Neo asked the Minister for Transport in view of bicycles and motorcycles using barrier free access paths meant for pedestrians, what is being done to ensure the safety of pedestrians as we continue the drive for barrier free access.

17. Ms Irene Ng Phek Hoong asked the Minister for Transport whether there has been a policy shift with regard to cycling as a mode of transport, given his public statement referring to a shift of thinking on cycling.

Sir, with your permission, I

would like to take Question Nos. 15, 16 and 17 together because they relate to the same topic on cycling.

Ms Irene Ng asked if the Ministry has made a policy shift with regard to cycling as a mode of transport. The Ministry used to view cycling as a form of recreation. But we now also recognise that it is an additional or alternative mode of transport for intra-town travel and short trips to key transport nodes, in other words, what we call inter-modal transportation modes.

To facilitate cycling for such trips, we have embarked on a range of initiatives.

First, as announced in the Land Transport Masterplan, LTA will provide more and better bicycle parking facilities at MRT stations and bus interchanges from 2009 onwards. This will take place progressively, with priority given to towns with relatively high demand.

Second, LTA has worked with the public transport operators to conduct a six-month trial to test the safety and feasibility of allowing foldable bicycles on board buses and trains, during weekends and off-peak periods. The trial is currently ongoing.

Third, we are exploring the feasibility of allowing cyclists to share pedestrian footways in selected towns, depending on local conditions. To that end, a Tripartite Committee comprising LTA, the Traffic Police (TP) and the grassroots organisations is conducting a trial in Tampines Town, to study the extent to which local residents are prepared to share a common footway with cyclists safely and with mutual accommodation. The trial, originally scheduled for a year, has now been extended for another six months to January next year. This extension will allow the Tripartite Committee to step up public education,

strengthen enforcement, increase the number of volunteer cycling wardens, and also conduct a feasibility study on improving cycling infrastructure, such as selective widening of shared footways, before making a final decision for Tampines itself.

In the meantime, for all other areas of Singapore, Rule 28 of the Road Traffic Rules still applies, that is, cyclists should ride on the roads only and not on pedestrian footways. So in answer to Ms Jessica Tan's question, cyclists and motorcyclists caught riding on barrier-free access paths meant for pedestrians can be summoned by the Traffic Police. If they were found to have breached a Road Traffic Rule, it would be an offence under section 131 of the Road Traffic Act, which attracts a maximum penalty of a $1,000 fine or three months' imprisonment for the first offence, and a $2,000 fine or six months' imprisonment for a second or subsequent offence. In cases where the cyclist or motorcyclist conducts himself recklessly to endanger the safety of others, he may also be punished under the Penal Code.

What has not changed is that in Singapore's land-scarce context, we do not have the luxury of space to develop a comprehensive network of dedicated cycling lanes on our roads. Our focus remains on making it safe for various road users to share the space that we have.

To that end, Traffic Police adopts a holistic approach towards promoting safe and gracious sharing of our roads through comprehensive education of and outreach efforts to both motorists and cyclists. TP's continuing education and publicity efforts on road safety centre on the need for motorists to pay special attention to vulnerable road users, such as pedestrians, cyclists and motorcyclists. To further protect the safety of cyclists on the roads, LTA has also worked together with the Safe Cycling Task Force

, which is a community task force formed to ensure cyclists are safe on the roads, to install more than a hundred signs alerting motorists of the presence of cyclists along frequently-used cycling routes, such as those in the West Coast, the Thomson areas and Changi coastal roads.

Cyclists also have a part to play towards their own safety. TP works closely with the Singapore Amateur Cycling Association (SACA) on safety education measures for cyclists. Last year, a total of 14 road safety talks were conducted, covering the pre-riding checklist, like wearing helmets and lights on the bicycle, safe cycling tips and case studies of traffic accidents involving cyclists. Another 41 road safety exhibitions providing safety tips for cyclists were also held at HDB neighbourhoods, primary and secondary schools, and workplaces.

Safety, whether it is for cyclists on the roads or for pedestrians on footways, is a shared responsibility. Different groups of commuters have to play their part by adhering to the relevant traffic rules and regulations, and they have to exercise graciousness, mutual accommodation and due consideration for others when using these common spaces.

I thank the Senior Parliamentary Secretary for the very comprehensive answer. Can I just ask a clarification with regard to the safety of cyclists on the roads? There have been some good measures in place, but can more be done, not in terms of having a dedicated lane, but in terms of promoting their safety? As the SPS has rightly mentioned, where widening of footpaths or roads is possible, you can do that. But in cases where you cannot, are there any other measures to help safer riding on the roads for cyclists, especially in the heartlands?

The second clarification I have is with regard to barrier-free access. I have heard the Senior Parliamentary Secretary on the rules, but observing from the towns, what is being done for enforcement of those rules because, whether you are talking about overhead bridges or barrier-free access paths, we can all agree that there has been an increase in terms of usage by cyclists as well as motorcyclists on these? For safety reasons, what more can be done for the enforcement side?

For the first question, what else can be done for the safety of cyclists on the roads, especially the heartlands, in fact, on the main roads as well – I cycle frequently, so I understand the dangers, and I pray before I cycle everyday. We know that the road space is scarce, so we cannot be drawing lanes. It could be possible in the future but not now because there are still limitations in terms of the space that we can have for just a lane dedicated to cyclists. So what we can do now is education and providing cycling signages just to make sure that motor vehicle drivers, road users know that there is a vulnerable group of cyclists on the road. And the education part would not be just for the vehicle owners but also for the cyclists. As we know, some cyclists, if they are riding really fast, they may sometimes find it difficult to stop or reduce their momentum and may sometimes not obey traffic rules. So education has to be on both sides. And we will have to do the best we can in terms of this education, not just to schools but to the different cycling groups in Singapore, where possible.

Currently, there is an experiment with cycling on footways. Some footways can be widened, but some cannot. For those footways which cannot be widened, we are studying and reviewing whether demarcation is possible. But that itself has also a limitation because if we demarcate, say, draw a line, there may still be overlapping. Cyclists may just cut across

into the pedestrian path. We have to review and experiment with different methods, because we know that the number of cyclists has continued to grow and there are more cyclists on the road.

That actually brings me to the Member's next question: how do we make sure there is enforcement? What Tampines has done and is still experimenting – they have extended the trial – is that they have volunteer wardens who have been quite successful in the way they have done their enforcement. The community must help themselves, in order to get this going. Singaporeans, especially the cyclists, road users and pedestrians, must learn how to accommodate one another. When the cyclists are on the road, they are the vulnerable lot. When the cyclists are on the footways, then the pedestrians become the vulnerable lot. So we all have to learn to be able to accommodate one another in that limited space that we have. If we can do that, we can be a more gracious society.

Right now, I can only say that we will continue to educate, put more efforts in there, and we will explore with different ways to see how we can make cycling safer on the roads so that we can encourage more people to make use of this inter-modal transportation by cycling to the transport nodes to take MRT or buses.

Sir, given the emphasis on safety, could the Senior Parliamentary Secretary please explain why lights at night are required by law but helmets are not?

For any cyclist, I would say that lights and helmets are necessary as far as safety is concerned. Whether the law requires it or not,

I do not have the answer, I need to review

that. But, I would say that, as a cyclist and for safety measures, helmet is necessary because it can actually save a life. When cycling accidents happen and they are fatal, a lot of times, it is because they were not wearing helmets. Lights are necessary because you are the vulnerable road user. It is important to remain visible to motorists so that they can avoid your path. So, let me review that and come back to him.

Could the Senior Parliamentary Secretary give us an assessment of the view that enforcement should be left in the hands of volunteers? I have that problem in my constituency as well. You have got motorcycles running through the barrier-free access into the parks, footpaths and so on. You do not find a consistent means of enforcement. If they are in a park, they say it is the NParks' problem. If they are around the block, they say it is HDB's or the Town Council's problem. If it is by the side road, it is LTA's problem. So, there is no consistent means of enforcement but, yet, the safety of pedestrians is of overriding concern. Perhaps, the Senior Parliamentary Secretary can elaborate on how effective the Voluntary Enforcement Officers (VEO) are.

Enforcement can only go so far and the enforcement, I would like to clarify again, is not just the community but it has to be, of course, on the road, the Traffic Police and the enforcement unit must come into play. But Members know that we cannot be checking on every corner because there will be areas that will not be covered. The community has to help themselves and we can only educate and urge the public and the users to be more accommodating and to know that we just need to accommodate one another in this limited space that we have. So, we do our best, in terms of enforcement. But that will not be the way to go. That is why the key is that we have to have better education,

we have to understand and to be able to accommodate one another for cycling to be safer and successful.

Sir, we heard the Senior Parliamentary Secretary say that cyclists should be cycling on the roads and should they be found cycling on the pathways, if they are outside Tampines GRC, they could be severely fined. Could the Senior Parliamentary Secretary tell us if the cyclists happen to be young children on kids' bicycles, should they be cycling on the road or will they be fined if their parents make them cycle on the pathways?

I think our main objective is to keep road users safe. If it is a young kid and you are talking about very young ones on their tricycles, I do not think we are going to enforce the rules so strictly that they have to cycle on the road, because that is extremely dangerous. But, rules are meant to be enforced to make sure that at least the pedestrians are safe. As far as the rules are concerned, we want to make sure that there are no cyclists on the footways, so that the footways can be safely used by the pedestrians. If you are talking about small kids, as I have mentioned, I think we need to exercise some flexibility in the enforcement.

18. Ms Denise Phua Lay Peng asked the Minister for Health what measures are being taken to protect the interests of patients with special needs/disabilities from practitioners offering non-evidence-based medical or alternate treatments.

Sir, there are two main levels of protection against such unethical exploitation of patients.

First, the Medical Registration Act requires the doctors to practise ethically.

They will be subject to disciplinary action if they use treatments which are not in the interest of their patients.

Second, patients and their caregivers must exercise due diligence and consult the right practitioners. When in doubt, they should first check it out with their trusted family physician. Alternatively, they could seek a second opinion from the practitioners in the public clinics for patients with special needs, before accepting any unconventional or unusual treatment.

Helping patients with special needs is often a very long journey. It is understandable why some families become anxious, embarking on remedies that promise them hope of a rapid "cure". The Internet has further promoted the dissemination of theories and practices, many of which are questionable and without scientific basis. For instance, the use of controversial Complementary and Alternative Medicine (CAM) treatment for children with Autistic Spectrum Disorder (ASD) is popular in the West, despite an absence of scientific support. My Ministry will work with MCYS and its VWOs concerned to educate the families on how to evaluate such information and not be taken in by pseudo-science and unsubstantiated theories. Meanwhile, my Ministry is also collaborating with the Academy of Medicine to formulate Clinical Practice Guidelines to assist doctors in Singapore in diagnosing and managing children with autistic spectrum disorders. The efforts will include compiling the evidence for the various treatments and to disseminate a layman's version to patients and their caregivers.

First, I want to register my thanks to the Minister for initiating the Clinical Practice Guidelines project. I think it will be very useful for the families and other

practitioners as well. Two supplementary questions for the Minister.

Sir, cosmetic treatments such as liposuction, currently performed on willing adults, are regulated by the Ministry. Does the Minister think that the same should be done for this non-mainstream treatment for helpless children or adults with disabilities, especially those performed by non-medical professionals or non-medically trained practitioners? Would the Minister consider registering these practitioners, putting them on probation first, and maybe confirming them and renewing their licences on a regular basis?

Secondly, would he also consider developing a whistle-blowing policy so that those who have suffered from irresponsible practitioners will have a platform to have their cases heard and, at least, have the Government look into their issues?

Indeed, I am taking a similar approach for liposuction that the Member has talked about, which is to identify those procedures or practices which are high-risk and to regulate them. I do not regulate all aesthetic medicine practices but those which are high-risk, like liposuction, we regulate it tightly. In the case of CAM practices on ASD, for example, one treatment modality that is being promoted in the West is Chelation Therapy. But it is high-risk, so we regulate it because only doctors can prescribe chelating agents. Hence, it is not as if it is unregulated. If a non-doctor practitioner decides to provide such a treatment, he will then have to face the law.

For those that are high-risk, we tightly control them. For those which are low-risk, but of questionable basis, it is hard to regulate. Like in aesthetic medicine, we leave it to the practitioners to self-regulate

because while there is no hard evidence to prove efficacy, there are practitioners who swear by it. They say that some of their patients have benefited from it. If we were to regulate it, we will have to ban these practices and I am quite sure there will be objections from some parents, who will claim that their children have benefited from it.

I think this differentiated risk management approach to tightly-control the high-risk practices and lighter regulation for others is the most practical way going forward. Where the practitioners involved are doctors, I am quite relaxed because they know they have to face the SMC, if they were to engage in unethical practices. But if they are non-doctors, then my hope and our public education are for the parents to help to regulate. The best way is to consult a trusted family GP. When in doubt, consult your GP. If you want a specialist opinion, consult the specialist in NUH or KKH for a second opinion.

As for parents of children who feel that they have received unethical treatment, they can whistle-blow to us. Let us know and we will investigate all such incidents. Unfortunately, for ASD, there is still no cure and parents would just have to be patient with conventional treatment practices.

In our own experience in KK and NUH clinics, it used to be that 20% of the children patients will end up having to attend special schools. But, if they follow the advice of the doctors and work together with us, we have been able to half the rate, from 20% to 10%. So, only 10% of the patients now need to be admitted to special schools. There are proper ways of treating autism. Do not be taken in by promises of a “cure” which often can cost lots of money and emotional ups and downs, with very poor results. Our doctors in our specialist clinics told me that often, some of these

parents would come with all kinds of medicine, costing them thousands of dollars a month, and they say, "My previous practitioner prescribes all these. Please supply all these to me now at subsidised rate." But when we look at it, those are based on unconventional practices without scientific evidence and which we do not prescribe.

19. Mdm Halimah Yacob (Jurong) asked the Minister for Transport (a) why there is a need to upgrade the Budget Terminal so soon after it was opened; and (b) whether this indicates poor planning on the part of CAAS for failing to anticipate a higher passenger traffic at the Terminal.

Sir, the Budget Terminal at Changi was opened in March 2006 with an annual handling capacity of 2.7 million passengers. After over two years of operation, the utilisation rate today has exceeded 65% of its current capacity. The current expansion will see Budget Terminal's capacity increase to 7 million passengers per annum by the second quarter of 2009.

Sir, when the decision was taken to build the Budget Terminal in 2004, budget air travel was still a relatively new phenomenon in Asia and no one could be certain of its success in the region. Nevertheless, we decided to invest and build a dedicated facility ahead of many other countries in Asia to cater to an emerging demand. The Budget Terminal was therefore planned to be developed in a phased-like fashion with the scope to scale up its capacity to meet higher passenger traffic as and when necessary.

After more than two years of operation, passenger traffic has grown by more than 30% since 2006 and this growth accounted for about 25% of

Changi Airport's total passenger growth over the same period. Moving forward, air travel in Southeast Asia is expected to grow as liberalisation of air services among ASEAN capitals will materialise by the end of this year. Low cost carriers would then have even more opportunities to expand their network and operations. The expansion of the Budget Terminal is therefore timely and would continue to facilitate the growth of budget air travel in Singapore.

3.00 pm

Order. End of Question time.

[Pursuant to Standing Order No. 22(3), Question Nos. 20 and 21 have been postponed to the next available sitting of Parliament.]

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move,

That this House affirms the importance of representative democracy and calls on the Government to fine-tune the electoral system by introducing amendments to the Parliamentary Elections Act such that (a) a writ for by-election shall be issued in the event (i) a Member of a Group Representation Constituency (GRC) belonging to a minority community within the terms of section 8A(1) of the Act vacates his or her seat for any reason; (ii) half or more of the Members elected on a group basis in relation to a GRC vacate their seats for any reason; or (iii) a Member of a single member constituency vacates his or her seat for any reason; and (b) all by-elections shall be called within three months from the date of vacancy unless the parliamentary term is due to expire within six months from the date of vacancy.

Sir, I am recently come out of Africa where I attended a conference on

"Constitutional Democracy in Africa in the 21st century". The Kenyan President and Prime Minister graced the opening ceremony. Aside from the spirited dancing and ululating by a native choir, I was struck by the lyrics of the official conference theme song. Voices rose and filled the towering Kenyatta International Conference Centre, singing for "prosperity, peace and unity", the goal of many former colonies in Africa and Asia, an aspiration not always realised.

The chorus arrested my attention, as it spoke to the very heart of today's motion which addresses the law governing by-elections in Singapore. The choir chimed repeatedly, "We must, we must, embrace democracy and the rule of law." Charming lyrics I thought, perhaps the Government can commission a national song along these lines celebrating shared political values.

Sir, the theory and practice of democracy in Singapore will shape how we think through the question of what type of rules should regulate by-elections.

Today, democracy has the quality of an almost sacred creed whose central tenet is that government authority is based on the will of the people, as article 21 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights declares. Elections as a method for choosing government are a sacred ritual although democracy is not exhausted by elections; the participation of citizens in public policy-making in between elections is also an important democratic indicator.

Democracy as ideology is easy enough to grasp although it does not prescribe a uniform 'off the rack' solution in terms of implementation; the institutional expression of democracy must be tailor-made to suit the relevant local conditions of a

country; you must put on the trousers that fit you.

However, there are universal core democratic principles like popular accountability, effective representation and legitimacy, which we should take to heart. For example, when we tailor-make a suit, we should ask: who wears the suit? In a democracy, this must be the people, as the ultimate source of political authority. The People's representatives derive their authority and legitimacy from voters and are accountable to them.

However, democracy is not a panacea for all social ills or a blueprint for surefire economic success. Economic development is not born of pretty speeches. This needs both principles of good government as well as good governors. Providentially, Singapore has enjoyed good governance.

On 12th September 1965, when newborn Singapore was barely out of her swaddling clothes, Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew said: "Over 100 years ago, this was a mud-flat, swamp. Today, this is a modern city. Ten years from now, this will be a metropolis. Never fear." Sir, he made good on this prophetic promise; this Government has delivered the socio-economic goods. We, the Beneficiaries, are grateful.

Law and the finest constitutional devices that mind of man can conceive of and hand of man can create have their limits. We cannot legislate honest, capable governors into existence. As a political system, democracy alone cannot engender social resilience and economic success. It is not an ultimate value. Indeed, Winston Churchill famously quipped, "Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others."

However, democracy is better than autocracy, where the people cannot remove a despotic, corrupt and inefficient government. A functioning democracy

has "the capacity for self-correction". Karl Popper in The Open Society and its Enemies said: "In a democracy, the rulers can be dismissed by the ruled without bloodshed."

Despite its occidental roots, we value the role democracy plays in good government; article 2 of the ASEAN Charter espouses the promotion of human rights, social justice, rule of law, good governance and "the principles of democracy and constitutional government". The 1991 shared values White Paper states that "not everything Asian is good, just as not everything Western is bad"; among the "Western" values Singapore adopted are "parliamentary democracy and the rule of law".

This approach to foreign models is sensible – they may provide useful models to emulate or to reject. We must be discerning: what counts is not the origins of an idea but its merits. As first Prime Minister Lee observed when debating the NCMP scheme in 1984, the Chinese Emperor’s mandate to rule did not rest on the "counting of heads" but "on the chopping of heads". Thankfully, we have disavowed this cultural model.

From this Republic's inception, democracy was endorsed as a principle of government, a safeguard against communism. Our Constitution today, based on the Westminster model of parliamentary government, is a foreign export with home-grown modifications, such as multi-member constituencies and unelected, non-partisan MPs.

Sir, this motion draws attention to when by-elections must be held, to fill vacant parliamentary seats between general elections.

Historically speaking, Singapore used to have a by-elections clause in its Constitution, the genesis of which dates back to the time we were part of the

Malaysian Federation. The Malaysian government required that the federal constitutional clause on by-elections be incorporated into the Singapore State Constitution, to harmonise Singapore law with that of the other federal states. Singapore protested, to no avail.

After our traumatic exodus from the Federation, Parliament amended the Constitution, revoked the Malaysian provision on by-elections and reverted back to the previous state of affairs under the 1958 State Constitution which "did not contain an injunction of holding a by-election within three months". Prime Minister Lee then stated that given Singapore's experience of elections and government, the limitation imposed by the Malaysian clause should no longer apply.

Undoubtedly, this view was shaped by the PAP government's tenuous hold on power then. In 1961-1962, the PAP only had a majority of one in the legislative assembly; in 1962-1963, one PAP member died, resulting in a tie between 25 PAP and 25 Opposition assemblymen. In such situations, by-election results can determine the fortunes of a political party, for good or ill.

Sir, under the current legal framework – there is no constitutional or statutory requirement to call by-elections within a specified time period, or at all, when a parliamentary seat of any elected MP is vacated. The regulating statute, the Parliamentary Elections Act (or PEA) was adopted pursuant to Article 49(1) of the Constitution. Section 24(1) of the PEA provides that the President shall issue writs of election, when he thinks it "expedient". In actual fact, following Westminster convention which Article 21(1) of the Constitution codifies, the President is acting on the advice of Cabinet in this matter.

Thus, the Cabinet alone decides whether to call or not to call a by-election.

If desired, the Cabinet can keep a vacant seat vacant until the next General Elections. This is clear law.

The motion, then, is not about the correct interpretation of the law. The law is clear – but we should not succumb to bare legalism and stop here. Rather, this motion calls for a reexamination of the content of the law, to see if any legal gaps need filling or to explore ways of strengthening existing processes to better vindicate the practice of representative democracy.

Comparatively, parliamentary systems have adopted various approaches towards regulating by-elections. Some constitutions require by-elections to be held within a specified time period after a parliamentary seat is determined vacated. This may range from six months (Canada) to four months (Antigua) to three months (Zambia and Gambia) to two months (Kenya and Malaysia) to 21 days (New Zealand).

Other Constitutions like the Bahamas do not specify time limits but call for election writs be issued "as soon as is practicable". Expediency alone cannot excuse the failure to hold by-elections.

Elsewhere, a political convention drawn from past practice provides guidance in the absence of legal rules. In the United Kingdom, a writ of election will usually be executed within three months. In the Australian Commonwealth, the guiding principle is that by-elections should be held "as early as possible", so electors are not left without representation any longer than necessary.

Sir, there is no discernible consistent convention from an examination of Singapore practice. The last by-election was called in 1992 for Marine Parade and the ostensible reason was to bring in new

talent. Varied reasons for not calling by-elections included the promise to call early general elections, the need to focus on economic recovery, or to await pending laws on town councils.

Sir, I believe Mr Chiam See Tong in 1986 argued that by-elections should be held before a reasonable time had elapsed; the ministerial reply was that this was a question of government discretion.

Should principle or convenience determine whether and when by-elections are called?

Sir, the question before us is whether the calling of by-elections should be governed by a rules-based regime, or left to unconditioned discretion. Should we continue to confide absolute discretion to our political leaders, trusting in their perspicacity, their sagacity? Would it be unwise to trust in the audacity of hoping politicians will resist political temptations and that fair play will triumph? I fear it may, I fear it might, I hope we can put things to right. I think the best legal tool, is to adopt a clear rule.

Sir, in urging the Parliamentary Elections Act be amended to provide a time-frame for calling by-elections, I am not calling for an absence of discretion but the regulation of discretion, consistent with a rule of law based state. Absolute discretion too easily degenerates into arbitrary abuse without oversight. The rule of law is served where there are known precise rules able to guide future conduct. A political party able to unilaterally decide when to have an election is advantaged; clear rules help level the electoral playing field.

In suggesting that by-elections be called within three months, Singapore would be following best practices, to ensure citizens do not have to wait too long to choose their representatives. However, if a seat becomes vacant when

general elections are due within six months, the recommendation is that no by-election need be called, to avoid having two elections within a short time period.

In our legal system, the rule of law is pivotal to sustaining a sound commercial environment. It seems incongruent not to have a precise rule regulating the calling of by-elections which can shape the composition of this very House, within a fixed period, to promote certainty. It may be expedient not to have such a requirement, but does this not allow pragmatism to trump principle, just once too often? Our Court of Appeal in defining the rule of law declared that "all power has legal limits". Time limits are a form of legal limits.

Some argue that by-elections are a waste of time and cost, a distraction or luxury we can ill afford; in multi-member constituencies especially, other team members can stand in or 'cover' for their erstwhile colleague. However, in single member wards, a glaring gap is evident when a parliamentary seat is vacated. Without by-elections, electors are left without representation in Parliament. This is undesirable.

In addition, we are thankfully not a poor country. I do not think cost can be said to be an issue, as far poorer countries regularly hold by-elections.

Sir, it is important for Parliament, in debating by-elections legislation, to examine the spirit behind the law, otherwise we might miss the wood for the trees if the purpose of rules are glossed over. As Russian Nobel Prize laureate Alexander Solzhenitsyn stated in his 1978 address at Harvard University: "A society which is based on the letter of the law and never reaches any higher is taking very scarce advantage of the high level of human possibilities. The letter of the law is too cold and formal to have a

beneficial influence on society." Thus, legalism begets "an atmosphere of moral mediocrity, paralysing man's noblest impulses”.

In other words, law and justice have to be in conversation with each other, because, alone, one may be too harsh; and the other, too redolent of utopian naivete.

I note that Mr Charles Chong, in an interview with Today, considered it "worthwhile" to go through the arguments again, since many had forgotten them or a younger generation would be unfamiliar with reasons given sometime in the last century.

However, I hope this debate transcends the mere rehearsal of old arguments.

Sir, Thomas Jefferson once stated that each generation should have a "revolution", not in the sense of a violent break from the past, as we may understand it, but a thoughtful recurrence to fundamental principles of government, to ratify what is good and to modify what needs change. In this spirit, I hope the Government will seriously, rather than summarily, revisit the issues raised in this motion.

Sir, I am sensible of the irony of having two unelected MPs sponsor a motion concerning elected MPs, as public interest over by-elections has been sparked following the loss of a Jurong GRC MP last month.

Politically speaking, what can be more fundamental to democracy than ensuring effective representation? Dr Loo and I believe the law regulating by-elections is important to Singaporeans and that this national issue should be debated before this august Chamber, this August. After all, elections have come to symbolise "democracy" and voting is the periodic exercise of that slice of sovereignty a citizen wields, to remind governors they

hold power on trust and to dissuade authoritarian hubris.

It is appropriate for non-partisan MPs to bring this motion, as a partisan MP wanting to debate by-elections law might be accused of political opportunism. This matter should transcend party politics.

In some jurisdictions, winning a by-election can be the first step in the long march to high political office; in others, losing a by-election in a safe seat can trigger off a motion of no confidence in the government.

There is no such risk in Singapore today, given the Government's strong electoral mandate. As general elections are far off, the matter can be discussed with sober rationality, with a view to the long-term good rather than short-term partisan gain.

Sir, while elections are free, we eventually pay in the results. As by-elections differ from general elections in having little influence on general governance, voters may feel freer to vote against the ruling government and to give the incumbent a bloody nose for whatever political reasons. However, a bloody nose is not a broken back.

If the government lost a by-election today, its formal status would not be affected. However, the second psychological effect of the government losing a GRC might parallel the significance of Mr J B Jeyaretnam winning the 1981 Anson by-election and breaching the PAP's parliamentary monopoly. Many a keyboard would be furiously pounded in speculating about future voting trends.

Critics have argued that the GRC scheme and expanding team sizes are a strategy to "fix" the opposition unable to muster sufficient troops to contest GRC

wards. In October 1996, then Prime Minister Mr Goh Chok Tong responded by pointing out that GRCs were "objectively", even "scientifically neutral". The issue was who could produce a better team, whether for singles or doubles badminton. Should an opposition party win a GRC, whether in a general or by-election, it would prove Mr Goh's thesis that the GRC scheme is neutral and, indeed, a double-edged sword as six seats may be lost in one fell swoop.

Voters may either punish or reward the party in power in by-elections, which is their prerogative. They should be trusted to vote responsibly, as befits a maturing democracy. We need to look at the principle of the thing, which is that it would be undemocratic to deny voters their voice through their representative in Parliament. Why not allow a team of sitting MPs to replenish their numbers and, also, to earn a mid-term mandate?

Even if the Government loses a by-election, this is not a total loss; by-elections are a good barometer for grassroots sentiment and can be a wake-up call, an important feedback mechanism; but unlike the meet-the-people sessions or REACH, by-elections pack a punch in calling MPs to account. This strengthens representative democracy. The Government can take responsive steps to "sweeten" the ground before general elections. It is healthy to have a variety of channels, including by-elections, for the accurate communication of local public opinion.

Sir, let me turn to the three situations the motion identifies and explain the logic behind why by-elections should be called in these instances.

First, in relation to Single Member Constituencies, or SMCs. In times past, the electoral system was exclusively based on SMCs, contested on a first-past-the-post system. When GRCs were

introduced in 1988, only 50% of the total number of MPs could come from GRC wards. There were 42 SMCs to ensure that opposition parties unable to field multi-racial teams would not be shut out from electoral contests. In 1988, there were 13 three-member GRC teams, yielding 39 MPs. In 1991, the law reduced the number of SMCs to 21 and, today, the Parliamentary Elections Act only requires a minimum of eight SMC seats to ensure SMCs do not go the way of the dinosaur.

Voters pick candidates whom they feel can represent their interests. If a SMC seat is vacated – it leaves that ward without representation. There is no one to "take over" the MP's functions, not only as representative of constituents but as town council Chairman, I believe. This is a clear lacuna in the law.

If a PAP MP from a SMC vacates his seat, perhaps the PAP MP in the neighbouring ward can take over his functions, so, no need to call by-elections, if practicalities are our sole consideration. However, this would not be the case for Hougang or Potong Pasir. Should an opposition ward suddenly find itself without its MP, the law does not require the Government to call by-elections until the next general elections. As a matter of basic fairness, the law should not favour one political reality. It should provide for all contingencies, to ensure that voters in a ward do not suffer "MP-lessness" by being denied parliamentary representation.

In proportional representation or "party list" systems, by-elections are redundant as the next person on the "list" sharing the same party affiliation as the vacating MP becomes the new MP. But this is not our system. Formally, we vote for the person, not the party. Therefore, the PEA should be amended to require holding by-elections within three months after a SMC seat is vacated. This is fair to both sides and promotes certainty.

The second situation relates to Multi-Member Constituencies, or GRCs, which are contested as teams, even though team members act individually and do not vote as a bloc within Parliament. Of course, MPs are subject to party discipline via the Whip.

The motion recommends that where half or more of GRC MPs vacate their seats, by-elections should be called within three months.

In explaining why no by-election was to be held in Jalan Besar in 1999, the official reply was that it was not a legal requirement to hold a by-election when one team member resigns. The rationale was that this was to be fair to other MPs in the GRC, to prevent them from being held to ransom by an MP who might threaten to resign for whatever reason. Should such a situation arise, this would denote a breakdown in party discipline. A maverick MP faces the sanction of being dropped from the team come the next elections, which promotes fidelity to the party. Nonetheless, if a GRC team MP threatens to resign his seat, let him. By-elections will allow that team to replace that MP with a team player.

Some may argue that as a "package deal", GRC MPs stand together and should fall together as a team. Thus, when a GRC loses one or more members, a by-election should be called; since a GRC MP enjoys the security in numbers when contesting elections as a team, he should take the risk of losing his seat when the team is no more.

A practical counter-reason may be that a six-man GRC can still function minus a member. The voters elected that team, minus one, and that team can still function by the remaining members taking on a heavier load.

However, when does a team stop being a team? When does teamwork

become unacceptably impaired owing to reduced numbers? If you went to see a Beatles concert, it might be bearable if Ringo was missing from the line-up, but would it be the Beatles if John or Paul were absent? One of my favourite rock groups is the Bangles, the female version of the Beatles. I had occasion to see them in concert down under but only three of the original four Bangles were touring, three out of four were good, but four out of four would have been excellent.

Since service excellence is a Singapore aspiration, voters from a GRC ward should be served by a fully-staffed rather than short-handed team. This is an important consideration as the reason for increasing GRC team sizes from three to four and later six. This has nothing to do with the constitutional reason of guaranteeing minority representation. Instead, it was argued that flexibility was needed to deal with GRCs with growing populations; the intent was to keep the GRC intact rather than breaking it up into smaller wards, while allowing it to be adequately serviced by an additional MP and, also, to reap greater economies of scale in town council management.

The size of a constituency is proportional to the MP's ability to effectively represent his constituents; size matters, geography and demography count. If a GRC becomes too large, an MP or group of MPs may not be able to effectively represent and administer it.

In a nutshell, expanding GRC team sizes was rationalised on the basis that more MPs were needed to serve larger wards with greater number of constituents, to ensure optimal service and sufficient human resources. If you need larger teams to run larger GRCs, it is inconsistent not to require by-elections within a set period where a vacancy depletes team strength.

When a GRC team loses a member, the current practice is for the remaining GRC MPs to cover the duties of their former colleague. This increases their burden. The preference is for stability, rather than holding by-elections, to give voters a chance to exercise their democratic rights, to reaffirm the incumbent team, or to choose another one; at any rate, not holding by-elections may compromise the right of GRC residents to be represented by a full slate of MPs.

Sir, from my short sojourn in Parliament, I have come to better appreciate what hard work it is to be an MP; elected MPs have to tend to their constituents' concerns, tussle the bureaucrats, scrutinise the Bills, sit on the Committees, attend public functions; this involves a great sacrifice of time, effort and privacy. Diligent MPs embody the finest ideals of public service.

MPs have punishing schedules. Although the Constitution provides for unelected NCMPs and NMPs, the primacy of the elected MP remains. They play an important role beyond just making up the numbers to form the Government. Real power resides in elected MPs, unlike unelected MPs. Elected MPs have the power to vote on the Supply Bills or motions of no confidence which can end a government. In 1997, when the Government decided to terminate legislative assistant allowances for NMPs and NCMPs, the reason was, I quote, "because their duties are not as heavy and onerous as those of an elected MP. They have no constituencies to look after and they do not represent any constituent."

Given the onerous burden of MPs and the importance of their constitutional role, do we really want them to take on more work and add to their many serious responsibilities? Five MPs may be able to carry the work of six, but there will be a

strain rather than peak performance; I do not doubt their dedication, but we are all mortal and finite beings, and fatigue will set in at some stage. I am sure we all agree that Singapore citizens deserve the best of their representatives, with a full house and all hands on deck.

Furthermore, what if more than one GRC MP vacates his seat? Life is a fragile thing, no one knows for sure how many days we have left; what if there is a tragic plane crash or something and our six-member GRC loses two, three, up to five members within a short timeframe? Under current law, no GRC by-elections may be called unless all members vacate their seat.

Technically, could this not encompass a situation where a six-person GRC is manned only by one or two MPs, without legal need to call a by-election? If the last man standing does not resign, a by-election writ cannot be issued. Something is awry. This cannot be the original intent, or is it?

The current system is unbalanced because the primary reason for not mandating by-elections when a GRC team is minus one, or minus some, is that GRC members should not be held hostage when a dissenting member in their ranks threatens to vacate his seat and provoke a by-election. This only looks at the perspective of GRC MPs in one particular situation.

Let me offer another problematic hypothetical: let us say, an opposition party wins a GRC and then loses a team member. What if that opposition party wants a by-election because it desires to have a full team of MPs to serve constituents

and to occupy their parliamentary seats but the Government declines to call one? Should they have absolute power in this case?

Further, the failure to call by-elections when a GRC team loses a member may be to discount the wishes of the electorate to live in a ward serviced by a full team of MPs, even if the remaining MPs willingly shoulder the additional workload.

What if a GRC team wins marginally, performs badly and then some team members quit? Having a by-election requirement is one way of giving the people the opportunity to oust an incompetent team, rather than suffer them until general elections.

To be fair rather than expedient, law must consider and address these hypothetical issues on a principled basis.

The current rationale for not holding by-elections within definite time periods when a GRC team loses a member, caters to the concern of GRC MPs not to lose their seats. This is lop-sided. A more balanced approach would consider both the concerns of MPs and voters. After all, voters in electing GRC teams forgo some degree of choice as they might like five out of six MPs while disliking one who fails to represent their views. However, they cannot pick and choose, as it is a set menu rather than a la carte. So, it is a question of give and take, and both sides should share the load.

Rather than the "all stand together all fall together" approach to GRCs and by-elections, a more calibrated approach is proposed. By-elections should be called within three months only when half or more GRC MPs vacate their seats, that is, two for a four-man team, and three for a five- and six-man team.

The working assumption is that a team at half-strength cannot adequately manage a GRC, which hurts the voters’ interests. To prevent voter alienation, they are given some say in having a new, full GRC team. As Thomas Jefferson

noted, “The government is the strongest of which every man feels himself a part.” By-elections can strengthen a sense of stake-holding in matters of government.

The third situation is where the GRC team MP who vacates his parliamentary seat happens to be the designated minority MP. Sir, if by-elections are not held within a time certain, or not at all, which is now legally permissible, this would defeat the constitutional purpose for having GRCs in the first place.

Article 39A(1) of the Constitution states that the GRC scheme was designed “to ensure the representation in Parliament” of members of the minority communities. No specific numbers are stipulated, but section 8(3) of the Parliamentary Elections Act provides for approximate race ratios reflecting the factual sizes of minority communities, ie, 60% of the number of minority GRC MPs must be persons belonging to the Malay community while the remaining 40% must belong to "the Indian or other minority communities." Gandhi once said, "A country should be judged on the basis of how it treats its minorities." Sir, Article 152 of the Constitution identifies "racial and religious minorities" as those groups which the Government is obliged to care for, in addition to recognising the indigenous status of Malays. Singapore has adopted an interesting approach to protecting minorities who, by dint of their numbers, might find themselves perpetually in a numerical minority and shut off from the corridors of power and representation.

Sir, I have just completed a book project celebrating 40 Years of the Singapore Constitution and sent off a manuscript entitled The Evolution of a Revolution to my publishers in England. In my research, I was struck by how

solicitous we have been over the question of minorities since Independence. Indeed, in the throes of young nationhood, the Prime Minister considered it important enough in December 1965 to appoint Chief Justice Wee Chong Jin to head a constitutional commission. This was tasked with addressing long-standing minority concerns and to consider "how the rights of the racial, linguistic and religious minorities can be adequately safeguarded in the Constitution".

The Commission’s philosophical approach towards minorities stands in stark contrast with the rationale underlying the GRC scheme which marks a paradigm shift, a "sea-change into something rich and strange". Philosophy is not the exclusive language of the Ivory Tower as ideas have consequences and philosophy shapes both law and politics. Philosophy has a more practical dialect and, in Singapore then, the philosophy towards minorities actually paralleled the prevalent approach in international human rights law in the 1960s.

This focused on the rights of individuals and not group rights, as there was a fear that groups would start demanding greater rights and autonomy and threaten state unity. The memory of Hitler inciting the German minority in North Czechoslovakia to claim maltreatment before the League of Nations, allowing Hitler to sweep in as saviour of oppressed Germans abroad, was still fresh.

When the late Minister for Foreign Affairs S Rajaratnam debated the Commission report in this House in March 1967, he spoke from the stream of this philosophy: that if the rights of all individuals are protected, the rights of all members of minority groups would be protected, ergo, the interests of minority groups would be secured, without needing minority rights. This was influenced by the melting pot theory, that

different races would eventually assimilate and adopt a homogenous civic identity as citizens united by shared political ideals, rather than divided by primordial blood-ties of race or language.

Mr Rajaratnam noted that the Commission made "very little reference" to specific minorities' questions. Indeed, the bulk of the 86 paragraphs in the 37-page Report related to the fundamental freedoms of citizens in general. He endorsed the Commission’s view that "in a democracy, there can be no distinction between majority rights and minority rights", only the "equality of rights, the same rights for all". He thought it was "short-sighted and suicidal" for minorities to clamour for special rights as majorities might make similar claims. Minorities should "stop thinking of themselves as minorities" and "stop acting politically as minorities". Success would be achieved when "a minority is no longer conscious of the fact that it is a minority".

The only minority-specific proposal the Government adopted then was the Presidential Council of Minority Rights which was supposed to vet legislation to prevent differentiating measures. This mainly provided psychological assurance that no group was excluded from the top institutions of power.

The Government then specifically rejected early proposals for the legislative representation of minorities. These included schemes to allow minorities to directly elect minority representatives to a second chamber and proportional representation. The fear was that these schemes would accentuate communalism by promoting race-based voting and would produce weak coalition governments. In a proportional representation system, race-based groups were almost certain to get some seats in Parliament, if indeed race-based voting was in fact practised.

The Government preferred to stick with the first-past-the-post system organised around Single Member Constituencies. The key point was that race was not to be a factor which shaped the law governing elections. The electoral system would be "non-racial" or colour-blind. Race accentuates division and thus was to be muted to advance the goal of fashioning society on the basis of a multi-racial, secular state where none could say "satu bangsa, satu bahasa, satu ugama."

Times have changed. The GRC scheme makes "race" an explicit component in the architectural design of the electoral system. Minorities do not merely want equal treatment or to be assimilated into mainstream society; they want their distinct identity protected. The task became to allow them space to live separate lives while sharing in the common life of the nation.

As mindsets shifted in late-1980 Singapore, similar rumblings were apparent on the international scene in the post-Berlin Wall era, when the end of the Cold War inaugurated the flurry of many small hot wars. Cautionary tales were drawn from the phenomenon of “balkanisation”, postmodern tribalism and resurgent ethnic conflict. Ethnicity could no longer be ignored, and the new imperative was to protect not only individuals rights but the rights of ethnic groups by adopting special measures for their distinct needs.

Democracy is often equated with majority rule, but Singapore has moved away from an unqualified majoritarian democracy based on the first-past-the-post system of legislative representation: this is the “winner takes it all the loser has to fall” model: it is simple and it is plain, why should we complain?

Well, because the idea of democracy as majority rule is a “counting heads” model which is a limited decision-making

model. For example, moral questions cannot be solved by mathematics. In addition, if majorities oppress minorities, social conflict beckons. That is why Constitutions place certain things like entrenched individual rights beyond the reach of majority will.

Our Constitution was amended to guarantee minority legislative representation, to ensure all colours of the CMIO rainbow were present in Parliament. This appreciates that democracy must be something more than two wolves and one lamb voting on what to have for dinner even though government authority depends on retaining the confidence of the majority of MPs. The GRC scheme would give racial minorities access to political influence, which the Westminster model of “one man one vote” did not.

The thinking behind the GRC scheme was that race played a part in politics and affected voter preference, that younger voters were unaware of the need “to return a racially balanced slate of candidates”.

The GRC scheme would correct minority under-representation through constitutionally entrenching the right for all communities to always be represented in Parliament. To run GRC teams, political parties have to practise a moderate multi-racial brand of politics.

Race thus became an overt factor in structuring the electoral process, to ensure a multi-racial Parliament. One can agree that the principle of minority protection to guarantee minority MPs is essential, while differing over the best means of implementing the principle.

I might add that, as a doctoral student at Cambridge, I spent many wearying hours huddled over dusty legal tomes with

a comforting chocolate croissant and instant Nescafe coffee mix, studying how minorities were protected, from the Middle Ages to our Modern Age. I am happy to report that schemes protecting the rights of minorities to participate effectively in public life and in national and local decision-making accord with best international practices, as set out in the 1992 UN Declaration on the Right of Persons Belonging to National, Ethnic, Religious and Linguistic Minorities. Nonetheless, the GRC scheme further complicates the idea of representative democracy in Singapore. Who does an MP represent? This is no longer self-evident.

Traditionally, one would assume that an MP represents his constituency. However, this is not entirely accurate, given the loyalty MPs owe to their political parties. The ruling party's view of representation is that an MP is no mere delegate who simply mouths his constituents’ views. An MP is chosen for his "mature judgment" and "enlightened conscience." This view is commonly associated with Edmund Burke, the great British MP and philosopher. He considered that while an MP should serve with "industry" and exercise personal "judgment", that MP should maintain the "closest correspondence" with his constituents and give their concerns close attention. Prime Minister Lee apparently is of the same mind as Burke. In 2001, he described the Singapore brand of democracy as one "in which the people elect the Government and the Government ... governs as it judges wise and best" and stands up to defend its judgment.

An elected MP has to represent his constituents in tending to municipal affairs; as an MP of Singapore, he must be concerned with national affairs; as a party member, he must toe the party line. Now, if this MP happens to be the minority MP, he has to carry the concerns

of his particular minority community as well. All these have to be balanced.

Through the GRC scheme, what is made clear is that the voice of the minority representative should always be present at the parliamentary table, together with opposition and non-partisan voices in the form of the NCMP and NMP scheme. Representation in Singapore entails not ignoring minority concerns.

Sir, the GRC scheme actually derogates from Article 12 of the Constitution which safeguards equality under the law. Section 42(1) of the PEA maintains the form of "one man one vote" while section 42(1A) states that a voter in a GRC “shall have one vote and may vote for any one group of candidates…”.

While voters in GRCs and SMCs each get one vote, these differ in voting strength. The weight of your one vote depends on where you live, as your vote may potentially help elect one, four, five or six MPs. This is a form of discrimination based on geographical residence. Clearly, the disparity in individual voting power raises Article 12 equal protection concerns.

The GRC scheme is, thus, prima facie unconstitutional. Indeed, its drafters recognised this by appending a notwithstanding clause embodied in Article 39A(3). This provides that even if the GRC scheme violates Article 12, it is exempt from its application and immunised from judicial challenge. A potentially unconstitutional scheme is thus rendered constitutional. Is this justifiable?

Sir, equality is not an absolute value. All constitutional lawyers worth their salt know that, aside from the freedom of conscience, no liberty is absolute and can be qualified by compelling reasons. Indeed, Article 12(3) provides that the equality clause is restricted as it does not invalidate personal and religious laws.

It could be argued that the GRC, by providing for minority MPs, is a fulfilment of the Government's obligation under Article 152

to constantly care for the interests of racial and religious minorities. Because the GRC scheme under Article 39A serves a purpose under Article 152, read harmoniously, the GRC scheme in so far as it is tailored to serve the goal of minority representation is a justified exception to Article 12.

The importance of the constitutional purpose of the GRC scheme is underscored by the fact that it is immunised from constitutional challenges by a notwithstanding clause, and there are only two notwithstanding clauses in the Constitution – the other one is found in Article 149(3) which exempts security laws like the ISA from a slew of fundamental constitutional liberties. And notwithstanding clauses should be rare, as they render constitutional provisions, which are presumptively the supreme law of the land, inoperative in specified instances.

Given that the GRC scheme as a mechanism for guaranteeing minority representation is important enough to justify derogating from a fundamental liberty, how can there be no legal requirement to call a by-election to ensure that minorities in Parliament are at their maximum strength, where a minority GRC MP vacates his seat?

Thus, the PEA should be amended to require by-elections when the GRC minority MP vacates his parliamentary seat. This is to ensure that the constitutional purpose, the raison d'etre for having GRCs, is not thwarted.

It has been said before that the GRC scheme does not require a fixed number of minority MPs – this is too imprecise an arrangement. For example, if there are 20 minority MPs and some of these seats

later became vacant, what quantitative threshold must be crossed before the situation becomes unacceptable? Say, if 25% of minority MP seats become vacated, leaving only 15 from the original 20. These things should not be left unspecified; the rule of law would be strengthened by specific legal rules.

In addition, there is a related issue of the Constitution not specifying the number of minority MPs. If GRC team sizes keep ballooning upwards, from the prototypical three to the current ceiling of six, the net number of minority candidates that must be fielded falls. Something needs to be done to deal with this contingency. The law needs to be tightened up.

Sir, the legal regulations by which we choose and legitimate our rulers is an issue of national importance, raised by Singaporeans, for Singaporeans to debate.

We are a pragmatic, efficient and rational people, fluent in the language of "deliverables" and "KPIs"; but we are not devoid of soul nor higher ideals; "democracy" is not a foreign tongue to us in a cosmopolitan world.

It is healthy to interrogate rationales for laws and processes at regular intervals, to test their cogency. This is part and parcel of authentic intellectual pluralism or viewpoint diversity and reflects the opening up of political space in Singapore, in the literal 'can hold demonstrations at Speakers' Corner' sense and a metaphorical 'dare to disagree' with political orthodoxy sense. Today's heresy can become tomorrow's orthodoxy.

The Government holds no monopoly on wisdom while keeping its hand firmly on the rudder, it has shown a willingness to consult, hear and assess views and

even slaughter sacred cows, if necessary.

With filled rice bowls, and a Government ever-solicitous of our rice stockpile, the concern of citizens has shifted from needs to wants, from the tangible to intangible values. This situates today's motion of how to consolidate representative democracy in Singapore, by ensuring there are no gaps in representation, no democratic deficit.

Democracy is not a mere institutional form, its success is predicated on a state of mind. Ideals, like constitutional democracy, must be written on the heart of governors and governed, if they are not to be paper tigers or parchment barriers. The reason and conscience of citizens need to be engaged on matters of state. We all hold shares in Singapore Incorporated and want it to do well and succeed but we also want the freedom to debate what success is, beyond economic indicators. All the more, as Singapore opens up, we should not abandon our bearings but be anchored by fundamental values of integrity, civility and decency as seek to realise the ideals of constitutional democracy and human rights.

I hope the subject of the motion will not receive the "if it ain't broke, why fix it" response. Quite apart from the issue of who decides what is broken, I might say, if you can upgrade, if you have the will and wherewithal, why ever not?

If there is a flaw in the institutional design, swift correction will inspire confidence in the responsive and responsible quality of government. We want not just a serviceable electoral system but one that resonates with our innate sense of justice.

If this House decides that these proposed amendments are worth legislating, this would place the issue of by-elections beyond the shifting sands of political discretion upon solid rock of

legally conditioned discretion. Politics is about power, Law tames power.

Nothing can be achieved without people and nothing endures without institutions: good people and good institutions complement each other in building a constitutional state where a basic value is to remind those holding political power that they are public servants, not overlords.

As the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being, as Solzhenitsyn observed, we sometimes need rules to restrain our self-interest and worst excesses. Sir, I hope this House will support this motion.

Question proposed.

3.52 pm

Sir, I rise in support of the motion standing in Prof. Thio's name.

The Group Representation Constituency (GRC) was introduced by the Government in 1988 to ensure that we have Members of Parliament from the minority communities – Malays, Indians and other communities. This is one fine example of Singapore successfully modifying the Westminster model of parliamentary democracy to specially cater to our multi-racial society. It is also an example of a majority community on its own, accommodating the minority communities, to ensure that they are represented in Parliament. Such a spirit of accommodation has done much to reassure minority communities that they have a place in Singapore's mainstream and they are truly part of us.

In 1988, when moving the Parliamentary Elections (Amendment) Bill in this House, the then Deputy Prime Minister, Mr Goh Chok Tong said, "The main argument for returning MPs on a team

basis throughout Singapore is that it entrenches multi-racial politics in every constituency. It leaves no room for communal politics." Sir, the Senior Minister's words quoted above ring true today, 20 years after he said it. I strongly support this policy of entrenching multi-racial politics in every constituency.

Sir, the recent vacancy in the Jurong GRC stimulated some discussion amongst Singaporeans. Some feel that a by-election should be called for, others disagree. Sir, the Parliamentary Elections Act, (PEA) section 24 (2A) requires a writ for election to be issued only when all the members for that constituency have vacated their seats. There is, therefore, no legal necessity for the Government to call a by-election, as the other four members have not vacated their seats.

Sir, this recent event has caused some Singaporeans to ask if there is a lacuna in our laws. Would the situation in Jurong GRC be different if the member vacating the seat were to be the designated minority member? If the GRC system is to "entrench multi-racial politics at every constituency" and to ensure the minority communities in every constituency are represented in this House, then surely we should not leave minority communities unrepresented in this House for too long.

Whilst it may be argued that when an MP from a majority community vacates his seat, his colleagues could cover his duties, and continue to represent the voters from the majority community, it is clearly not the same when a minority community member vacates his seat. In this situation, the very foundation of the GRC system is severely shakened. The raison d'etre of the GRC, that of ensuring minority representation in Parliament, is nullified when the minority Member of Parliament vacates the seat. Sir, I therefore submit that, in this regard, the existing provisions in the

Parliamentary Elections Act (PEA) relating to GRC by-elections are weak and ambiguous and need to be amended to ensure Singapore's intention to "entrench multi-racialism in every constituency" is safeguarded. I therefore support the motion because it will ensure that when an MP from a minority community vacates his seat in a GRC, a by-election has to be called, so that the minority community can continue to be represented in this House.

Further, in summing up the 1988 debate on the GRC proposal, Senior Minister Goh referred to an article, "Federalism in Switzerland" by Vernon Bogdanor, and said "The change to our Constitution and Parliamentary Elections Act to provide for election of MPs on a team basis is putting into place an institutional mechanism to ensure a multi-racial society. It is a formal institutional arrangement but for us to succeed, we must have the same spirit as the Swiss to search for consensus, to work through informal as much as formal arrangements, to make every citizen whichever community he belongs to, feel that he is a Singaporean". Yes, the spirit behind the formal words in the Constitution and Parliamentary Elections Act (PEA) must be considered and given adequate weight. I would urge this House to support the motion so as to preserve the original intent of the GRC scheme and the spirit behind it.

Sir, I also support the motion calling for a by-election in GRC when half or more of MPs from any GRC vacate their seats. The present position is that a by-election needs to be called only when all the MPs vacate their seats. Some people may not see a need for a by-election when vacancies arise in GRCs as they say the remaining MPs can cover each other's duties. Sir, I believe a distinction has to be made between an MP being the advocate

of his constituents when it comes to "municipal issues" such as appeal on HDB housing matters, assisting with jobs, etc, as opposed to the MP being the constituents' representative in this House, to debate on policies and to pass necessary laws and to supply money appropriately for Government to function.

Sir, I strongly believe that these representational responsibilities cannot be delegated. In short, every voter is entitled to be represented in this House. This is our "one man, one vote" system. His vote must count and it must not count for less.

Sir, it is here that I have difficulty with the existing provisions in the Parliamentary Elections Act (PEA). Under the existing laws, the Government does not have to call a by-election even if four out of five of the Jurong GRC members were to vacate their seats for whatever reasons. Heaven forbid, we are not wishing that. And it is believed that one lone GRC member is deemed sufficient to represent the whole GRC, an electorate of about 116,676 voters who have previously been represented by five Members of Parliament.

Sir, it is in this context that the motion proposes that when half or more of GRC members vacate their seats in Parliament, a by-election should be called. The reasons for calling a by-election are, first, to ensure that voters in that GRC are adequately and fairly represented in Parliament and, secondly, a new full team with or without any MP from the previous team, seeks a fresh mandate from voters in that GRC.

Sir, the desire and aspirations of people to be adequately represented in this House should not be underestimated and we should uphold that principle and not allow consideration of convenience or costs to prevent voters from being adequately represented. Further, when half or more of the MPs vacate their seats

at a GRC, I believe the remaining half or less of the MPs have lost their moral authority to represent that GRC. I, therefore, support the motion which also calls for a by-election in such a circumstance.

I am aware that some have called for a by-election in a GRC when any MP vacates his seat, even if he were to be from a majority community. There is some justification for this point of view. However, from a practical point of view, I would be quite happy at this moment to see a by-election called when half or more of the MPs in a GRC vacate their seats. Hence, my support for the motion.

Sir, I believe the provision for the issue of writ for by-election in the event of a Single Member Constituency (SMC) is in place and it has been included in this motion for completeness sake.

Sir, I now come to the timing for by-elections. Currently, as we all know, there is no provision with regard to the time frame within which a writ for a by-election has to be issued. I think this is quite unsatisfactory. Sir, I support the motion in proposing that all by-elections be called within three months from the date of vacancy, unless the parliamentary term is due to expire within six months from the date of vacancy. When a parliamentary seat falls vacant, the voters in that SMC and/or GRC are deprived of their representation in this House, until the vacancy is filled. The longer the vacancy remains unfilled, the greater the inequality to these voters. Their votes then count for less.

Sir, I believe it is in our own common interest to ensure that we have clear, unambiguous and transparent rules and law for by-elections. When an ambiguity or lacuna is revealed, we should take steps to rectify it. Leaving the timing of by-election vague and ambiguous is not a

good practice, and certainly not what people would call “best practice”. The PEA is silent on the timing of by-elections and we should therefore amend it to give greater certainty, clarity and transparency.

Sir, I also believe that it is best to settle these constitutional and election law issues when there is no urgency. Discussions and debates at such times are likely to be calm, rational and reasoned even though the subject matter may be somewhat sensitive. We just celebrated our 43rd National Day. We have been building our social and political institutions in Singapore. I am very glad and proud that one of those cherished institutions is that of our multi-racial, multi-cultural and multi-religious society. We accept our differences and we accommodate each other. Hence, in this spirit we should reassure our fellow Singaporeans from minority communities that when a lacuna is revealed, we will take the appropriate steps to ensure the intent behind the GRC system is observed and their representation in this House is preserved. We should likewise reassure all our GRC voters that when half or more of their MPs vacate their seats, their votes will be sought again for a full team of GRC MPs and that no citizen will be left unrepresented in this House for too long.

Sir, it is well-known that all governments frown upon by-elections as they are psephologically disadvantaged. But because our Constitution and Parliamentary Elections Act (PEA) ought to serve the larger interests of Singapore and all Singaporeans, I appeal to the Government to rise to the occasion and support this motion to refine our by-election laws. As it is a matter of great importance for all Singaporeans, may I also humbly call on the Government to lift the Whip and allow its members to vote according to their conscience on this motion. Let us remind ourselves that we have all taken the oath when we entered this House to "preserve, protect and

defend the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore".

4.04 pm

Sir, the motion filed by the two Nominated Members calls for the election system to be fine-tuned. We in the Workers' Party are unable to support the motion for the simple reason that we have never accepted the GRC system and the motion attempts to entrench it. The motion is also flawed in some respects.

First, it attempts to refine the GRC system by providing that the moment a minority Member has left the GRC, a by-election for the GRC will be called. We do not see the justification for the departure of any single Member, including the minority Member, to trigger a by-election in the whole GRC. In our view, this is a disproportionate outcome.

Elections are won or lost by GRC teams, not on the merit of the minority Member alone. Each voter votes for the GRC team for different reasons – some may well vote because of the minority Member but others may do so because of the team leader or anchor Minister or because of some other MP.

In 1999, one of the Members in Jalan Besar GRC, Mr Choo Wee Khiang, resigned his seat due to a criminal conviction. The House then debated the issue of whether to call a by-election in Jalan Besar GRC. Then leader of the House, Mr Wong Kan Seng, spoke generally about why one Member's departure should not trigger a by-election in a GRC. He said, and I quote, "the legislated intent was not to allow any particular MPs so elected as part of a group of MPs for the GRC to hold the rest to ransom, to resignation or otherwise. The thinking then was that all the other

MPs should not be forced to vacate their seats on account of one MP vacating his seat for whatever reason; death, resignation, or whatever". This highlights one of the main weaknesses of the GRCs, that a team member's non cooperation could sound the political death knell for the rest. This is unjustifiable.

Next, the motion goes on to propose that one half or more of the members of the GRC team have departed, a by-election in the GRC should be called as well. To propose this means that we are prepared to accept the situation where one or even two members in a GRC have left, no by-election needs to be called. The reality is that the moment even one member of the team leaves, the issue of the constituents being under represented immediately arises. To say that constituency work can be covered even by non-MPs is a dubious assertion as the residents will feel shortchanged. What about the parliamentary work? Can this be covered? Each MP is restricted to five parliamentary questions per sitting and can make only one speech in each debate. Just doing simple mathematics, the number of Parliamentary questions and speeches that can be made by the GRC team will be diminished the moment any MP vacates his seat. If GRC sizes are increased in the future, this motion will envisage three, four or even more vacancies before a by-election in a GRC is called. The under-representation of the constituents will become even more indefensible.

Third, the motion asked the House to introduce amendments to the Parliamentary Elections Act such that a writ of by-election shall be called in the event that a Member of a Single Member Constituency vacates his or her seat for any reason. There is actually no need for the House to do this. This is already provided for under the Constitution and the Parliamentary Elections Act. Article 49 of the Constitution already states that

whenever the seat of an elected Member has become vacant for any reason, the vacancy shall be filled by election in a manner provided by law, meaning that it should be done. The Parliamentary Elections Act itself, section 24, further provides that the President shall issue a writ of election "to supply vacancies caused by death, resignation, or otherwise." There can be no argument that when an MP in an SMC vacates his seat, there is no vacancy. The issue is really with the timing of the by-election, which I shall return to later.

Sir, indeed the motion shows that the GRC system is a system which does not promote representative democracy. The attempts in the motion to cure the problems with GRCs do not address the fundamental problem of the GRC that it dilutes the voter's voice. Instead of making a clear choice of which person they want to represent them, they are asked to pick a team of people and the outcome of their vote will depend on the aggregate outcome of voting in other constituencies. At the practical level, it also increases the bar for those who intend to contest, increasing the likelihood of walkovers.

What Mr Wong Kan Seng had said in 1999 about one member holding the rest to ransom also applies at the nomination stage when candidates are putting themselves up for election. GRC team members can hold the others to ransom as the whole team must stand to qualify as candidates, in the correct racial mix.

In view of all these objections to the original motion, I would like to propose that the motion be amended such as to call on the Government to introduce amendments to the Constitution to abolish GRCs and to revert to a system of single member seats and to set a three-month time limit for all by-elections to be called.

May I have a copy of the amendment?

Yes, Sir. I believe a written copy has been given to the Clerk.

The amendment seems to be in order. Are copies made available to all Members?

Could I request the Clerk to circulate it to Members? [Copy of amendment to motion circulated to hon. Members. ]

Would you like to move your amendment, Ms Lim?

Sir, I beg to move,

That the words in the motion from "fine-tune the electoral system" to "by-elections shall be called" in the last sentence be deleted, and the following words be inserted in their place:

introduce amendments to the Constitution to abolish Group Representation Constituencies and revert to a system of Single Member Constituencies", and;

introduce amendments to the Parliamentary Elections Act such that a writ for by-election shall be issued in the event a Member vacates his or her seat for any reason."

Sir, the proposed amended motion has also been put down for the convenience of Members on paper.

Have you finished your speech?

Sir, I will now speak on the amended motion.

Why abolish GRCs after 20 years? To answer this, we should trace history and how we have evolved. We should then ask: are GRCs good for the people or good for the PAP?

In 1988, GRCs were introduced as three-Member teams. Then Deputy Prime Minister, Goh Chok Tong, told Parliament that the GRCs would ensure minority representation. Just two years later, in 1990, GRC size was increased from three Members to four, the reason being population growth within three-Member GRCs. In 1996, GRCs were increased from four Members to five or six Members. We were told that this was to provide the critical masses of residents needed for the Community Development Councils or CDCs to work, but these arguments are clearly red herrings. As then Deputy Prime Minister Goh had already said in 1988, even if all seats were run as single seats, MPs could still group together after the elections for economies of scale. The reasons given by the PAP also do not explain why, coincidentally, GRCs which were nearly won by the Workers' Party, such as Eunos GRC and Cheng San GRC, disappeared in the following elections.

In 2006, some light was shed as to how the PAP benefited from GRCs. Senior Minister Goh spoke of the PAP's recruitment challenge, and he said, and I quote, "without some assurance of a good chance of winning, at least, their first election, many able and successful young Singaporeans may not risk their careers to join politics." Interesting. Are we to infer that the PAP candidates these days are not what they used to be? On a separate note, Minister Mentor also made comments that the Health Minister should be ready to lead his own GRC team after being under his wing in Tanjong Pagar GRC for four years. So, it seems that the GRC is a useful recruitment and training tool for the ruling party.

Has the GRC strengthened or weakened politicians' mandate? Back in 1998, Dr Ahmad Mattar already hit the nail on the head. His views were quoted in

Parliament as follows and I quote, "as a Malay, I do not think I would like to contest in any elections when my victory is guaranteed, not because I am a strong candidate but because I have a so-called strong twin brother to lean on".

How do voters feel about GRCs? The Government might want to do a big national survey to find out. It is not uncommon for Singaporeans to become residents of different GRCs in successive elections without moving house at all. The jokes about boundaries are endless, with the residents of Serangoon asking for their Marine Parade seaview and Tanjong Pagar GRC now fronting MacRitchie Reservoir.

In my view, there has clearly been political degeneration as a result of the GRCs. To arrest this, the amended motion calls for the Government to amend the Constitution to abolish GRCs and revert to a system of single seats where each candidate is judged on his or her own merits.

Can this be done? Of course. The Electoral Boundaries Committee will give effect to any changes to the system that are made.

How do we ensure minority representation then, some might ask. Singapore's history has shown that, in the past, minority candidates stood and won single seats. PAP MPs, such as Mr Dhanabalan, Mr Rajaratnam, Mr Sidek Saniff, Mr Zulkifli Mohamad, had done so; so have Opposition leaders, like Mr Jeyaretnam in Anson, a predominantly Chinese constituency. This was so even in the 1984 general election. Are we now saying that Singapore has regressed as a society? Or is the PAP now saying that they have less confidence in their current minority Ministers, MPs or new candidates winning on their own?

Finally, I move to the issue of time limit for by-elections under the system of single seats. Even though the obligation

is already there, as I said earlier, the issue lies in the lack of a definite deadline by which a by-election must be called after a vacancy arises. This has led to long and unjustified delays in holding by-elections. For instance, in 1986, when MP for Anson, Mr Jeyaretnam, was disqualified from office, no by-election was held in Anson for two years until the 1988 general election. This loophole should be plugged.

This is not a new issue for this House. It came up nine years ago when the Workers' Party filed a motion to debate whether a by-election should be held in Jalan Besar GRC. The ruling party was not willing then to write in a time limit. Even if a law sets no time limit for something to be done, the usual interpretation is that it should be done within a reasonable time. In this case, a few months, not years. In the circumstances, we support explicitly providing a three-month deadline, which is the same period as in the earlier Malaysian legislation. The amended motion reflects this.

Order. I propose to take the break now. I suspend the Sitting and will take the Chair again at 4.40 pm.

Sitting accordingly suspended

at 4.18 pm until 4.40 pm.

Sitting resumed at 4.40 pm

Debate resumed.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to point out to Members of the House, under Standing Order 37(1), it says that, "Unless Standing Orders otherwise

provide, when any motion is under consideration in Parliament, or in a Committee thereof, an amendment may be proposed to the motion if it is relevant thereto." Sir, I would like to emphasise the words "if it is relevant thereto".

Mr Speaker, Sir, I submit that the amendment that has been proposed by the Non-Constituency MP, as distributed to the House just now, is not relevant to the original motion. The original motion is talking about by-elections and the circumstances under which by-elections should be held, including the timing of such a by-election. Whereas the amended motion seeks to talk about GRCs, especially the abolition of GRCs and reverting to a system of Single Member Constituencies. Sir, this is an entirely different matter. If the Member would like to debate the issue of GRC, then I would suggest that the Member file another motion on this topic so that the House can have a full debate on GRCs. But, as it stands at the moment, the amendment, as distributed, is not relevant to the original motion and therefore should not be accepted.

I have occasion to again read the amendment and Standing Order and I agree with the Leader of the House that the main motion is on by-elections and in the event of vacancies arising out of certain circumstances. The amendment, as I read it again, is not relevant to the main motion as required under Standing Order 37(1). That being the case, the original Question is again before the House and, as it stands, under the name of the Nominated Member of Parliament. Whether the Member wants to pursue the subject, as suggested by the Leader, ie, to come up again with a motion on some other occasion, it is up to her. But, as of now, I think the amendment falls, and, therefore, I will proceed with the main motion now.

4.42 pm

Sir, thank you for the opportunity for allowing me to take part in this debate. I rise to oppose the motion. I will put my points shortly and simply, because when one cuts through the arguments and rhetoric, the issue before us is really a simple one.

When I first read the motion, I found myself thinking about the advantages and disadvantages of its various specific proposals. But I was putting the cart before the horse. This motion purports to advance its proposals on the basis that they affirm the importance of "representative democracy". But what is "representative democracy"? To my knowledge, there is no universally accepted practice, and I did not hear any being advanced by the hon. Members proposing the motion. In my view, that is the most fundamental question to ask.

Webster's defines the term as: "a type of democracy in which the citizens delegate authority to elected representatives". As far as I know, all types of democracies around the world purport to do just that in one way or another. But the laws and rules by which these democracies are practised are not identical. This includes the manner and process by which their officials come into office.

So, in the United States, for example, which is often cited as the poster boy for a modern democracy, the President is not elected by the highest number of individual votes, but the highest number of electoral votes. Each of the US States is assigned a different number of electoral votes. So a person can be the President of the United States, the most powerful man in the country and arguably the world, even if more people and more states vote for his opponent. In the year 2000, Al Gore received half a million

votes more, but still lost. The President’s Cabinet members are also not elected, but are selected by him. Theirs is a form of representative democracy which is somewhat alien to us and maybe unusual to most Singaporeans.

But the purpose of my speech is not to do a survey of how different countries implement their concept of a "representative democracy". Nor is it to suggest that one form is superior to another. I cite the American example to illustrate one point, that we cannot blindly transpose rules set by others to our country and our circumstances. It is for Singaporeans to determine what works best for us, and I do not think Prof. Thio disagrees with that.

Our concern should really be whether our rules reflect the fundamental principles of democracy: free and fair elections, and where our citizens can genuinely feel that their interests are being adequately represented, and their needs taken care of, on the ground and in this House.

And we have adapted our system of representative democracy to meet our unique circumstances. There is no better example of this than the formation of GRCs, which is unprecedented around the world. It was our way of dealing with the fact that ours is not a homogenous society, and to ensure that there is a place in our country for all, regardless of race, language or religion. I was not in this House when that landmark piece of legislation was debated but, reading the transcripts now, I was struck by the uncertainty expressed by some Members as to whether having GRCs was the right way to go. Today, I believe most Singaporeans would agree that it was the right thing to do.

That is why I was puzzled by some of the specific proposals in the motion before this House.

First, the proposal that a by-election be called if the minority candidate in the GRC vacates his seat. With respect, this misunderstands the reasons for having GRCs in the first place. I can do no better than to quote excerpts of the speech of Senior Minister Goh, then the Deputy Prime Minister, when he moved the Second Reading of the Bill introducing GRCs. He said this:

"This Bill, the Parliamentary Elections (Amendment) Bill, and the one following it, the Constitution (Amendment) Bill, will together secure the long-term political stability of Singapore in two ways: first, by ensuring that Parliament will always be multi-racial and representative of our society, and second, by encouraging the practice of multi-racial politics by all political parties."

"This Bill also has a larger objective beyond merely guaranteeing that Parliament would always be multi-racial in character. It makes it necessary for all political parties to adopt a multi-racial approach in their competition for seats in Parliament if they hope to form the Government. Constituencies to be contested by multi-racial teams of candidates will require political parties and their candidates to take a moderate, multi-racial approach when campaigning instead of a communal or racially extreme approach."

So there can be no doubt that GRCs were introduced to ensure minority representation in Parliament, not in the GRC, and to ensure that political parties do not run on platforms which will undermine our multi-racial society.

When a GRC team is elected, the entire team is expected to serve and represent the needs of the entire GRC, and not just the racial group they belong to. In addition, the minority Member serves a national role of representing in this House the minority group he belongs to. But that is no different from the Chinese Members of this House who

serve a similar national role for their race as well. Therefore, for the purposes of determining whether a by-election should be called when a GRC seat is made vacant, there is really no basis to draw a distinction between the minority Members and other Members. It is unnecessary to have a rule mandating a by-election simply because the minority Member vacates his seat. His constituency role will be fulfilled by his colleagues, and his national role by the other Members of his race in Parliament.

In any event, it is just plain wrong that the vacation of the minority seat should cause all the other Members of the GRC to lose their seats as well. One of the concerns raised, when the introduction of GRCs was first debated, was that it will relegate minority Members to second class. This proposal swings the other way, by elevating the minority Member, by giving him extraordinary powers, including the power to force a by-election. In other words, who calls the by-election? Is it the PM or the MP? With this motion, the power to call a by-election is placed in the hands of one MP, whether in the GRC or SMC. I do not understand our laws to confer such privileges to any single Member, whether minority or otherwise, whether in the GRC or SMC. Nor do I believe that such powers should be conferred.

Sir, in the course of her speech, Prof. Thio raised a number of extreme examples. I will deal with just one. She cited the example of an Opposition GRC where one Member vacates, and she says that there needs to be a by-election so as to enable the Opposition party to fill up that seat in Parliament. That, Sir, is flawed, because it asks the wrong question. The right question is: how do the remaining Members of that GRC, Opposition or otherwise, think it is best to serve their constituents? They can do one of two things. They can continue and serve their constituents to the best of

their ability, or they can all resign and force the Prime Minister to decide whether he wants to call a by-election or not. And if he does not choose to call a by-election, then the Opposition MPs can no doubt go to the elections and complain to the voters as to why they did not deliver their promises. The voter will then decide whether that is a good excuse or not. Ultimately, it is for the Opposition party or any party to make a political judgment on that question. They do not need rules to dictate what they should do and not do. That is what politics is about. No one said it was easy.

Sir, the Government would, of course, have to address a situation where all or most of the minority Members vacate their seats. It is difficult to imagine how such a scenario may occur. If by accident, then we may have to change the feng shui of this House. If by design, then I suspect by-elections may be the least of our worries. Since this is not a situation contemplated in the motion, I need not say much more about it.

That brings me to another assumption this motion appears to be premised on, ie, that where a Member vacates his seat, whether in a GRC or SMC, the residents of the relevant division or constituency will not be served on the ground or represented in Parliament. But that is not the reality of politics in Singapore. It is not in the interest of any party, whether ruling or Opposition, to neglect the voters in any of their divisions. There are no free rides. Voters will expect the MPs of the party to stand in for their colleagues and take over their duties. The position is even clearer in GRCs, where the whole team is responsible for the entire GRC and not just the division they stand in.

To respond to Dr Loo, the people's vote will not count any less. They will have their representation in Parliament.

The reality of the matter is that, if that team of MPs fails to deliver or the voters feel that their needs have not been adequately taken care of, the party will face the consequences at the next elections. That, in all democracies, is the real remedy, the ultimate check and balance. It, therefore, does not matter whether one Member or the majority of Members vacate a GRC, or even if the SMC Member leaves, the reality of the politics is the same.

In this regard, may I remind this House of what Senior Minister Goh said when moving the GRC Bill in 1988:

"The issue before us is not GRCs per se. It is whether we should entrench in our Constitution the right for all communities – Chinese, Malay, Indians and Others – to be always represented in Parliament. The GRC is only a means to an end. It is the best means we can think of. It is democratic. You retain the right to elect the government you want. You still have your one vote. You still choose the MPs you want to represent you except, in the case of the GRCs, you elect a group of three MPs. All three MPs in the group will serve you, and not just one of them. Whichever group of MPs you vote in, whether it is the PAP’s or the Opposition party’s, the result is a multi-racial Parliament; always. Your democratic right remains intact. Singapore’s future is safeguarded."

That statement holds just as true today as it did 20 years ago.

Therefore, to compel by-elections every time there is a vacancy does not necessarily advance "representative democracy". Indeed, the motion recognises that. It proposes that a by-election only be held if the vacancy occurs when there is at least six months left of the Parliamentary term. This recognises another reality of elections, ie, that they are expensive, both in direct terms and in lost opportunities, and undeniably

disruptive. They tie up the resources of the state: the police, the schools, the civil servants. Businesses are disrupted. People have to take time off to vote. These matters cannot be ignored. And it is not an issue of whether Singapore is rich or poor, or whether we can afford such expenses. All these must be taken into account. There obviously has to be a balancing exercise.

The motion purports to achieve that balance by prescribing the six-month timeframe. But this does not make sense.

Firstly, why six months? It appears to be a completely arbitrary figure.

Secondly, it is simply not practical. The motion mandates that the by-election be called within three months from the date of vacancy. Taking into account the time to complete the election process, that would mean that the new Member may only have about two months before he has to stand for elections again. That is clearly not enough time for him to do anything meaningful, and we would have had a by-election simply for the sake of having one or, as Prof. Thio says, simply for the reason of giving the Government a bloody nose. It is a waste of time and money, and it does not advance representative democracy.

Thirdly, and most importantly, the motion presumes that every Parliament will complete its full term. But that again ignores the reality. Elections can be called at any time, and the Prime Minister is not compelled to wait for the full term of Parliament to expire, and often it does not.

Lest anyone should think that what we do in Singapore is at odds with all democracies around the world, that is not the case. In the United Kingdom, for example, there are no prescribed time limits for a by-election to be called in the event of a vacancy. The three months

Prof. Thio refers to is only a convention. It is not prescribed law. In other words, the UK Prime Minister may call a by-election whenever he wishes. It is certainly not the extreme position advanced in the motion. And allow me to read to you an excerpt from the information posted on the website of the UK Parliament on vacancies. It says this:

"While a vacancy exists, constituency matters are handled by a Member of Parliament of the same party in a neighbouring constituency. When a new Member has been elected, all outstanding matters are passed to him."

So we do not do things different here. Neither are we doing something extraordinary. We are not dealing with The Beatles or The Bangles. We are not even dealing with Earth, Wind and Fire.

It is, therefore, only sensible that we keep things flexible. Let the Prime Minister be the Prime Minister. Let him do his job and make the decisions. There is no need to tie his hands. As I have said, it is not the case that the ruling party, whichever it may be, can act with impunity and ignore the needs and wants of its voters. It will ultimately have to account for its decisions at the next elections. And, "If the voters do not find in favour of the ruling party, they will dismiss the rulers without bloodshed", quoting again from Karl Popper.

At the end of the day, we have to decide what is most important to Singaporeans and for Singapore. The underlying premise of the motion is the assumption that there is a direct relationship between the number of elections and the strength of the democracy. That is a fallacy. You can have as many elections as you want but, if the candidates are dishonest or the voters intimidated, if there is no secrecy in the voting process or integrity in the counting process, then elections are

simply a song and dance, a device to disguise the lack of democracy, instead of being its symbol. There are too many examples of this around the world. Singapore, thankfully, is not one of them.

Singaporeans know the difference between substance and form. They are less concerned with dusty law books and chocolate croissants. What we want and what they want are honest, dedicated MPs and Ministers, and an effective Government, which will listen to our people, make decisions for the benefit of Singapore and, ultimately, to deliver on the ground and in this House. On that score, this motion does nothing to advance our common cause.

I oppose the motion.

4.58 pm

Mr Speaker, Sir, the motion that we are debating today proposed by Prof. Thio Li-ann is not new. This House had debated this issue exhaustively in 1999 when Mr Choo Wee Kiang vacated his seat in the Jalan Besar GRC. Even the suggestion of a three-month time limit for the calling of a by-election is not new. MP Chiam See Tong first mooted it in the 1999 debate.

Sir, as I sat listening to the speeches of the various MPs who spoke before me, in particular, Prof. Thio, Dr Loo and Ms Sylvia Lim, I would like to say that there are basically two areas which they had raised. With regard to the general principles and issues, I think my colleague Mr Hri Kumar has already touched on them. But these are two other issues which they mentioned.

The first point that the three of them raised is whether the interests and welfare of the residents will be taken care of if a Member in the GRC vacates his

seat. The second issue which they raised is whether or not the GRC is necessary. In one particular speech, it was even questioned whether it is constitutional, and also the issue whether or not the minority MPs are able to stand on their own and they do not need the crutch or the assistance of a GRC. Sir, I will come to those two points that have been raised by the three speakers that I have mentioned in the course of my speech.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the late Dr Ong Chit Chung served as an MP in Bukit Batok for 20 years. His death was sudden and came as a great shock to all of us. Because of his demise, our GRC now has one MP less. From a five-member GRC, we are now down to a four-member GRC. But when we were elected at the last GE, we made a promise and a commitment to all the residents of Jurong GRC. We promised to serve our residents wholeheartedly, to serve them well and never to let them down. Although we are down by one MP, we will keep this promise, even if it means that each one of us has to shoulder heavier responsibilities. What is of paramount importance to us are our residents’ welfare and their interests. In this, we are indeed most fortunate that we have the strong support and backing of the grassroots leaders from Bukit Batok. They are experienced leaders with a strong network among the residents. They understand that we are doing our best to help our residents and have strongly supported us.

On the question raised by the three MPs as to whether or not we are able to take care of the residents' needs now that we have one seat vacant in Jurong GRC, I want to assure this House that we had wasted no time in addressing our residents' needs. Immediately after Dr Ong's demise, we met all the grassroots leaders of Bukit Batok, a few hundred of them. We explained to them how we intend to take care of Bukit Batok and we also wanted to hear their concerns and

views. We suggested to them that we would divide among us the responsibility of acting as advisors to the CCC and CCMC and 10 RCs. This arrangement will continue for a period of six months before we review it. We would also take turns to run the weekly meet-the-people sessions. Between us, all the work in Bukit Batok would be effectively covered. The grassroots leaders gave their strong support. Those who spoke expressed their confidence in our leadership and they were happy that they have four MPs to take care of them. They promised to work closely with us and to give us their strong support.

Since then, the four of us have attended more than 15 activities at Bukit Batok and handled five meet-the-people sessions. Last Thursday, Sir, I went on a house visit in Bukit Batok, which was followed by a supper meeting with some residents at the RC Centre. I must say that I was really touched by the warm reception that I received from the residents in Bukit Batok. They raised the usual local or municipal issues but none raised any concern or discomfort at the existing arrangement that we had worked out. To me, the response of the grassroots leaders and the residents whom I had met is a great assurance. It is a clear indication of the trust that they have in us. They gave us a strong mandate at the last GE, and they knew that we would honour and respect that mandate even after the demise of one MP. Above all, they are confident that their interest and welfare will be taken care of. In fact, Sir, I must share with this House that all the residents that I had met, all the grassroots leaders that we had interactions with, none had raised the issue of needing a by-election in order to provide for the needs and to take care of the interest of the residents.

Mr Speaker, Sir, even as we debate this motion, I urge this House not to lose sight of this very important element. At the end of the day, parliamentary

democracy is not just a process, slogans, words and empty promises. It is about serving people. It is about improving people's lives. It is about achieving outcomes. The people in Jurong GRC gave us their strong support, they trust us, they have confidence in us and we intend to keep that trust and to do all that is within our power to live up to that expectation.

We do not believe for one moment, Sir, that when one or more MPs vacate their seats, voters have no representative. I think this is also the crux of the argument raised by Dr Loo, Prof. Thio and Ms Sylvia Lim. The voters in Jurong GRC had voted us as a team, team Jurong GRC, and not as specific individuals. We were elected to serve the needs of all the residents. Even if one or more members of the team are not around, the remaining members of the team continue to represent all the voters and residents of the GRC. It is baseless to suggest that since the mandate was given to a team to act as representatives of the residents in Parliament, the absence of one or more would mean that the rest of us have lost our electoral mandate and have to resign.

For ease of administration, each MP takes care of one area within the GRC but, at the strategic level, planning on major policy issues is done as a GRC to ensure that there is consistency of service to all residents. At the operational level, too, MPs in the GRC attend each other's functions and cover for each other during periods of absence. So, the GRC is not just a collection of constituencies that continue to operate as single constituencies, but it is a team concept where a team of MPs takes care of all the needs of the residents. This is the mandate given to us – to serve all the residents in the whole GRC and as a team and the sad loss of one of our members does not diminish the fact that we are acting as a team serving all the residents of Jurong GRC.

Let me now touch on another point raised by Prof. Thio and I think, in some respects, also mentioned by Ms Sylvia Lim. Prof. Thio also wants the law changed so that when a minority candidate vacates his seat for whatever reasons, then all the other MPs should vacate their seats too and a by-election held to elect a new team. If we accept this proposal, Sir, it will undermine and weaken the GRC concept. Let me explain why. Prof. Thio's proposal would mean that minority candidates would wield considerable power and has great sway over the fate of the GRC. If, for whatever reason, the minority candidate resigns, then all the other MPs in the GRC would have to resign too. This would put the minority candidate in exactly the same position that the 1988 amendment wanted to avoid, ie, allowing one MP to hold the entire team to ransom. This is clearly not the intent or purpose of the GRC concept and is counter productive for minority candidates as there would be a lot of resentment at giving them so much power to undermine the whole GRC.

Sir, if we can recall, in 1988 when the Parliamentary Elections Act was amended, a Select Committee was set up to receive representations from the members of the public. The Malay and Indian representors strongly supported the GRC concept. The Chinese representors also supported the GRC concept but had some reservations. Mr Goh Chok Tong, who was then the First Deputy Prime Minister made this observation at the time when he moved the motion to amend in the Third Reading in Parliament, and this is what he said –

"The GRC proposal which requires some MPs to stand as a team, effectively distributes power between leaders of the various communities. In fact, it favours the minorities. Chinese representors pointed out that Chinese candidates cannot stand in a GRC on their

own. On the other hand, the Malays or Indians or members of other minority communities can stand on their own in the GRC. This is like handing a veto to the minority candidates."

What Prof. Thio's motion is proposing will result in exactly that outcome – handing the veto power to a minority candidate, which is not the intention of Parliament, neither is it desirable as it will breed a lot of resentment against the minority candidates. The GRC is a team concept which is meant to address the problem of a multi-racial society where race, language or religion can become major dividing lines and can be capitalised for political mileage to support or to vote against a particular candidate.

As I sat listening to the debate and the various speeches made, I feel that we may have to anchor ourselves in reality. We are living in a world where issues of race, language and religion continue to have a bearing and an impact, and we are not living in a utopia. This is the reality of the world today and the reality did not strike me as much as when I spoke to one person in the ILO. As part of my work in the ILO, I come across a lot of refugees – some are refugees from political persecution (based on their own description and admission), some are refugees because of persecution based on race, and, some, persecution based on religion.

But the most poignant one that I remember was a man from Rwanda. He fled from Rwanda because of persecution. He belonged to the Tutsis race and he was being persecuted. The thing that struck me was that this Rwandan man did not belong to a different race, they all belonged to one race but they happened to belong to different tribes and that became the big point of contention and that became the element for persecution against members of his tribal group. So even talking to him was a very painful exercise, he was not able to recount everything but he said that he was very

happy to get out of Rwanda. So, that brings me to the reality. The reality is that issues of race, language and religion continue to dog us and if we go about undermining, weakening and attacking the GRC concept, I am afraid that we may potentially unleash all these forces that we may not even be able to see what would be the consequences.

The GRC concept is meant to prevent deep cleavages and polarisations in our society, which could disadvantage minority communities in political representation. But it is quite a different point to argue that a minority, once elected, would now have a strong veto power that can at any time cause a by-election in the GRC. Sir, it does not mean that if there were no minority representation in a GRC, there would be no minority representation in Parliament. The minority communities will continue to have their interest well taken care of as there are other minority MPs in the House.

At the same time, in a GRC, the MPs attend each other's functions and activities. I attend the temple functions, the seventh lunar month functions, of which there were plenty these last few days and nights, and the other MPs in the GRC also attend the mosque functions. They help to raise funds for the mosque and they attend all the other Muslim functions. We cross culture, we cross religion, because we respect our residents' culture and different religions, and that is what the whole concept of the GRC is all about – that we are able to support each other. I think that is also the essence of a multi-racial and multi-cultural society. So I disagree very much with the idea that we should dismantle the GRC concept which gives a different kind of messaging that is counter-productive and not helpful to the minorities. In fact, I think the presence of the GRC constantly reminds us of the need to take into consideration the needs of the minority

communities. It also prevents us from having to go back to our very basic instincts of depending on race, religion and language in order to garner support for our own position to win votes in an election.

Sir, for all those reasons, I do not agree with this motion. I oppose the motion. Let me also cite to Members the small conversation I had with some of the grassroots leaders in Bukit Batok. I have been speaking with a few groups of them. Some of them are the RC leaders in the RCs that I am taking care of and I ask each group: is having a by-election a priority or a main concern for you and the residents that you interact with? The answer that they gave is that a by-election is not the main concern and priority as far as they are concerned. Their primary concern is that the interest and welfare of the residents should be taken care of, and their interest and welfare is well taken of.

There were some suggestions that perhaps because there are so many residents and only four MPs, some of their interest and welfare will be overlooked. I do not think that is a depiction of the reality. In fact, I think all the four MPs are more than able to take care of their needs, whether it is on town council matters, whether it is on housing matters, or whether it is on other matters. So, I think as far as the Jurong GRC residents are concerned, the level of service to them is completely not affected and, at the end of the day, I must say that should be the core of parliamentary democracy. When we talk about parliamentary democracy, what should be the main consideration is not whether or not we have a by-election but the main consideration should be: are we able to take care and provide for the needs of the people? We are all elected to serve the people and that should be the main and primary consideration.

Sir, for that reason, I oppose the motion.

Mr Speaker, Sir, thank you for allowing me to participate in this debate. I rise in support of the motion.

This motion was filed by Prof. Thio and Dr Loo in the wake of the passing away of Dr Ong Chit Chung, an elected Member of Jurong GRC. The Government has indicated that it will not be calling for a by-election in Jurong GRC. Instead, the other elected Members in the GRC will take turns to cover the duties of Dr Ong. This was the same approach taken in 1993 when Dr Tay Eng Soon, then an elected Member for Eunos GRC, passed away and in 1999 when Mr Choo Wee Kiang of Jalan Besar GRC resigned.

Sir, the motion has three parts. Firstly, it calls upon this House to affirm the importance of representative democracy. Secondly, it proposes a fine-tuning of the electorial system to provide for by-elections in certain circumstances. Finally, it calls for all by-elections to be called within three months of the date of vacancy, unless general elections are imminent.

Sir, the first part of the motion on the importance of representative democracy must surely be beyond doubt and beyond debate. We are a parliamentary democracy and the elected Members of this House represent the people. The people have voted the Government into power and that is where the Government draws its legitimacy from.

That is the source of the Government's right to rule.

I cannot imagine any Member disputing or disagreeing with the importance of representative democracy as a principle. And I cannot imagine any Member not agreeing with this first part

of the motion. Indeed, any elected Member who is reluctant to affirm the importance of representative democracy should consider whether he or she should continue as a Member of this House.

I will now touch briefly on the third part of the motion. As I cannot do better than the learned Prof. Thio, I would simply say that I fully endorse her speech on this aspect. The Nominated Member has described to this House the different approaches of a number of countries. With such a divergence of practice, the proposed three-month time-frame seems to be eminently reasonable, especially when the motion also envisages the need for an exception where general elections are imminent. So, I also support this third part of the motion. Mr Hri Kumar points to the UK and says that the three-month timeline cited by Prof. Thio is only a convention. As Mr Hri Kumar no doubt knows, the UK does not have a codified written constitution and Westminster conventions are regarded as being as good as law.

I now move on to the second part of the motion which, in my view, represents the meat of the motion. This second part asks this House to call on the Government to fine-tune the electoral system by introducing amendments to the Parliamentary Elections Act requiring a by-election in certain stipulated circumstances. These circumstances are: where a Member of a GRC belonging to a minority community within the terms of section 8A(1) of the Parliamentary Elections Act vacates his or her seat for any reason; where half or more of the elected Members of a GRC vacate their seats for any reason; or where the elected Member of a single member constituency vacates his or her seat for any reason. Sir, my own view is a little different. I firmly believe that a by-election should be called, whenever there is any vacancy in a GRC, not just when the vacancy is left by the minority Member or when half or more

of the elected Members vacate their seats, I would, therefore, argue that a by-election should be called in Jurong GRC as a result of the vacancy caused by the passing away of Dr Ong Chit Chung.

It does seem from the previous speakers' speeches that I may be alone in this House in this regard, and I also recognise that this specific point of whether there should be a by-election where there is a single vacancy in a GRC has been debated in this House in the past. Nevertheless, I ask for the indulgence of this House while I spend a few minutes on what I call the "3 Ps" – Principle, Practicality and the People.

Sir, the starting point must surely be the principle of representative democracy, as recognised in the first part of the motion. This principle is the first "P". I think Mr Hri Kumar said that there is no universal definition for this, but I disagree. I see this very simply. In Singapore, the people elect their representatives to Parliament. Where the seat in a single member constituency is vacated for any reason, the people cease to be represented. To avoid this situation, a by-election should be called. The logic is simple and clear for single member constituencies. And I think there should be no dispute or disagreement insofar as the motion calls for a writ for by-election to be issued in the event of a vacancy in a single member constituency for any reason. The situation is muddied somewhat by the GRC scheme because there would remain other elected Members for that GRC, and that is really the nub of the issue here.

As I have said, elected Members have the legitimacy of the people's endorsement of representing the will of the people. The mandate from the people is fundamental to a functioning democracy. So, when the electors in a GRC elect a team of candidates, what is the mandate being given?

Sir, I was a voter in Ang Mo Kio GRC in the 2006 General Elections. I was voting for a team of candidates in a GRC. To my mind, the mandate that I was giving to the team I voted for was for the team as a whole. I think that the mandate for the team of candidates as elected by the voters to represent the GRC in Parliament and if the composition of the team changes for any reason, then it, by definition, becomes a different team. It ceases to be the team elected by the voters. In that situation, surely a fresh mandate from the voters is necessary.

Jurong GRC was uncontested in the 2006 General Elections and so the team entered Parliament by way of a walkover. But this does not change the fact that the team today is different from the team that was nominated and had entered Parliament in 2006. So, on principle, the first team, I would say that by-election is required in Jurong GRC. I think that the principle of representative democracy should, in and of itself, settle the issue, but some have cited reasons based on practicality in arguing against having a by-election. In the first place, I do not think that practical considerations should ever be allowed to trump a principle that is so fundamental to the concept of democracy. But even if we are to accept that this second "P" of practicality is relevant to the discussion, to my mind, it also points in favour of a by-election.

The first reason that some may cite to justify not calling for a by-election is that the law does not require it. Prof. Thio has spoken on what the law is and she has done so far more ably than I ever could. But I do not believe that this House should feel bound by what the law today says. This House makes law for Singapore, it would be odd, no, it would be nothing less then sheer abdication of constitutional responsibility for this House to say that it is bound by existing law and to stop there. Instead of considering what the law should say and then changing the

law to say that, the law should reflect correct principle and we should not distort principle to accommodate existing law or contort our thinking to justify incorrect law. If the law is unclear or just plain wrong, then this House is duty-bound to clarify or correct it, instead of hiding behind such an unclear or wrongful law and perpetuating an undesirable state of affairs. So, I will not place much weight on the fact that the existing law does not require a by-election.

Another reason that has been cited is that a by-election would distract Singaporeans from the pressing issues posed by a slowing economy and rising inflation. This was also the reason cited when Dr Tay Eng Soon passed away in 1993. Sir, surely this argument cannot stand. It implies that voting and elections are luxuries, that there are really just so much fun and games to be left for good times and inappropriate and unnecessary in bad times. It suggests that the right of voters to be represented by the team that they have elected is in reality a privilege and not an entitlement. It means that the principle of representative democracy is not fundamental to our society and can be waived by the Government of the day when deem inexpedient. I think that cannot be right. Either a by-election is necessary or it is not. Either the people have a right to be represented by the team they have elected and, hence, the right to select a fresh team if the elected team changes or they do not. Either the principle of representative democracy is important or it is not. The prevailing economic conditions should have no role to play in this and certainly should not be allowed to trump these considerations.

A third reason that is often cited is that the remaining Members in the GRC can cover the duties of the Member who has vacated his or her seat and so voters are none the worse off. And we have just

heard from Mdm Halimah who has spoken on what has been done in Jurong GRC in this regard. Sir, I think this argument belittles the contributions of elected Members, exactly as Prof. Thio had said. Ever since my own appointment as a Nominated Member, I have come to appreciate greatly the heavy duties and burdens of elected Members. I, as an unelected Member of this House, am utterly dismayed by the suggestion that it is perfectly all right for the remaining Members in the GRC to cover the duties of a member who has vacated his or her seat and that nobody should think twice about it. It trivialises and downplays the contributions of elected Members in the way that I think is unfair and unjustified. Do the elected Members of this House really stand for this view? What are they saying about what they do? So, I do not accept this argument either and I urge my elected colleagues not to accept it either. I, therefore, echo the call of Dr Loo for the Whip to be lifted so that the elected Members can vote freely on this.

Furthermore, as Prof. Thio and Dr Loo have said, how can parliamentary duties be covered by other Members? Are those who rely on this argument saying that all elected GRC Members in this House are interchangeable? Instead, I would argue that practicality demands a by-election and certainly in Jurong GRC. Of the four remaining Members today, two are full Cabinet Ministers, one is a Senior Minister of State in two Ministries and the fourth is a veteran backbencher with numerous appointments. It is a question mark whether they can adequately discharge their duties in connection with the vacated seat. Even trying to do so will impose a tremendous burden on them. Just as an example, do we really want to risk overburdening the Minister for Finance in these trying economic times? Surely it would be more practical to call for a by-election to ensure a full complement of elected Members in Jurong GRC.

Sir, my third "P" refers to the people. Much has been said about the question of whether a by-election is required in Jurong GRC, in the press, on the Internet and in this House today. But what do the people themselves think? Mdm Halimah, who is from Jurong GRC, has talked about the MPs' discussions with the grassroots leaders in Jurong GRC, but the grassroots leaders are not the people.

The Singapore blog site "The Online Citizen" decided to find out what the people thought from the people directly. It conducted a street poll last Saturday to find out whether Singaporeans, and in particular residents of Jurong GRC, think there should be a by-election. I was one of the volunteers who helped conduct the poll. As I understand it, the results were published a short while ago today. The question asked was a simple one: "Dr Ong Chit Chung passed away recently, do you think that there should be a by-election in Jurong GRC?" A total of 478 Singapore citizens were polled, of which 312 were residents in Jurong GRC and 166 were non-residents. Of these 478 residents, 122 or 25.5% did not know. Of the remainder, 214 respondents or 60.1% of respondents who had an opinion either way felt that a by-election should be held in Jurong GRC. 142 respondents or 39.9% of respondents who had an opinion disagreed. So much for Singaporeans as a whole. What about Jurong GRC residents? Of the 312 residents polled, 85 or 27.2% did not know whether a by-election should be held. 129 residents or 56.8% of residents who had an opinion thought that a by-election should be held, while 98 residents or 43.2% of residents who had an opinion did not think so. This was a street poll, it was anonymous, it was random and it does not purport to be statistically valid or representative of Singaporeans of any group. But I think the results are, nevertheless, very interesting and very instructive. Putting aside all those respondents who did not have an opinion

– and I must say that this was a disturbingly high number – the majority of Singaporeans and the majority of Jurong GRC residents felt that a by-election should be held. Even including those respondents who did not have an opinion, it is quite clear that more Singaporeans and more Jurong GRC residents wanted a by-election than those who did not.

Sir, we are here today to debate the nature of democracy in Singapore. Democracy is about the people, about how they have the power. Well, Singaporeans have spoken, the people have spoken, their voice rings loud and clear, and they want a by-election. So, on principle, on practicality, and on the basis of the voice of the people, based on these three "Ps", I believe that a by-election should be held for a GRC whenever there is even a single vacancy, regardless of whether it is the minority Member or not. Be that as it may, the issue of whether a by-election should be called when there is a single vacancy in the GRC has been debated before and I do not expect the Government to change its position today. The motion before this House today also advocates a different position. Nevertheless, I support the motion. My position is more expansive than this motion and so my position encompasses this motion. There is no inconsistency. Just as I believe that there should be a by-election when there is a single vacancy in a GRC, I also believe that there should be a by-election when there is a single vacancy in a GRC caused by the minority Member vacating his or her seat. And I also believe that there should be a by-election when half or more of the Members in the GRC vacate their seats. I see the motion as a positive movement in the right direction and so I am comfortable supporting it. To me, this motion is fundamentally about setting in place the right principles for calling by-elections when there are vacancies in the GRC instead of leaving it to the discretion of the Government of the day. The motion

goes about this in a deliberate and measured manner. It calls for a by-election when it is the minority Member who vacates his or her seat. It calls for a by-election when half or more of the Members in a GRC vacate their seats, both propositions are eminently reasonable.

It is important to lay these foundations now so that we do not scramble or leave things to discretion if and when the situation envisaged in the second part of the motion arises. We profess to be a forward-looking State. Well, this is too important an issue to not look forward on. We should set the policy now so that we have a consistent approach to such situation moving forward. When the day comes we will know what to do and nothing is left to discretion or to chance.

Prof. Thio has outlined an explanation grounded in logic and in law for why a by-election is required when a minority Member in a GRC vacates his or her seat. That must surely be so, given that the fundamental justification and purpose of GRCs is to ensure some minimum amount of

minority representation in Parliament.

I disagree with Mr Hri Kumar's comments on this. I cannot see how any other position can be sustainable as it would severely undercut and undermine the foundation of the GRC scheme.

Ms Sylvia Lim, Mdm Halimah and Mr Hri Kumar had spoken about the potential for a single member in a GRC team to hold the rest of the team or even the Government to ransom. My short response to that is that the political parties have to select their candidates carefully. Extending that argument further, a group of elected Members can get together and blackmail their party. Where do we stop? Party discipline is a

mechanism to address this issue, not an imperfect law.

Similarly, where half or more of the elected members for a GRC vacate their seats for any reason, then, surely, there can be no doubt that it is no longer the team that electors have voted for and, surely, it cannot be argued that the remaining members can perform the duties of the other members who have vacated their seats. It would stretch reasons and credulity to argue that a by-election is not necessary even if half or more of the elected Members for a GRC have vacated their seats.

Sir, this motion presents an opportunity for this House to advance the call of representative democracy in Singapore. I myself support the motion even if it does not go as far as I would like it.

Sir, with that, I support the motion.

5.31 pm

Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to oppose the motion.

The issue of when to call a by-election has been discussed in this House several times over the years. Opposition MPs have raised it, including Mr Chiam. Each time, the Government has given a full explanation. Nevertheless, I am grateful to Prof. Thio Li-ann for having raised it again and giving the House a chance to debate it afresh with a fresh team of MPs, and giving me a chance to explain comprehensively the Government's position on this matter.

Let me first state the legal position, which is not in doubt and not in dispute. Under the Constitution, the Government shall call a by-election when a seat falls vacant. When does a seat fall vacant? In a Single Member Constituency, when the

MP vacates his office; for example when he dies or resigns. In a GRC, when all the MPs in the GRC team vacate office.

But the timing of the by-election is the prerogative of the Prime Minister. He has full discretion, and he is not obliged to call a by-election within any fixed timeframe. Within a GRC, under the Parliamentary Elections Act, it is explicitly stated that no by-election shall be called unless all members vacate their seats. And if one member from a GRC dies or resigns, or even two, or three, or four members, in a GRC which still has members left, legally no question of a by-election arises at all, not even if the member is the minority member in that GRC. And, therefore, what we have been doing – the Government’s practice in dealing with vacancies – is completely in accordance with the law.

I cite the law not to argue that, therefore, that is what we should do, but because the law has a reason for it, and it embodies the wisdom and experience of the way Singapore has worked and been governed over half a century. So, therefore, changes, once we have settled the arrangements, should not be lightly made. Not never, but only very carefully and with very cautious deliberations of why it was done this way, and what has changed.

I am here not to argue constitutional niceties with a constitutional expert like Thio Li-ann or legal refinements with so many other eminent legal minds in this House, but to set out the political realities of what works for Singapore and how Singapore has to operate in order that this Government will function well for Singaporeans.

We have talked a lot about representative democracy. It is a buzzword. It even makes its way into song choruses. But what does it mean, and

what does it mean for us? So let me explain why our system of parliamentary elections works this way. It works this way, not by chance, but by deliberate design, because of our experience operating this system of government, and refining and improving it, and adapting it to our circumstances over many, many years.

What are elections for? As Hri Kumar pointed out, the elections are to choose democratic representatives of the people to form a government. There are two limbs to that – to elect the democratic representatives and then to form a government.

There are two different philosophies of elections, depending on where you put the weight on these two limbs. The first alternative puts the emphasis on choosing candidates to become MPs as the fundamental element of the whole scheme. In other words, the MPs are the atoms and the rest are constructs built around the MPs. Voters choose an MP as their representative in their constituency, and then MPs come together and exercise their judgement and form the government. It is what Prof. Thio Li-ann called Edmund Burke's model.

Usually, the MPs belong to political parties, and they submit to party discipline, which is from the Party Whip. But once they have been elected into the House, that submission is voluntary. And they can change parties without penalty – they can change sides but still keep their seats; they can cross over from one side to the other, cross back. It happens from time to time in the British Parliament. Winston Churchill famously did it twice. It has happened in our Legislative Assembly too, before we joined Malaysia.

In this model, if the MPs collectively withdraw support from the Government and decide to regroup to form a totally

new government with a totally different line-up, it is their prerogative. They do not have to go back to the electorate; they do not have to call new general elections; they do not have to go back to voters for a fresh mandate. So it is parliamentary representative democracy but the voter does not have the final say. The MPs have the final say. And because the MP is the fundamental element of the whole system, if an MP dies or resigns, one fundamental element is taken out, he has to be replaced, so a by-election has to be held promptly without delay. Countries like Britain have adopted this model.

There is a second way we could realise a parliamentary democracy, a second philosophy by which we design the system. And that is to put the emphasis on choosing political parties to form the government and to have political parties as the fundamental element in the system.

Parties will field candidates to contest in general elections. They have to be high quality people – with integrity, ability, commitment, drive – all the attributes which we look for in an ideal candidate. But the candidate is not on his own. He carries the banner of the party. When he files his nomination papers, he attaches a symbol – "this is the symbol under which I fight" – and the symbol appears on the ballot paper. And he identifies himself for the party's manifesto, the programmes and the promises that the party makes.

This is quite different from what happens, say, in Britain where candidates stand under their own

names. No party symbol appears next to the name on the ballot paper because you are electing the person, and once he is in, he exercises judgement on your behalf. It is his responsibility to think for you, not to do for you. Whereas in Singapore, when the